Preference exercise

[Acca Dacca]

How will that information be helpful to them?

Because when the union argue that the terms for Voluntary Redundancy should not be so far from the agreed MTSF terms ( two years pay ) the company can turn to them and say ''X many thousand are happy to take the inferior terms we have offered them'' ( be it 9 months +6k or just 9 months )

And so those who dont think these terms are acceptable are more likely to have their future VR offer in line with that, if not even worse, with the thousands of previous leavers cited as the reason why.

By accepting less, you are shafting the rest.

[sindba]

How will that information be helpful to them?

They want to make compulsory reduncancies. Legally, they have to show it's fair. If you've already volunteered for redundancy, they could say it's fair to choose you first for CR.

The app asked if you would swap offices or hours. So they now have a list of people willing to be messed about.

Seriously, we are dealing with a dishonest, heartless and ruthless employer. Trust nothing, fight everything.

[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.

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

Firstly, I'm free to ignore anything you say. Just like you're free to edit your post and retroactively change what you've said, then just ignore that you done that. It's bad faith acting, it has no place in discussions. This is my last engagement with you.

You've debunked nothing. As has all ready posted all you've pointed out is a acknowledgement that they the CWU recognise people want to leave. It not a condonation of the preference exercise at all. The prelude to your soundbite is literally Dave saying this.

I'm not trawling thru videos n posts just to appease you as it's been clear from the outset the CWU doesn't support or will play any part in VR under less terms and conditions. I categorical remember seeing a CWU post telling branches and reps not be part of it. Taking part in it is clearly undermining the MTFS terms.

In my opinion, all this is, is an exercise to see how many rats will jump ship and leave the rest of us to fight for our jobs.

Personality, I don't want to see you go, it'll be one less person fighting for us.

[grchpo]

How will that information be helpful to them?

Because when the union argue that the terms for Voluntary Redundancy should not be so far from the agreed MTSF terms ( two years pay ) the company can turn to them and say ''X many thousand are happy to take the inferior terms we have offered them'' ( be it 9 months +6k or just 9 months )

And so those who dont think these terms are acceptable are more likely to have their future VR offer in line with that, if not even worse, with the thousands of previous leavers cited as the reason why.

By accepting less, you are shafting the rest.

You are hoping for something that isn't going to happen. He won't increase pay, he won't increase VR or CR payments, but he will do as he wants & the union seems oblivious to what has already been done. I used to like going into work, now I dread it & I am getting out with or without money, but i will take whatever redundancy i can get.I hope THompson gets the boot but the next CEO won't be a yes man to union, if there is a union left.

[roman]

I agree the reality is a lot of jobs are going one way or another. It’s Royal mails prerogative to do this if they can justify its a necessity to keep the company a float.The unions job is to try and get a good deal for the hard working staff that want to leave with a decent v r package.The union would have tried to get as a good a deal as possible.They so far have not been able to persuade Simon Thompson to up the ante on this. So are they banging their heads against a brick wall in the forlorn hope he will change his mind? In the meantime judging by the amount of people just wanting to leave they surely have to take this into consideration.

[Surreypostie]

So... if Dave Ward is to be believed, ST has told the shareholders the company will be bankrupt in 6 or 7 weeks if we don't shed loads of jobs soon. ONe of the rumours, give it to everyone that has applied and get them out of the door asap could be true.