ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (Updated 2021)... HERE

ANNOUNCEMENT : PLEASE BE AWARE WE ARE NOT ON FACEBOOK AT ALL!

Talks have ended - no agreement : Added RM's improved offer to 1st post

Pay talks 2022 discussion, news, LTB's RMCtv and all BUSINESS RECOVERY, TRANSFORMATION AND GROWTH AGREEMENT chat
Minischoles
ROYAL MAIL CUSTOMER SERVICE
Posts: 154
Joined: 02 Jun 2012, 05:53
Gender: Male

Re: Talks have ended - no agreement

Post by Minischoles »

Anyone willing to accept that deal can't see past the end of their nose.

2% last year (already implemented) - 8-9% pay cut due to inflation

2% or 6% this year - 5-9% pay cut due to inflation

6% or 2% next year - again a 5-9% pay cut due to inflation (unless you believe the nonsensical forecasts that inflation will somehow fall to 2.5% next year)

All for a 500-1500 quid bribe.

Acceptance of that deal is accepting a 27% pay cut over 3 years - and bear in mind that's the official government inflation rate, which conveniently ignores a whole swathe of costs you'll be incurring.

I don't know about anyone else, but accepting a 27% pay cut is a joke and i'd be sorely disappointed if the CWU put that to members.
fredtheegg
MAIL CENTRES/PROCESSING
Posts: 53
Joined: 17 Nov 2011, 17:19
Gender: Male

Re: Talks have ended - no agreement

Post by fredtheegg »

cockneyrebel wrote:
05 Apr 2023, 13:48
Guys all of you quoting £1,500 and £500 it wont be
Those 2 amouts will be subject to 20% tax
Its same as Christmas bonus and other lump sums offered to striking workers
All lump sums subject to tax
It’s basically £1200 after taking of 20% tax
rambo1
EX ROYAL MAIL
Posts: 3266
Joined: 12 Jun 2013, 20:00
Gender: Male

Re: Talks have ended - no agreement

Post by rambo1 »

The deal above isn't actually bad and if the CWU don't put this to vote they're probably signing our P45.
The deal on pay with the largest lump sum equates to 14% over the next two yrs or 16% if you include the 2% we have had already. With inflation set to fall to 3% by 24 it's not a million miles away from keeping up with inflation over that 3yr period.
The 500 lump sum option would equate to just over 10% so not as good as the biggest lump sum option.
Incidentally both options you end up on same basic wage after 2 yrs whichever way round you take the 2% and 6% .

No compulsory Sundays.
Existing allowances not touched.
No later starts for a year.

The Union has to put this to a vote IMHO.
rambo1
EX ROYAL MAIL
Posts: 3266
Joined: 12 Jun 2013, 20:00
Gender: Male

Re: Talks have ended - no agreement

Post by rambo1 »

KilledOff wrote:
05 Apr 2023, 11:44
Carrot munchers

We don't need taxable bribes that'll get blown on the latest wide screen.

We need decent % and back payed!!

It's a defo no from me.
If you're stupid enough to 'blow it on a wide-screen ' then that's your outlook. It's bears no relation to anything other that your own attitude to financial planning!
Clappedoutpostie
Posts: 1235
Joined: 05 Nov 2021, 21:46
Gender: Male

Re: Talks have ended - no agreement

Post by Clappedoutpostie »

rambo1 wrote:
05 Apr 2023, 14:14
The deal above isn't actually bad and if the CWU don't put this to vote they're probably signing our P45.
The deal on pay with the largest lump sum equates to 14% over the next two yrs or 16% if you include the 2% we have had already. With inflation set to fall to 3% by 24 it's not a million miles away from keeping up with inflation over that 3yr period.
The 500 lump sum option would equate to just over 10% so not as good as the biggest lump sum option.
Incidentally both options you end up on same basic wage after 2 yrs whichever way round you take the 2% and 6% .

No compulsory Sundays.
Existing allowances not touched.
No later starts for a year.

The Union has to put this to a vote IMHO.
What about all the other stuff in the agreement that we haven’t seen and they don’t want to tell us about?
rambo1
EX ROYAL MAIL
Posts: 3266
Joined: 12 Jun 2013, 20:00
Gender: Male

Re: Talks have ended - no agreement

Post by rambo1 »

cockneyrebel wrote:
05 Apr 2023, 13:48
Guys all of you quoting £1,500 and £500 it wont be
Those 2 amouts will be subject to 20% tax
Its same as Christmas bonus and other lump sums offered to striking workers
All lump sums subject to tax
As are any wages over £12570. What's new?
rambo1
EX ROYAL MAIL
Posts: 3266
Joined: 12 Jun 2013, 20:00
Gender: Male

Re: Talks have ended - no agreement

Post by rambo1 »

Clappedoutpostie wrote:
05 Apr 2023, 14:18
rambo1 wrote:
05 Apr 2023, 14:14
The deal above isn't actually bad and if the CWU don't put this to vote they're probably signing our P45.
The deal on pay with the largest lump sum equates to 14% over the next two yrs or 16% if you include the 2% we have had already. With inflation set to fall to 3% by 24 it's not a million miles away from keeping up with inflation over that 3yr period.
The 500 lump sum option would equate to just over 10% so not as good as the biggest lump sum option.
Incidentally both options you end up on same basic wage after 2 yrs whichever way round you take the 2% and 6% .

No compulsory Sundays.
Existing allowances not touched.
No later starts for a year.

The Union has to put this to a vote IMHO.
What about all the other stuff in the agreement that we haven’t seen and they don’t want to tell us about?
Can only comment on what we see, that's why I'd like the CWU to tell all.
rubberbond
Posts: 1497
Joined: 24 Aug 2014, 16:03
Gender: Male

Re: Talks have ended - no agreement

Post by rubberbond »

fredtheegg wrote:
05 Apr 2023, 14:13
cockneyrebel wrote:
05 Apr 2023, 13:48
Guys all of you quoting £1,500 and £500 it wont be
Those 2 amouts will be subject to 20% tax
Its same as Christmas bonus and other lump sums offered to striking workers
All lump sums subject to tax
It’s basically £1200 after taking of 20% tax
You forgot to deduct National Insurance, which is effectively just another income tax, can’t remember what the rate is.
ddtc
Posts: 252
Joined: 16 Jul 2012, 19:42
Gender: Male

Re: Talks have ended - no agreement

Post by ddtc »

Stop adding the 2% imposed payrise like it was some wonderful gift. No doubt the lump sum offers are targeting colleagues that will take it leave straight after. If there is a vote, its a no from me.
zz666
Posts: 223
Joined: 22 Jul 2016, 20:08
Gender: Male

Re: Talks have ended - no agreement

Post by zz666 »

What about commit to deliver, annualised hours etc? Is this off the table?
Splappy_McSplap
Posts: 226
Joined: 02 Sep 2009, 13:55
Gender: Male

Re: Talks have ended - no agreement

Post by Splappy_McSplap »

LouBarlow wrote:
05 Apr 2023, 11:01
If this deal isn’t put to members I will not be striking in any future action. We have had long enough to indulge in talks. If this is as good as it gets put it to the vote. If it is and voted against then fair enough, I will continue to support the industrial action.
Didn't you work through the previous strikes?
KilledOff
EX ROYAL MAIL
Posts: 70
Joined: 29 Nov 2022, 09:40
Gender: Male

Re: Talks have ended - no agreement

Post by KilledOff »

rambo1 wrote:
05 Apr 2023, 14:17
KilledOff wrote:
05 Apr 2023, 11:44
Carrot munchers

We don't need taxable bribes that'll get blown on the latest wide screen.

We need decent % and back payed!!

It's a defo no from me.
If you're stupid enough to 'blow it on a wide-screen ' then that's your outlook. It's bears no relation to anything other that your own attitude to financial planning!
Calm down tough guy.
It was just a hypothetical example!
:chuckle
chickenwittle
Posts: 2082
Joined: 15 Nov 2009, 09:43
Gender: Male

Re: Talks have ended - no agreement

Post by chickenwittle »

All banging on about lump sums etc. while Royal Mail fail to mention anything about sick pay , annualised hours etc. they’ve basically shown you a few good bits and left you all to call for a vote on something you don’t even understand.
koolishy67
Posts: 665
Joined: 04 Nov 2010, 21:02
Gender: Male

Re: Talks have ended - no agreement

Post by koolishy67 »

Option B please
Splappy_McSplap
Posts: 226
Joined: 02 Sep 2009, 13:55
Gender: Male

Re: Talks have ended - no agreement

Post by Splappy_McSplap »

Including the imposed 2% from a full year ago in the supposed 10% is not only an insult, but flat-out fraudulent.