not on facebook
ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (UPDATED APR 2019)... HERE

ANNOUNCEMENT : NEW CORONAVIRUS FORUM... HERE



If we lose and 20000/40000 people are made redundant, how do the business choose who goes?

23 Sep 2019, 15:17

If we lose and 20000/40000 people are made redundant, how do the business choose who goes?
Last edited by POSTMAN on 23 Sep 2019, 16:55, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Changed title

one for true blue/postman

23 Sep 2019, 15:26

i know you are addressing this to tbt/postman but i attended a CWU meeting yesterday and the advice stated there from the member of the postal executive was that if there were compulsory redundancies it would be based on seniority (ie last in first out). This would be cheaper for the company.

As I understand it we currently have legal protections that we cannot be given compulsory redundancy notice (although I believe this may be one of the areas RM are looking at "reviewing" from what was said at the meeting).

EDIT 18:45 23/9 - clarified first statement as I was talking about compulsory redundancies and not voluntary which caused some confusion
Last edited by itinerant on 23 Sep 2019, 18:48, edited 1 time in total.

one for true blue/postman

23 Sep 2019, 15:57

Does full time versus part-time have any bearing on how seniority is used ?

one for true blue/postman

23 Sep 2019, 15:59

stodgy88 wrote:Does full time versus part-time have any bearing on how seniority is used ?


No.
That would be unlawful.

one for true blue/postman

23 Sep 2019, 16:01

Thought seniority was based on longest serving,not last in first out as stated in earlier post ?

one for true blue/postman

23 Sep 2019, 16:32

stodgy88 wrote:Thought seniority was based on longest serving,not last in first out as stated in earlier post ?


Thats what he means - it will be based on lowest seniority out first

one for true blue/postman

23 Sep 2019, 16:46

Acca Dacca wrote:
stodgy88 wrote:Thought seniority was based on longest serving,not last in first out as stated in earlier post ?


Thats what he means - it will be based on lowest seniority out first


Yes. Those with lowest seniority would be most at risk. That's what the CWU chap said anyway. Obviously it's all speculation at the moment.

one for true blue/postman

23 Sep 2019, 16:54

that would be compulsary redundancy vrs have to be offered first and that would go top to bottom of seniority list

If we lose and 20000/40000 people are made redundant, how do the business choose who goes?

23 Sep 2019, 17:40

Would it go seniority per unit or seniority national and then having to relocate the people left over?

If we lose and 20000/40000 people are made redundant, how do the business choose who goes?

23 Sep 2019, 18:33

I think the fairest system for the workforce and most cost effective system for the employer should be a compromise where all and any job losses are to only be via VR... but NOT based on seniority.

Instead those volunteers who would cost the least to pay off should get priority.

(Que the usual frothing of mouths from the 30-40 year guys, with their various money for nothing grandfather rights payments and cushy little duties that haven't been altered ever since they picked them in 1983)

one for true blue/postman

23 Sep 2019, 19:25

Acca Dacca wrote:
stodgy88 wrote:Thought seniority was based on longest serving,not last in first out as stated in earlier post ?


Thats what he means - it will be based on lowest seniority out first


This is why everybody needs to vote - particularly recent joiners who have been recruited on PT contracts (which I still class myself as,
compared to some of the old and bold), PT'ers - VOTE & MAKE SURE YOUR VOTE COUNTS!!!!!

If we lose and 20000/40000 people are made redundant, how do the business choose who goes?

23 Sep 2019, 19:39

Instead those volunteers who would cost the least to pay off should get priority.


Those would by definition be those on the lowest contracted hours.
That would be counterproductive for the business model and probably unlawful.

Idealy they want rid of full-time staff but cannot deliberately target only full time staff so length of service makes sense to the business.

If we lose and 20000/40000 people are made redundant, how do the business choose who goes?

23 Sep 2019, 20:18

At ours there was one senior guy that the managers were that desperate to get rid of I think they offered him a lot more redundancy money than what he should have got!! :Very Happy He was one of those that often used to work till 5pm using his trolley and claim loads of excess hours. His round wasn't that big actually, it was just that he used to walk as if he had a wooden leg, poor b*stard.

If we lose and 20000/40000 people are made redundant, how do the business choose who goes?

23 Sep 2019, 20:36

Iv worked in a large RM unit that under went quite extensive VR's through a number of waves. It was done on seniority. I can't see RM doing it any other way. I think if there are to be job cuts id hope VR was used as there are allot of guys who want out but not for nothing.

Like another poster. My question would be how would they organise it. Would it be unit based or area based with the prospect of some posties having to relocate if their unit couldn't achieve the VR's required but others being able to fulfil more etc.

If we lose and 20000/40000 people are made redundant, how do the business choose who goes?

24 Sep 2019, 05:52

Woody Guthrie wrote:
Instead those volunteers who would cost the least to pay off should get priority.


Those would by definition be those on the lowest contracted hours.
That would be counterproductive for the business model and probably unlawful.

.



I'd disagree, there are plenty of full timers who are no where near the top of the seniority list but would want out, probably mainly due to still being reserves after 10,15 years or more, whilst those senior senior to them haven't done a single day on any duty other than their own (3 hour) delivery since the day they picked it 20 or 30 years ago.

If we lose and 20000/40000 people are made redundant, how do the business choose who goes?

24 Sep 2019, 07:07

Anyone know if you lose your seniority if you leave the business then return at a later date?

Just seems frustrating that I *could* be one of the first on the list if cuts are made, having done 30 rounds at my last office (followed by a number of years doing another job), then 30+ rounds (including lots of rurals) in 11 months at this office with zero complaints or issues.

Whereas someone who started a month before me, has done just a handful of rounds because he has had a lot of complaints against him and has failed specials and tracked could theoretically keep his job as he has more seniority.

I realise RM probably want this kind of employee vs employee making us compete against each other but would just be interesting to know.

If we lose and 20000/40000 people are made redundant, how do the business choose who goes?

24 Sep 2019, 07:49

HTPostman wrote:Anyone know if you lose your seniority if you leave the business then return at a later date?

Just seems frustrating that I *could* be one of the first on the list if cuts are made, having done 30 rounds at my last office (followed by a number of years doing another job), then 30+ rounds (including lots of rurals) in 11 months at this office with zero complaints or issues.

Whereas someone who started a month before me, has done just a handful of rounds because he has had a lot of complaints against him and has failed specials and tracked could theoretically keep his job as he has more seniority.

I realise RM probably want this kind of employee vs employee making us compete against each other but would just be interesting to know.


Yes you lose it

If we lose and 20000/40000 people are made redundant, how do the business choose who goes?

24 Sep 2019, 08:15

Won't a larger chunk of the lower seniority staff in DOs be part-timers?

If we lose and 20000/40000 people are made redundant, how do the business choose who goes?

24 Sep 2019, 14:56

SpacePhoenix wrote:Won't a larger chunk of the lower seniority staff in DOs be part-timers?


Of course they are.
It's one of the reasons the business won't go down the compulsory redundancy route.

Last in first out just leaves them with a higher full-time ratio and therefore less efficient.

What they actually plan to do if anyone is paying attention is lose the bulk of these jobs through natural wastage, what they would also like to do is reduce the MTSF terms for voluntary redundancies but that has to be a balance, reduce them too much and you have no volunteers.

If we lose and 20000/40000 people are made redundant, how do the business choose who goes?

24 Sep 2019, 15:13

Hopefully it wont come to this, but what sort of figure would natural wastage be in the timeframe they are looking at.

Previous page Next page


Page 1 of 3   1, 2, 3