Backdated Pay Guessing Game

[rambo1]

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..

Go over by 2 mins everyday on the 7 hr days and get your 10 mins of break back. Probably not going to be able to finish duty in 7 hrs anyway.

[Acca Dacca]

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

He said two hours a week, not two hours a day to be fair

[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..

Go over by 2 mins everyday on the 7 hr days and get your 10 mins of break back. Probably not going to be able to finish duty in 7 hrs anyway.

Manager: 'Subman, you took an extended break yesterday'.
Subman: 'I worked 7 hours and 2 minutes so I was entitled to a forty minute break'.
Manager: 'if you hadn't taken a forty minute break you would have been finished in 6:52'.
Manager.' I told you before you went out no overtime'
Manager .' Subman, you owe me time'
Subman. Fcuk off you, ass hole....

[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.

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..

2 hours a week is nothing. I have no idea what any of your sums mean, but it equates to working two hours longer during the winter and two less in the summer. You won’t be doing any extra unpaid work.

[DonkeyOT]

So just to be clear, are we talking about an extra 24mins a day?

[Subman]

So just to be clear, are we talking about an extra 24mins a day?

I was.

[DonkeyOT]

So just to be clear, are we talking about an extra 24mins a day?

I was.

[LouBarlow]

So just to be clear, are we talking about an extra 24mins a day?

Yeah and the same time less in summer. It is hardly an immovable obstacle for anyone surely? I would have thought start times would be a far more important issue for most. Starting up to 2 hours later a day *would* be a deal breaker for a lot of people.

[rambo1]

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..

2 hours a week is nothing. I have no idea what any of your sums mean, but it equates to working two hours longer during the winter and two less in the summer. You won’t be doing any extra unpaid work.

In that case I guess you don't take your breaks if you don't get what he was trying to say.

[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.

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..

2 hours a week is nothing. I have no idea what any of your sums mean, but it equates to working two hours longer during the winter and two less in the summer. You won’t be doing any extra unpaid work.

In that case I guess you don't take your breaks if you don't get what he was trying to say.

It’s not complicated, unless people want to try and tie themselves in knots. If the working day decreases enough to make your allocated break time shorter, so be it. They are there for a reason.

[rambo1]

Breaks will be a moot point in the future anyway when they are not paid breaks. It'll happen, surprised they haven't tried it yet.

[Acca Dacca]

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..

2 hours a week is nothing. I have no idea what any of your sums mean, but it equates to working two hours longer during the winter and two less in the summer. You won’t be doing any extra unpaid work.

In that case I guess you don't take your breaks if you don't get what he was trying to say.

It’s not complicated, unless people want to try and tie themselves in knots. If the working day decreases enough to make your allocated break time shorter, so be it. They are there for a reason.

Our PAID breaks……

[POSTPERSON50]

If you think this company is going to pay over a grand in back pay to each employee you're deluded.

Over 100 million pounds in back pay? Yeah right.

[ddtc]

If you think this company is going to pay over a grand in back pay to each employee you're deluded.

Over 100 million pounds in back pay? Yeah right.

Well they paid over £500 million to shareholders and gave themselves fat bonuses and payrise knowing full well the business wasn't going to be doing as well. Makes you wonder what if they scaled back the amount they paid out including superhubs, electric cars etc.

If the company was honest and fair from the word go last year then I'd happily discuss the changes needed to turn the business around. But no they just threw money away at any brain dead idea from the top with no common sense whatsoever. Blaming us for the losses and contracts lost through strike action so on so forth.

If they worked with us from the start we might of been in a better place. Which might of meant no strikes and tonnes of money wasted on agency staff who were paid more for doing less work saved. Bonuses for managers breaking strikes saved. No business contracts lost. Paying Evri money to do our work and god knows what else they secretly spent money on.

So yes they best back date because it was their incompetance that lead us to where we are not us.

[robson144]

If you think this company is going to pay over a grand in back pay to each employee you're deluded.

Over 100 million pounds in back pay? Yeah right.

Well they paid over £500 million to shareholders and gave themselves fat bonuses and payrise knowing full well the business wasn't going to be doing as well. Makes you wonder what if they scaled back the amount they paid out including superhubs, electric cars etc.

If the company was honest and fair from the word go last year then I'd happily discuss the changes needed to turn the business around. But no they just threw money away at any brain dead idea from the top with no common sense whatsoever. Blaming us for the losses and contracts lost through strike action so on so forth.

If they worked with us from the start we might of been in a better place. Which might of meant no strikes and tonnes of money wasted on agency staff who were paid more for doing less work saved. Bonuses for managers breaking strikes saved. No business contracts lost. Paying Evri money to do our work and god knows what else they secretly spent money on.

So yes they best back date because it was their incompetance that lead us to where we are not us.

Absolutely spot on