VR update

[noggin1969]

No one got it at our DO

[norris9]

I am not sure how much the CWU have a say in the USO so not sure it matters if they think we should have a 5, 6 or 7 day service. I doubt they have any say at all so it's irrelevant.

One thing I will say is - apparently a 5 day service would only mean 4,000 job losses which doesn't seem that much to me seeing as we are probably understaffed by 15,000+ employees.

It's hard to quantify the impact on other services/businesses if Royal Mail went to Mon-Fri letters service. You'd have to ask all sorts of industries if they would be ok with it.

[Barnacle]

I am not sure how much the CWU have a say in the USO so not sure it matters if they think we should have a 5, 6 or 7 day service. I doubt they have any say at all so it's irrelevant.

One thing I will say is - apparently a 5 day service would only mean 4,000 job losses which doesn't seem that much to me seeing as we are probably understaffed by 15,000+ employees.

It's hard to quantify the impact on other services/businesses if Royal Mail went to Mon-Fri letters service. You'd have to ask all sorts of industries if they would be ok with it.

Isn’t it OFCOM that decides regardless of what the union might think?

Re businesses being impacted by dropping to 5 days: there has been massive growth in home working and operating a business from home and the idea of business only operating Monday to Friday is really old fashioned now, so traditional businesses probably wouldn’t care but modern and new start-ups would care very much.

[wacko74]

So just as we already knew would be the case, even the modest VR packages being offered have been very heavily oversubscribed, indicating just how many people are ready and willing to leave the business if given the opportunity.

And yet the disingenuous and self-serving union will do it's best to deny those members the opportunity to leave the business by objecting to any reduction in the 6 day USO all in the name of supposedly ''protecting the service and preserving jobs''

We all know the union's real reason is they want RM to remain a lumbering, inefficient, labour intensive operation committed to offering a pointless and archaic 6 day letters USO because it doesn't want to see a reduction in it's own gravy train income from membership subs.

Is it up to the CWU to decide who gets to take VR?

Don’t see how the two are connected or why you are at all bothered by any of it.

I'm not saying the CWU gets to decide who can take VR... I'm saying the union for it's own self-serving reasons will do its upmost to deny any of it's members the opportunity of being offered it in the first place by objecting to any reduction in the USO.

[wacko74]

So just as we already knew would be the case, even the modest VR packages being offered have been very heavily oversubscribed, indicating just how many people are ready and willing to leave the business if given the opportunity.

And yet the disingenuous and self-serving union will do it's best to deny those members the opportunity to leave the business by objecting to any reduction in the 6 day USO all in the name of supposedly ''protecting the service and preserving jobs''

We all know the union's real reason is they want RM to remain a lumbering, inefficient, labour intensive operation committed to offering a pointless and archaic 6 day letters USO because it doesn't want to see a reduction in it's own gravy train income from membership subs.

I’m curious. Why do You bother to come on here? If someone wants EVR the union can’t stop it. If it’s available and right for them they will get it surely?

I'm also curious, would you be asking me why I bother coming on here if I was parroting the union dogma and being in full support of their demands?
Or would you perhaps welcome my contribution?

[RobertT]

Isn’t it OFCOM that decides regardless of what the union might think?

Re businesses being impacted by dropping to 5 days: there has been massive growth in home working and operating a business from home and the idea of business only operating Monday to Friday is really old fashioned now, so traditional businesses probably wouldn’t care but modern and new start-ups would care very much.

No it's not Ofcom who decides, it's Parliament!
There needs to be a new act of parliament if there's to be a new version of the current USO, which comes under the Postal Services Act of 2011.

It's Ofcom's job to ensure the USO, whatever form it takes, is adherred to.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/postal-service ... try/uk-leg

[Barnacle]

Isn’t it OFCOM that decides regardless of what the union might think?

Re businesses being impacted by dropping to 5 days: there has been massive growth in home working and operating a business from home and the idea of business only operating Monday to Friday is really old fashioned now, so traditional businesses probably wouldn’t care but modern and new start-ups would care very much.

No it's not Ofcom who decides, it's Parliament!
There needs to be a new act of parliament if there's to be a new version of the current USO, which comes under the Postal Services Act of 2011.

It's Ofcom's job to ensure the USO, whatever form it takes, is adherred to.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/postal-service ... try/uk-leg

RM have already had their request to drop Saturday deliveries rejected, by parliament not OFCOM haha, so they’d have to come up with a more compelling argument to get it reduced at all. All the funds are going into parcels so perhaps they’re just trying nothing more clever than simply allowing letters to wither and die.

[scoobydo79]

So just as we already knew would be the case, even the modest VR packages being offered have been very heavily oversubscribed, indicating just how many people are ready and willing to leave the business if given the opportunity.

And yet the disingenuous and self-serving union will do it's best to deny those members the opportunity to leave the business by objecting to any reduction in the 6 day USO all in the name of supposedly ''protecting the service and preserving jobs''

We all know the union's real reason is they want RM to remain a lumbering, inefficient, labour intensive operation committed to offering a pointless and archaic 6 day letters USO because it doesn't want to see a reduction in it's own gravy train income from membership subs.

I’m curious. Why do You bother to come on here? If someone wants EVR the union can’t stop it. If it’s available and right for them they will get it surely?

I'm also curious, would you be asking me why I bother coming on here if I was parroting the union dogma and being in full support of their demands?
Or would you perhaps welcome my contribution?

Fair comment Wacko

[Halfhappy]

Double post

[Halfhappy]

So just as we already knew would be the case, even the modest VR packages being offered have been very heavily oversubscribed, indicating just how many people are ready and willing to leave the business if given the opportunity.

And yet the disingenuous and self-serving union will do it's best to deny those members the opportunity to leave the business by objecting to any reduction in the 6 day USO all in the name of supposedly ''protecting the service and preserving jobs''

We all know the union's real reason is they want RM to remain a lumbering, inefficient, labour intensive operation committed to offering a pointless and archaic 6 day letters USO because it doesn't want to see a reduction in it's own gravy train income from membership subs.

The union ain't stopping anyone leaving. You can leave anytime you like, if you're that keen just hand in your notice. It's pretty self-serving to want an inferior lump sum, at the expense of risking compulsory redundancies. Not everyone wants to leave, the majority of members don't. I'd argue most staff have only filled in the non-binding preference exercise, due to the current uncertainty and turmoil. I think the majority would be happy to remain in RM employment with decent terms, pay and security. The CWU are not in control of the USO. They are blocking nothing, they don't have the authority to do that. I'd say the government and the regulator will ultimately decide the fate of the USO.

[rambo1]

So just as we already knew would be the case, even the modest VR packages being offered have been very heavily oversubscribed, indicating just how many people are ready and willing to leave the business if given the opportunity.

And yet the disingenuous and self-serving union will do it's best to deny those members the opportunity to leave the business by objecting to any reduction in the 6 day USO all in the name of supposedly ''protecting the service and preserving jobs''

We all know the union's real reason is they want RM to remain a lumbering, inefficient, labour intensive operation committed to offering a pointless and archaic 6 day letters USO because it doesn't want to see a reduction in it's own gravy train income from membership subs.

The union ain't stopping anyone leaving. You can leave anytime you like, if you're that keen just hand in your notice. It's pretty self-serving to want an inferior lump sum, at the expense of risking compulsory redundancies. Not everyone wants to leave, the majority of members don't. I'd argue most staff have only filled in the non-binding preference exercise, due to the current uncertainty and turmoil. I think the majority would be happy to remain in RM employment with decent terms, pay and security. The CWU are not in control of the USO. They are blocking nothing, they don't have the authority to do that. I'd say the government and the regulator will ultimately decide the fate of the USO.

You don't even have to hand your notice in to leave the CWU.

[roman]

I would say taking inferior v r terms would stop unnecessary compulsory redundancies not encourage them.The full 2 year package was ripped up with some of the other perks we once had.

[roman]

I would say taking inferior v r terms would stop unnecessary compulsory redundancies not encourage them.The full 2 year package was ripped up with some of the other perks we once had.

[wacko74]

So just as we already knew would be the case, even the modest VR packages being offered have been very heavily oversubscribed, indicating just how many people are ready and willing to leave the business if given the opportunity.

And yet the disingenuous and self-serving union will do it's best to deny those members the opportunity to leave the business by objecting to any reduction in the 6 day USO all in the name of supposedly ''protecting the service and preserving jobs''

We all know the union's real reason is they want RM to remain a lumbering, inefficient, labour intensive operation committed to offering a pointless and archaic 6 day letters USO because it doesn't want to see a reduction in it's own gravy train income from membership subs.

The union ain't stopping anyone leaving. You can leave anytime you like, if you're that keen just hand in your notice. It's pretty self-serving to want an inferior lump sum, at the expense of risking compulsory redundancies. Not everyone wants to leave, the majority of members don't. I'd argue most staff have only filled in the non-binding preference exercise, due to the current uncertainty and turmoil. I think the majority would be happy to remain in RM employment with decent terms, pay and security. The CWU are not in control of the USO. They are blocking nothing, they don't have the authority to do that. I'd say the government and the regulator will ultimately decide the fate of the USO.

I didn't say the union are stopping anyone from leaving
I didn't say the union has a say in who gets VR
I didn't say the majority of RM workers want to leave
I didn't say the union can control the USO

Is there anything else you'd like to attribute to me that I didn't actually say?

What I did say is the union will do everything within it's power including balloting for further strike action, lobbying parliament and the regulator, attempting to convince the public... that the USO should remain in place in is current unsustainable and archaic format all because they want the RM workforce and their own membership numbers to remain as high as possible.

[Halfhappy]

"Deny the opportunity" - "stopping" ... I mean the semantics is there. I didn't say you said the union decides who gets VR, nor that you said the majority of workers didn't want to leave, nor that you said the union controls the USO. I was merely highlighting the points I think your post draws towards. I thought, perhaps, you would welcome my contribution, seems that may be a one way thing. However, for someone who doesn't say all these things, you do seem to be holding the union disproportionately responsible for your woes. You're saying in one breath that the union is not in the decision process, regarding redundancy and USO, yet in the other it is the union blocking it.

However, I will say you didn't say anything relating to your last paragraph, in your first post, other than the USO is archaic. Is it? Why? I could be wrong, but I think the USO is there to address the unfair advantage RM holds over its competitors, due to its massive infrastructure, and capacity, that was amassed using tax payer funding. I honestly don't see any advantage for anyone, in reducing the USO, other than increasing profit margins for RM, of which the staff will see no part of. The public gets less of a service, and people with families lose jobs. Oh, and some posties get to leave for £20-odd-k tax free.