Preference exercise

[Halfhappy]

They have to do CR fairly, without discrimination.

What's fairer than making those who are interested in redundancy the first to be made redundant?

There's a big difference in getting Voluntary redundancy of £8,500 and £360 or whatever tiny amount I'd get in Compulsory.

Why would it be fairer to make an employee that's, say put 20yrs of their life, into a business redundant, and keep the employee who's been there 8mth? Just for this scenario, let's say both employees are 40yr old? I don't know how they decide, I imagine the cheapest way is a factor. The CWU did tell everyone not to engage with this exercise. You ignored it and now you're on here trying to get piece of mind, cos some one has told you a rumour, that's totally unsubstantiated.

1. I am on here to here to discuss... that's what this forum is for.

2. I did not hear or read anything from the CWU about not engaging in the 'exercise'.... feel free to link the source for that. I saw one of their youtube lives where they said something along the lines of 'if you want to go for the voluntary redundancy then that's your choice'. What's the issue in engaging - it's not binding.

I'm discussing not arguing. I just happen to be saying something you don't like, obviously.

That's grown up, deleting the insinuation I'm here to argue from your original message.

[walthmstowman]

Do you mean last in, first out? That would be cheapest, as length of service would accrue a larger payout. I'm not entirely sure of this, but I think an employer can dismiss an employee with less than 12mths service and not pay any compensation. So, first in first out is the most expensive, for the employer, way to do it.

yes, last in - first out.

I believe if less than 2 years service they can get rid of you for nothing.


My depots probably 30% short staffed as it is so I am not sure anyone will be going.

Right, that makes more sense. The last quote messed up so I'll post this bit again. I've noticed it's already been mentioned. The CWU did tell everyone not to engage with this exercise. Unfortunately, you ignored that and now you're on here trying panicking over an unsubstantiated rumour. Personally, I feel this was more about collecting data, than VR.

If that depot is 30% understaffed then there is a fair chance people displaced from MC's could fill those vacancies .

[sindba]

They have to do CR fairly, without discrimination.

What's fairer than making those who are interested in redundancy the first to be made redundant?

There's a big difference in getting Voluntary redundancy of £8,500 and £360 or whatever tiny amount I'd get in Compulsory.

Why would it be fairer to make an employee that's, say put 20yrs of their life, into a business redundant, and keep the employee who's been there 8mth? Just for this scenario, let's say both employees are 40yr old? I don't know how they decide, I imagine the cheapest way is a factor. The CWU did tell everyone not to engage with this exercise. You ignored it and now you're on here trying to get piece of mind, cos some one has told you a rumour, that's totally unsubstantiated.

1. I am on here to here to discuss... that's what this forum is for.

2. I did not hear or read anything from the CWU about not engaging in the 'exercise'.... feel free to link the source for that. I saw one of their youtube lives where they said something along the lines of 'if you want to go for the voluntary redundancy then that's your choice'. What's the issue in engaging - it's not binding.

also, it's win-win for both sides if it's data gathering - if people want to move depots or change hours then that's their prerogative. They can now discuss that with their manager if there are options for them. If Royal Mail think they are going to get a massive % of people willing to change their start times - I doubt it - will probably be less than 3%

"It's not binding".

Are you sure? If RM make you redundant, it's bloody binding.

[Halfhappy]

Do you mean last in, first out? That would be cheapest, as length of service would accrue a larger payout. I'm not entirely sure of this, but I think an employer can dismiss an employee with less than 12mths service and not pay any compensation. So, first in first out is the most expensive, for the employer, way to do it.

yes, last in - first out.

I believe if less than 2 years service they can get rid of you for nothing.


My depots probably 30% short staffed as it is so I am not sure anyone will be going.

Right, that makes more sense. The last quote messed up so I'll post this bit again. I've noticed it's already been mentioned. The CWU did tell everyone not to engage with this exercise. Unfortunately, you ignored that and now you're on here trying panicking over an unsubstantiated rumour. Personally, I feel this was more about collecting data, than VR.

If that depot is 30% understaffed then there is a fair chance people displaced from MC's could fill those vacancies .

I think that would be a reasonable compromise to compulsory redundancies.

[mags999]

you dont often see mail centre transfering to deliveries very often but lets not get into that

[Leedspostie29]

If you make someone compulsory redundant and then employ someone to do the same work for less money you can leave yourself open to a claim for unfair dismissal and likely the claimant will win.

If you offer voluntary redundancy, there is no chance of that person taking you to a tribunal and winning.

This is why they pay you more if you go voluntarily as if they didn't, nobody would take it.

All you conspiracy theorists out there want to take your tin foil hats off, this guy wants to get rid of us and replace us with people on lesser terms and conditions, he can only do this successfully and easily by paying people off that want to go.

Dear Simon, I am here, I want to go. Cheque in the post please and I am gone, I will go today. I don't require one to one's or anything else, just gimme the cash.

Well said

[norris9]

"It's not binding".

Are you sure? If RM make you redundant, it's bloody binding.

What are you talking about.

Signing up to voluntary redundancy via the preference exercise isn't binding. Jesus, people don't read.

To add.... you may or may not be offered it - and if you are offered it - you can sign an agreement and then it's binding.

[sindba]

If you make someone compulsory redundant and then employ someone to do the same work for less money you can leave yourself open to a claim for unfair dismissal and likely the claimant will win.

If you offer voluntary redundancy, there is no chance of that person taking you to a tribunal and winning.

This is why they pay you more if you go voluntarily as if they didn't, nobody would take it.

All you conspiracy theorists out there want to take your tin foil hats off, this guy wants to get rid of us and replace us with people on lesser terms and conditions, he can only do this successfully and easily by paying people off that want to go.

Dear Simon, I am here, I want to go. Cheque in the post please and I am gone, I will go today. I don't require one to one's or anything else, just gimme the cash.

He does't want to replace you mate.

He wants to reduce the headcount full stop.

Don't expect decent terms from this bunch of liars and parasites. And don't expect them to stick to any promises made in that "preference exercise" scam. You were warned.

[norris9]

They have to do CR fairly, without discrimination.

What's fairer than making those who are interested in redundancy the first to be made redundant?

There's a big difference in getting Voluntary redundancy of £8,500 and £360 or whatever tiny amount I'd get in Compulsory.

Why would it be fairer to make an employee that's, say put 20yrs of their life, into a business redundant, and keep the employee who's been there 8mth? Just for this scenario, let's say both employees are 40yr old? I don't know how they decide, I imagine the cheapest way is a factor. The CWU did tell everyone not to engage with this exercise. You ignored it and now you're on here trying to get piece of mind, cos some one has told you a rumour, that's totally unsubstantiated.

1. I am on here to here to discuss... that's what this forum is for.

2. I did not hear or read anything from the CWU about not engaging in the 'exercise'.... feel free to link the source for that. I saw one of their youtube lives where they said something along the lines of 'if you want to go for the voluntary redundancy then that's your choice'. What's the issue in engaging - it's not binding.

I'm discussing not arguing. I just happen to be saying something you don't like, obviously.

Wonderful, ignore everything I said. Oh yes - you definitely wrote something I didn't like - you wrote absolute nonsense....

I can debunk your claims about the CWU telling people to steer clear of the preference exercise. So stop talking nonsense and trying to take some moral high ground against anyone who signed up.


Minute 9:38

Dave Ward "There may be some who want to go for voluntary redundancy - we have no problem with that!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RoJ6I1 ... el=CWULive

[Acca Dacca]

They have to do CR fairly, without discrimination.

What's fairer than making those who are interested in redundancy the first to be made redundant?

There's a big difference in getting Voluntary redundancy of £8,500 and £360 or whatever tiny amount I'd get in Compulsory.

Why would it be fairer to make an employee that's, say put 20yrs of their life, into a business redundant, and keep the employee who's been there 8mth? Just for this scenario, let's say both employees are 40yr old? I don't know how they decide, I imagine the cheapest way is a factor. The CWU did tell everyone not to engage with this exercise. You ignored it and now you're on here trying to get piece of mind, cos some one has told you a rumour, that's totally unsubstantiated.

1. I am on here to here to discuss... that's what this forum is for.

2. I did not hear or read anything from the CWU about not engaging in the 'exercise'.... feel free to link the source for that. I saw one of their youtube lives where they said something along the lines of 'if you want to go for the voluntary redundancy then that's your choice'. What's the issue in engaging - it's not binding.

I'm discussing not arguing. I just happen to be saying something you don't like, obviously.

Wonderful, ignore everything I said. Oh yes - you definitely wrote something I didn't like - you wrote absolute nonsense....

I can debunk your claims about the CWU telling people to steer clear of the preference exercise. So stop talking nonsense and trying to take some moral high ground against anyone who signed up.


Minute 9:38

Dave Ward "There may be some who want to go for voluntary redundancy - we have no problem with that!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RoJ6I1 ... el=CWULive

Yes but he doesnt mean on those reduced terms obviously

[Wullie10]

"" some "" ??

[Darwin]

Ive been at RM for 6 months and keep wondering if i will be let go as i know it would be cheaper for them as i dont get any payoff. I have a feeling though that they want to get rid of people who have worked there the longest who might be getting paid extra supplements that new starters wouldnt get. Giving them vr would save them having to buy people out of the agreements/supplements. Who knows!

Anyways best of luck to eveyone who wants VR.

[walthmstowman]

you dont often see mail centre transfering to deliveries very often but lets not get into that

Quite a few from my MC transferred to DO’s in the SS code area a few years ago . It makes me wonder why Simon Thompson can’t even agree to transfers . Is it really just an all-out assault on the Union because he’s going to end up destroying the company if he isn’t careful

[sindba]

"It's not binding".

Are you sure? If RM make you redundant, it's bloody binding.

What are you talking about.

Signing up to voluntary redundancy via the preference exercise isn't binding. Jesus, people don't read.

To add.... you may or may not be offered it - and if you are offered it - you can sign an agreement and then it's binding.

Ok how can I put this in simpler terms.

RM promised you nothing binding in their sham "preference exercise". Not money, not terms, nothing.

However, there's nothing stopping them using that information to screw you over. In fact, it could be helpful to them.

[grchpo]

How will that information be helpful to them?