RMCtv : Pay and change offer - your questions answered

[rambo1]

I really don’t give a monkeys about sick pay

Unpopular opinion but I don’t even care about a pay rise

I do strongly disagree with the late start/finish times

My vote is no!!! Unless they change their plan on start finish times

I’m prepared to negotiate on everything else except that

Don't care how much you get paid as long as you can still finish at 3.15pm. Really?

[needadvice]

I really don’t give a monkeys about sick pay

Unpopular opinion but I don’t even care about a pay rise

I do strongly disagree with the late start/finish times

My vote is no!!! Unless they change their plan on start finish times

I’m prepared to negotiate on everything else except that

Sounds like you don't really care where you work as long as you get to finish early. Minimum wage isn't too far behind now

[norris9]

Some people know they will probably have to leave the job if finish times get pushed back too far.

[TopperGas]

Some people know they will probably have to leave the job if finish times get pushed back too far.

The CWU seem to have accepted the change in finishing times, the big issues still seem to be new starters and the sickness pay.

[TopperGas]

As far as the first 3 days I'm not sure if it was just a slip of the tongue by RA and he meant to say SSP for 3 days rather than no pay, or he's finally let the cat out of the bag, as the CWU have never suggested we'd get no pay for the first 3 days,

[Acca Dacca]

As far as the first 3 days I'm not sure if it was just a slip of the tongue by RA and he meant to say SSP for 3 days rather than no pay, or he's finally let the cat out of the bag, as the CWU have never suggested we'd get no pay for the first 3 days,

SSP is zero for the first three days - so SSP and unpaid is the same thing until day 4 anyway

[FilthyBloke]

I suppose the sick pay isn’t that bad if you’re off long term.
Maybe they could keep it how it is for people who have 20 years or more service and who’s body’s and legs have taken a beating over the years for the company.
Or something like that.

[LouBarlow]

So people are complaining about no back-pay. Were you seriously expecting back-pay *and* a lump sum payment? Talk about deluded.

[Pidleypoo]

So the sick pay thing needs more detail. I have a chronic illness which means a regular procedure I have to have every 2 years for life meaning a 3 day absence.

This illness is covered under the equalities act so are they saying that if I was off again for any reason in these years I wouldn’t get paid ?

Bit of a kick in the teeth that.

[ted_e_bear]

So the sick pay thing needs more detail. I have a chronic illness which means a regular procedure I have to have every 2 years for life meaning a 3 day absence.

This illness is covered under the equalities act so are they saying that if I was off again for any reason in these years I wouldn’t get paid ?

Bit of a kick in the teeth that.

The policy would be full pay for the first absence, any further abscences in the following 12 months would be under the new criteria of first 3 days SSP so unpaid.

So basically if you're off sick less than 12 months since your previous absence then the new rule would apply, if you only had three days off every two years you'd be paid the full amount.

[TopperGas]

So the sick pay thing needs more detail. I have a chronic illness which means a regular procedure I have to have every 2 years for life meaning a 3 day absence.

This illness is covered under the equalities act so are they saying that if I was off again for any reason in these years I wouldn’t get paid ?

Bit of a kick in the teeth that.

They did say for serious illnesses sick pay would still be paid at the managers discretion, that comment clearly needs further clarification, as does whether it is definitely zero pay or SSP, probably it's the former or p/t'ers would be that worse off?

[mjd24]

So the sick pay thing needs more detail. I have a chronic illness which means a regular procedure I have to have every 2 years for life meaning a 3 day absence.

This illness is covered under the equalities act so are they saying that if I was off again for any reason in these years I wouldn’t get paid ?

Bit of a kick in the teeth that.

The policy would be full pay for the first absence, any further abscences in the following 12 months would be under the new criteria of first 3 days SSP so unpaid.

So basically if you're off sick less than 12 months since your previous absence then the new rule would apply, if you only had three days off every two years you'd be paid the full amount.

Are you 100% sure this answer is correct. I feel like some people are making statements on this thread that might not necessarily be fact.

[Pidleypoo]

So the sick pay thing needs more detail. I have a chronic illness which means a regular procedure I have to have every 2 years for life meaning a 3 day absence.

This illness is covered under the equalities act so are they saying that if I was off again for any reason in these years I wouldn’t get paid ?

Bit of a kick in the teeth that.

The policy would be full pay for the first absence, any further abscences in the following 12 months would be under the new criteria of first 3 days SSP so unpaid.

So basically if you're off sick less than 12 months since your previous absence then the new rule would apply, if you only had three days off every two years you'd be paid the full amount.

Are you 100% sure this answer is correct. I feel like some people are making statements on this thread that might not necessarily be fact.

This is my point. Currently my chronic illness can’t be counted towards any stage as it’s covered under the equalities act.

[garywales53]

Oh so having just viewed the video again its:

• no pay for first 3 days of second absence but then from the 4th day its full pay (up to 6 months?)

So not as bad as id feared.

''Not as bad as feared'' is still bad

You're right, it is still bad but this was always going to happen given how many abuse the current sick pay throughout the country. In my four years with Royal Mail i have been off once and that was with covid at the start of the pandemic.
If the generous sick pay wasn't so heavily abused there would be no need for them to go after it but as always, a small minority ruin it for the rest of us!

Why is it that people with hardly any service think people with long service abuse the sick policy when their sick record over 30 plus years may in fact be far superior to yours except for at this moment in time ,also you can't honestly be that naive that you believe this sorry excuse for a chief executive wouldn't be looking to change in your words this generous policy anyway ,I strongly suggest you open your eyes as to what this s..t show of senior management are really after.

Please point out where i stated people with long service abuse the sick pay? Read it again and stop being a simpleton.

Accusing anybody of abusing the system when you have no idea about their situation surely makes you not just the simpleton but a petty naive one at that.

[ted_e_bear]

So the sick pay thing needs more detail. I have a chronic illness which means a regular procedure I have to have every 2 years for life meaning a 3 day absence.

This illness is covered under the equalities act so are they saying that if I was off again for any reason in these years I wouldn’t get paid ?

Bit of a kick in the teeth that.

The policy would be full pay for the first absence, any further abscences in the following 12 months would be under the new criteria of first 3 days SSP so unpaid.

So basically if you're off sick less than 12 months since your previous absence then the new rule would apply, if you only had three days off every two years you'd be paid the full amount.

Are you 100% sure this answer is correct. I feel like some people are making statements on this thread that might not necessarily be fact.

This is where I got the info I quoted, was posted on here recently