Backdated Pay Guessing Game

[roman]

I agree with Rambo 1 a lot of older posties wanted vr when they initially signed up to the original deal of 9 months pay with the £6000. The union were against that because it wasn’t the 2 year deal we were promised from previous deals.Then it was supposedly over subscribed so the rug was pulled and people just left. Played right into Royal mails hands !

[Acca Dacca]

Nobody ever seems to mention the shorter week anymore. This could be a face saver for both party’s if an hour off gets chucked into the deal as well. It wouldn’t cost them anything extra on the balance sheet.

It’s what I would be trying to get thrown in as well if you couldn’t get the % rise to where you wanted to be.

It would as the hourly rate would go up for part timers

[Navalron]

We will get absolutely nothing. Why would they give us anything? We have to get real. This is the end, I’ve never seen so many of my work colleagues so down and looking broken. Everyone in my large office is looking to get out. It’s so bad, the trust and morale is unrepairable at my office. I know at least 7 out with stress and some out with aches and pains through walking 75 miles a week. Many out I know will not return. I really don’t know what the picture will look like in a few months.

leave the job then. You are a bundle of joy. FFS.

[rambo1]

what would be acceptable for me to vote it in? 4% extra for this year, fully backdated.5% going forward for next year.Buy out of historic allowances RM want to end.later Start times to align with the new network.Union support to get the USO reduced to 5 days a week for letters.Sick pay policy unchanged. No annualised hours.IHR maintained at current rate.And the deal breaker for me is a guaranteed finishing time every day.

At last, a more realistic estimate.

[norris9]

I believe Dave Ward said at the end of last year that he was confident in a 9% pay rise backdated....

I would find the video on youtube where I think he said this.


So I am fully expecting him to at least get 8% backdated. Though, since then he said he's now looking for a longer term deal.... so I am not sure if and how that changes the %. Is he after a smaller % pay rise, but over a longer duration..... who knows.

[claystones]

we can throw the deal out we have still got our mandate give 14 days notice to strike the union are our mouthpiece looks like the nurses are going to throw there offer out and continue to strike

[rambo1]

we can throw the deal out we have still got our mandate give 14 days notice to strike the union are our mouthpiece looks like the nurses are going to throw there offer out and continue to strike

How on earth do you know how NHS staff are going to vote??? The unions have said they are not going to recommend it but will put it to a vote. Reading between the lines to me this sounds like union think the workforce will vote yes but they don't want too recommend it because then they would look bad. If they thought it was that bad they wouldn't put it to a vote? Anyway I think the threat of nhs staff striking is a bit more serious than people not getting some parcels and junk mail especially when there is an alternative method. Bit more leverage than us striking.

[rambo1]

Unison have now actually recommended it.

[Gills_Postie]

I believe Dave Ward said at the end of last year that he was confident in a 9% pay rise backdated....

I would find the video on youtube where I think he said this.


So I am fully expecting him to at least get 8% backdated. Though, since then he said he's now looking for a longer term deal.... so I am not sure if and how that changes the %. Is he after a smaller % pay rise, but over a longer duration..... who knows.

Royal Mail were saying that they had offered a deal worth 9% but that included all the strings etc it was never a straight 9 percent offer. Dave Ward said IF Royal offered 9% no strings that would be acceptable, he didn't say it was confident it would happen.

[roman]

It was never feasible to get 9% with no strings.I reckon the new deal will be very similar to the one the union didn’t want to put to the vote before Xmas.9% over 2 years with perhaps some back pay and a lump sum. Maybe an hour later start to be phased in with seasonal variations.Sick pay to be less than it is.Sundays voluntary except for new starters and existing new contracts.

[FirstPost]

It was never feasible to get 9% with no strings.I reckon the new deal will be very similar to the one the union didn’t want to put to the vote before Xmas.9% over 2 years with perhaps some back pay and a lump sum. Maybe an hour later start to be phased in with seasonal variations.Sick pay to be less than it is.Sundays voluntary except for new starters and existing new contracts.

Vote NO!

[redlen]

Really concerns me with the Newspeak of seasonal variations. No matter how you dress it up, that is code for annualised hours. Thought that was one of the red lines?

If any deal put to the members includes this, then it has to be a No, no matter what financial carrot is dangled.

[LouBarlow]

Really concerns me with the Newspeak of seasonal variations. No matter how you dress it up, that is code for annualised hours. Thought that was one of the red lines?

If any deal put to the members includes this, then it has to be a No, no matter what financial carrot is dangled.

It was a difference of two hours a week which is nothing. Not a big deal at all.

[redlen]

It is a BIG Deal being a contractual change

Once that is included in your contract, there is no going back as we have agreed it

So full-time staff work six hours a day in the summer and ten hours a day in the winter?

That is a huge deal for employees who have family commitments

[Subman]

Really concerns me with the Newspeak of seasonal variations. No matter how you dress it up, that is code for annualised hours. Thought that was one of the red lines?

If any deal put to the members includes this, then it has to be a No, no matter what financial carrot is dangled.

It was a difference of two hours a week which is nothing. Not a big deal at all.

When is two hours not just two hours.?
Example.
I am full time 7:24 per day.

In the summer I work 5 days at 7 hours a day.
35 hours with; 5 thirty minute breaks.

Then;
In the winter I work 5 days at 7:48 a day
39 hours with; 5 forty minute breaks.

The two hours is not just two hours.
Before the proposed change if I worked the same total number of hours over the two weeks ; 74 hours, my breaks would have been a total 6 hours and forty minutes.

But with the change the total breaks is 5 hours , and fifty minutes.

I have just lost or given up 50 minutes in paid breaks,

put it another way;

I will have worked 50 minutes for RM for nothing..