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

ANNOUNCEMENT : NEW CORONAVIRUS FORUM... HERE



3 year pay deal

08 Feb 2020, 17:56

clashcityrocker wrote:
oypostie wrote: Can't be offering much, if any, of a pay rise as the shorter working week was being funded by full timers foregoing pay rises

The SWW was supposed to be funded by efficiency savings.
The efficiency savings didn't materialise so neither did the SWW.

But £6 million pounds did for Rico this is a cost to the company at our expense remember he is never over here tax dodger extraordinaire!

3 year pay deal

08 Feb 2020, 18:10

clashcityrocker wrote:
oypostie wrote: Can't be offering much, if any, of a pay rise as the shorter working week was being funded by full timers foregoing pay rises

The SWW was supposed to be funded by efficiency savings.
The efficiency savings didn't materialise so neither did the SWW.


The efficiency savings would/could have been there if management had stopped ghosting overtime with their favourites and made everyone work to time like they were supposed to do instead of allowing hours and hours to just walk out of the doors each day when people finished before time.

3 year pay deal

08 Feb 2020, 18:24

You would not believe the pay packages at RM it's not just wages but health care free and transport ie free car and others the whole system is a top down dictatorship of power and greed whilst those at the bottom are bullied to hit targets those at the top lounge around in swimming pools in Switzerland.

3 year pay deal

08 Feb 2020, 18:57

The expression "lowest common denominator" is used to describe (usually in a disapproving manner) a rule, proposal, opinion, or media that is deliberately simplified so as to appeal to the largest possible number of people.

3 year pay deal

08 Feb 2020, 19:27

"We maxed out the corporate credit card. So time to be a team player, kids."

Seriously, though, They should learn how to communicate better. Broadcasting far and wide about how our equipment is ancient and that we're far behind our competitors isn't the way to go. All it does is scare off the big accounts. There are two audiences here - the workforce and the outside world. Differentiate.

Don't feed into the narrative that the lazy hacks will reach for whenever they have five minutes to write an article.

3 year pay deal

08 Feb 2020, 19:42

clashcityrocker wrote:
oypostie wrote: Can't be offering much, if any, of a pay rise as the shorter working week was being funded by full timers foregoing pay rises

The SWW was supposed to be funded by efficiency savings.
The efficiency savings didn't materialise so neither did the SWW.


From the company’s accounts productivity is up 1.5% for this year and 1% for last year, don’t believe what they are telling you.

3 year pay deal

08 Feb 2020, 20:03

Grumpyoldmailman wrote:
clashcityrocker wrote:
oypostie wrote: Can't be offering much, if any, of a pay rise as the shorter working week was being funded by full timers foregoing pay rises

The SWW was supposed to be funded by efficiency savings.
The efficiency savings didn't materialise so neither did the SWW.


From the company’s accounts productivity is up 1.5% for this year and 1% for last year, don’t believe what they are telling you.

So why are we paying the board of RM more than 1.5% and find £6 Million for the CEO? They are screwing us all so f**k them!

3 year pay deal

08 Feb 2020, 20:53

Grumpyoldmailman wrote:
From the company’s accounts productivity is up 1.5% for this year and 1% for last year, don’t believe what they are telling you.

Against a target of?

3 year pay deal

08 Feb 2020, 21:03

Grumpyoldmailman wrote:
clashcityrocker wrote:
oypostie wrote: Can't be offering much, if any, of a pay rise as the shorter working week was being funded by full timers foregoing pay rises

The SWW was supposed to be funded by efficiency savings.
The efficiency savings didn't materialise so neither did the SWW.


From the company’s accounts productivity is up 1.5% for this year and 1% for last year, don’t believe what they are telling you.

So why dont the cwu publish what the efficency savings were to clarify everything. then we can make our own minds up who is telling lies.

3 year pay deal

08 Feb 2020, 21:14

aiden01 wrote:
Grumpyoldmailman wrote:
clashcityrocker wrote:
oypostie wrote: Can't be offering much, if any, of a pay rise as the shorter working week was being funded by full timers foregoing pay rises

The SWW was supposed to be funded by efficiency savings.
The efficiency savings didn't materialise so neither did the SWW.


From the company’s accounts productivity is up 1.5% for this year and 1% for last year, don’t believe what they are telling you.

So why dont the cwu publish what the efficency savings were to clarify everything. then we can make our own minds up who is telling lies.

Productivity is cancelled out by the greed and avarice by the CEO £6 million?

3 year pay deal

08 Feb 2020, 21:53

k979aaa wrote:
aiden01 wrote:
Grumpyoldmailman wrote:
clashcityrocker wrote:
oypostie wrote: Can't be offering much, if any, of a pay rise as the shorter working week was being funded by full timers foregoing pay rises

The SWW was supposed to be funded by efficiency savings.
The efficiency savings didn't materialise so neither did the SWW.


From the company’s accounts productivity is up 1.5% for this year and 1% for last year, don’t believe what they are telling you.

So why dont the cwu publish what the efficency savings were to clarify everything. then we can make our own minds up who is telling lies.

Productivity is cancelled out by the greed and avarice by the CEO £6 million?

Does'nt really answer the question posed.

3 year pay deal

08 Feb 2020, 22:49

Sugar wrote:
clashcityrocker wrote:
oypostie wrote: Can't be offering much, if any, of a pay rise as the shorter working week was being funded by full timers foregoing pay rises

The SWW was supposed to be funded by efficiency savings.
The efficiency savings didn't materialise so neither did the SWW.


The efficiency savings would/could have been there if management had stopped ghosting overtime with their favourites and made everyone work to time like they were supposed to do instead of allowing hours and hours to just walk out of the doors each day when people finished before time.


They really wouldnt as will be proven when they bring clocking in/off in and make everyone work there ours or as will happen lots of people drag there duties out to fill their hours but actually do no more work unless they can get outdoor performace standards in and enforce them. As for ghosting, yea it might stop that but it will just mean lots of delivering for managers when people dont want to start overtime at 3pm or later and get only the time it takes to actually deliver

3 year pay deal

09 Feb 2020, 02:04

citypostie wrote:
Sugar wrote:
clashcityrocker wrote:
oypostie wrote: Can't be offering much, if any, of a pay rise as the shorter working week was being funded by full timers foregoing pay rises

The SWW was supposed to be funded by efficiency savings.
The efficiency savings didn't materialise so neither did the SWW.


The efficiency savings would/could have been there if management had stopped ghosting overtime with their favourites and made everyone work to time like they were supposed to do instead of allowing hours and hours to just walk out of the doors each day when people finished before time.


They really wouldnt as will be proven when they bring clocking in/off in and make everyone work there ours or as will happen lots of people drag there duties out to fill their hours but actually do no more work unless they can get outdoor performace standards in and enforce them. As for ghosting, yea it might stop that but it will just mean lots of delivering for managers when people dont want to start overtime at 3pm or later and get only the time it takes to actually deliver

I think they'll bring in outdoor performance standards first, before the clocking in and out comes in

3 year pay deal

09 Feb 2020, 07:14

SpacePhoenix wrote:
citypostie wrote:
Sugar wrote:
clashcityrocker wrote:
oypostie wrote: Can't be offering much, if any, of a pay rise as the shorter working week was being funded by full timers foregoing pay rises

The SWW was supposed to be funded by efficiency savings.
The efficiency savings didn't materialise so neither did the SWW.


The efficiency savings would/could have been there if management had stopped ghosting overtime with their favourites and made everyone work to time like they were supposed to do instead of allowing hours and hours to just walk out of the doors each day when people finished before time.


They really wouldnt as will be proven when they bring clocking in/off in and make everyone work there ours or as will happen lots of people drag there duties out to fill their hours but actually do no more work unless they can get outdoor performace standards in and enforce them. As for ghosting, yea it might stop that but it will just mean lots of delivering for managers when people dont want to start overtime at 3pm or later and get only the time it takes to actually deliver

I think they'll bring in outdoor performance standards first, before the clocking in and out comes in

These outdoor standards you speak of, let's hope they are sensible and reasonable standards. As it is now, my knee and hip joints ache like crazy by the end of the working week, just about recovering in time to start again on a Monday. I'm sure I'm not alone in this. If long term damage is done due to deliveries being made longer and expected to be completed in an unreasonable time I'd expect a lot of industrial injury claims against RM.

3 year pay deal

09 Feb 2020, 09:21

clashcityrocker wrote:
oypostie wrote: Can't be offering much, if any, of a pay rise as the shorter working week was being funded by full timers foregoing pay rises

The SWW was supposed to be funded by efficiency savings.
The efficiency savings didn't materialise so neither did the SWW.


That's true but when you've got managers letting staff finish early and still paying them and doing nothing about it then this is the incompetency of mangers and not the staffs fault.
Managers simply will NOT do their job correctly. The so called efficiency savings are there.

BUT! - I don't believe RM want a 35 hour week as this would prevent walks from being made too long and RM want to do the reverse of that to make job cuts.

3 year pay deal

09 Feb 2020, 09:42

Why are the union using the one hour promise as their hill to die on? I really don't care about saving one hour over an entire week of working. A pay rise and I am happy. Ten minutes less walking a day isn't going to suddenly transform our lives.

3 year pay deal

09 Feb 2020, 09:55

LouBarlow wrote:Why are the union using the one hour promise as their hill to die on? I really don't care about saving one hour over an entire week of working. A pay rise and I am happy. Ten minutes less walking a day isn't going to suddenly transform our lives.


It would be the same as the last hour off anyway, not 10 minutes less walking, it would be the same delivery but 15 minutes of the indoor time.

3 year pay deal

09 Feb 2020, 09:56

Phantom wrote:Managers simply will NOT do their job correctly. The so called efficiency savings are there.


Isn't that why we have an IR Framework?
How many reps went to disagreement over this?

3 year pay deal

09 Feb 2020, 12:56

SpacePhoenix wrote:
citypostie wrote:
Sugar wrote:
clashcityrocker wrote:
oypostie wrote: Can't be offering much, if any, of a pay rise as the shorter working week was being funded by full timers foregoing pay rises

The SWW was supposed to be funded by efficiency savings.
The efficiency savings didn't materialise so neither did the SWW.


The efficiency savings would/could have been there if management had stopped ghosting overtime with their favourites and made everyone work to time like they were supposed to do instead of allowing hours and hours to just walk out of the doors each day when people finished before time.


They really wouldnt as will be proven when they bring clocking in/off in and make everyone work there ours or as will happen lots of people drag there duties out to fill their hours but actually do no more work unless they can get outdoor performace standards in and enforce them. As for ghosting, yea it might stop that but it will just mean lots of delivering for managers when people dont want to start overtime at 3pm or later and get only the time it takes to actually deliver

I think they'll bring in outdoor performance standards first, before the clocking in and out comes in


I would be shocked if we as postmen and women were to be told we have to work any faster than we (on average) already do. When youve been a reserve for several years in a very large office, working with close to 100 different posties on various deliveries, you realise that the vast majority work at a very decent pace, and there is very little meat left on the bone in terms of getting the delivery done any quicker.

And 9 out of 10 dont use trolleys, which do slow you down. Surely any delivery performance standard RM would introduce would have to be based on us all using trolleys?

3 year pay deal

09 Feb 2020, 13:04

Phantom wrote:
clashcityrocker wrote:
oypostie wrote: Can't be offering much, if any, of a pay rise as the shorter working week was being funded by full timers foregoing pay rises

The SWW was supposed to be funded by efficiency savings.
The efficiency savings didn't materialise so neither did the SWW.


That's true but when you've got managers letting staff finish early and still paying them and doing nothing about it then this is the incompetency of mangers and not the staffs fault.
Managers simply will NOT do their job correctly. The so called efficiency savings are there.

BUT! - I don't believe RM want a 35 hour week as this would prevent walks from being made too long and RM want to do the reverse of that to make job cuts.


Yes people “finish early” but there are sooo many factors involved in what time we each finish, and when you actually look at who has taken their breaks etc, the amount of time being gained is probably not that much at all.

It just always seems so silly to me that there is this obsession with “working your hours” and ghost overtime etc. I can work with one postie on a Monday who can literally be 2 or 3 times faster on delivery than a postie ill work with the next day.

Surely the only fair way of organising our outdoor work is to plan the walks as evenly as possible based on an average pace, and then realise that there will always be people finishing at different times due to obvious differentials in speed of walking etc etc

And you really cant just give people more work to go out and do because they have done their work quicker than others- i know many will disagree with that, but how on earth is it fair that the faster people should be doing more work for the same pay?

Maybe im wrong but all this is coming from a very hungover brain and im welcome to other opinions.

Previous page Next page


Page 2 of 3   1, 2, 3