VR update

[Halfhappy]

Also, the union is its members, its not a separate entity from the people who are in it. Its leaders are elected, by its members, they don't own it. They can be unelected. They're chosen to represent us, by us. The union fighting to preserve our jobs and terms is what we, it's members, pay our subs and elect our reps to do for us.

[bestbefore]

There’s 6 in my DO..you have to have had a meeting with your manager he/she will go through the paper work received from the Severance team. If you then decide to go ahead you would receive an email setting out the amount you will receive and your date for leaving and all the legal stuff
We had 2weeks to agree sign and return all done electronically

[Barnacle]

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.

This. Losing the USO or reducing it would be disastrous for Royal Mail and us.

[30301]

Apparently nothing given at NCD Crick.
As we’re moving to Midland super hub..more vacancies, around 400 are due to be available nearer the move in or around Summer.
Lots applied as a preference and I’m sure many will be disappointed.
According to some Union reps, it’s been handed to SMMC, Leicester and surrounding areas. I wouldn’t see this as right as they also are in the frame to locate to new Mid Hub but offered VRs

[roman]

Can i ask best before how many are in your office approximately ?

[bestbefore]

Yes 60 full-time plus 10 part timers

[heapsy]

A mate of mine at a neighbouring office applied and, if successful, already knows his leaving date.

[norris9]

Yes 60 full-time plus 10 part timers

so 70 posties. 6 are going on VR....

Was your office at capacity with the 70 posties? do you have day-off cover with those 70?

[wacko74]

"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.

I give up.

Again you're still just attributing to me things I haven't actually said or twisting things I have said, before then just resorting to petty insults, what makes you think I personally have any 'woes'?

I honestly can't tell if you're just being deliberately obtuse or if you genuinely have such a poor grasp and wrong headed lack of understanding of the subject, particularly regarding the relevance and viability/sustainability of the current letters USO.

In fairness to you, you do offer the assertion at the start of your second paragraph that you 'could be wrong', well I can assure you everything you've then gone on to say in that paragraph is indeed wrong or at the very least an entirely outdated and irrelevant argument in light of progressing market trends and what the customers and recipients demand and deem most relevant to their requirements.

- A 6 day letters USO is an entirely pointless, expensive and unnecessary anachronism which the vast majority of customers and recipients no longer need or require

- RM developing a standalone parcel delivery operation is essential to providing the customers and recipients with the efficient, effective,
convenient and relevant product that they do require, in fact demand and which is already offered by most other competing parcel delivery
operators

Recognising and acting on these two key facts above are essential to RM remaining a viable business, yet the union entirely for its own self-serving reasons will fight as hard as it can to oppose these two issues being acted upon and unfortunately many of its members will go along with that stance either through coercion and fear of being ostracised or simply due to uninformed, unthinking obedience as clearly evidenced and perfectly demonstrated by the lack of tolerance to open debate or alternative views expressed by the groupthink on this very forum.

Having said all of the above I still believe it would actually be very simple and easy to still offer some form of next day letters service for that tiny proportion of customers who do still genuinely require it (I actually can't think of any off the top of my head where routine letters have to delivered by the next day)
In fact it could even be offered over 7 days assuming we're going to be operating a 7 day parcel service, but the current USO requirement to attend every address 6 days a week regardless of what the item of mail were delivering happens to be is completely unnecessary.

[tractorboy2]

There’s 6 in my DO..you have to have had a meeting with your manager he/she will go through the paper work received from the Severance team. If you then decide to go ahead you would receive an email setting out the amount you will receive and your date for leaving and all the legal stuff
We had 2weeks to agree sign and return all done electronically

Why isn't the amount you will receive given when the manager goes through the paper work ?

[smartin1982]

Because they’re all thick as s*£t and can’t be trusted.

[moles40]

Your getting mugged off if you take vr, remember it was 2 years wages now the maximum you get will be about 24 k depending on years service.

Nobody should accept it its an utter joke amount.

[Jefferson Starfish]

Your getting mugged off if you take vr, remember it was 2 years wages now the maximum you get will be about 24 k depending on years service.

Nobody should accept it its an utter joke amount.

It's going to suit some people, that's obvious.

[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.

I give up.

Again you're still just attributing to me things I haven't actually said or twisting things I have said, before then just resorting to petty insults, what makes you think I personally have any 'woes'?

I honestly can't tell if you're just being deliberately obtuse or if you genuinely have such a poor grasp and wrong headed lack of understanding of the subject, particularly regarding the relevance and viability/sustainability of the current letters USO.

In fairness to you, you do offer the assertion at the start of your second paragraph that you 'could be wrong', well I can assure you everything you've then gone on to say in that paragraph is indeed wrong or at the very least an entirely outdated and irrelevant argument in light of progressing market trends and what the customers and recipients demand and deem most relevant to their requirements.

- A 6 day letters USO is an entirely pointless, expensive and unnecessary anachronism which the vast majority of customers and recipients no longer need or require

- RM developing a standalone parcel delivery operation is essential to providing the customers and recipients with the efficient, effective,
convenient and relevant product that they do require, in fact demand and which is already offered by most other competing parcel delivery
operators

Recognising and acting on these two key facts above are essential to RM remaining a viable business, yet the union entirely for its own self-serving reasons will fight as hard as it can to oppose these two issues being acted upon and unfortunately many of its members will go along with that stance either through coercion and fear of being ostracised or simply due to uninformed, unthinking obedience as clearly evidenced and perfectly demonstrated by the lack of tolerance to open debate or alternative views expressed by the groupthink on this very forum.

Having said all of the above I still believe it would actually be very simple and easy to still offer some form of next day letters service for that tiny proportion of customers who do still genuinely require it (I actually can't think of any off the top of my head where routine letters have to delivered by the next day)
In fact it could even be offered over 7 days assuming we're going to be operating a 7 day parcel service, but the current USO requirement to attend every address 6 days a week regardless of what the item of mail were delivering happens to be is completely unnecessary.

No one is insulting you, stop acting like a victim, it's a forum where people post opinions. Just because people on a forum don't agree with you doesn't mean it's all "group-think", or you're justified to attribute 'many of its members' as fear-ridden, uniformed, unthinking or obedient. I think that might just be expressing a lack of tolerance there. If you are experiencing hostility, I can perhaps see where it might be coming from.

Once again the union is its members and those members elect their representatives, to act in their best interests. It's not some kabal of union barons, acting out a conspiracy theory. If you have proof they're self-serving, and only interested in self-preservation, and not working for the members I'm happy to see it.

I'm quite aware you're saying that the by defending the USO, the CWU are denying members the opportunity to leave the business. I think that's nonsense, but instead of just saying, "that's nonsense", I put some points forward, that I thought were applicable. Instead of just addressing them, you took it as a personal attack.

The USO is a service, not a product. It is there for the public to use, whether or not, the majority use it or require it, or you consider it pointless, expensive or an unnecessary anachronism. Any erosion in this service benefits one party only, and that is the shareholders. There is no benefit to the public, nor RM employees (CWU members). It was put in place as a condition for allowing the public service to be sold at a hugely undervalued cost, and serves as proof as to why it should never have been sold.

Right up until the end of this year, RM has successfully ran the USO, along side a parcel product, whilst still making profit, we all know how much. Its only since one particular shareholder has started showing interest in owning RM, that the USO has come under attack. Its no longer cross-subsidised, as is done with other postal services, simply because that one particular shareholder sees the USO as baggage that profit can't be squeezed from.

I'm done with this now, it's way off topic and there's already a USO thread.

[redlen]

Am of the opinion Royal Mail are going to turn around and say because of the strikes and losing a million a day it can no longer afford a VR settlement.

Then it will be statutory compulsory redundancy rates.

Royal Mail still expects full-year adjusted operating loss of around 350 million to 450 million pounds