Genuinely shocked

[chickenwittle]

35 hr week was in an agreement but I still have to work 37 because the business changed their minds. This proposed agreement is not a legally binding document, RM can change it, ignore or walk away from it any time they like.

Why would I say I was a rep if i wasn’t??

You’ll be working 39 hours a week this winter with 30 mins flex on top if this deal goes through, what a disgrace, the union have taken us backwards.

[ashmeister77]

35 hr week was in an agreement but I still have to work 37 because the business changed their minds. This proposed agreement is not a legally binding document, RM can change it, ignore or walk away from it any time they like.

Why would I say I was a rep if i wasn’t??

You’ll be working 39 hours a week this winter with 30 mins flex on top if this deal goes through, what a disgrace, the union have taken us backwards.

How will this affect part timers?

[billie2]

All the union could do was make a really bad deal less bad.If we vote no RM will take the deal of the table and push through even worse terms through executive action. We knew this day would come when they privatised RM

[dakka86]

Our reps have not recommended the deal to us. They feel as let down as the rest of us.
Like I’ve said I’m not surprised it’s a bad deal but I am surprised just how bad it is.
I’m struggling to see how I can vote yes but also understand the consequences of voting no

Rock and a hard place

[SpacePhoenix]

All the union could do was make a really bad deal less bad.If we vote no RM will take the deal of the table and push through even worse terms through executive action. We knew this day would come when they privatised RM

Even if we were to vote yes, what's to stop RM from forcing through even worse terms anyway?

[mmalecki88]

All the union could do was make a really bad deal less bad.If we vote no RM will take the deal of the table and push through even worse terms through executive action. We knew this day would come when they privatised RM

Even if we were to vote yes, what's to stop RM from forcing through even worse terms anyway?

Nothing!
This is why we cannot step back now!

[mmalecki88]

All the union could do was make a really bad deal less bad.If we vote no RM will take the deal of the table and push through even worse terms through executive action. We knew this day would come when they privatised RM

Even if we were to vote yes, what's to stop RM from forcing through even worse terms anyway?

Nothing!
This is why we cannot step back now!

[theargyspy]

Is there anyone here who disagrees that something had to be done about the number of illegitimate sick absences?
Does anyone here think that the process of self certification is not being abused?
Has anyone here a better resolution to fraudulent use of sick pay other than what is proposed in this deal?
Thanks.

Yep, why not as per now first absence in a 12 month period, you get paid, second absence you got paid as now, third absence you you don't get paid for the first two days, fourth absence you don't get paid for the first three days...I speak as someone who rarely go's sick, maybe once every couple of years but been in the job 38 years the walking isn't getting any easier, longer days and longer walks isn't going to make the problem go away!

[thefox]

As an employee for over 25 years and a rep for 17 years I can honestly say I have never seen such dreadful deal.

There’s been some poor parts of agreements in the past but this literally is a surrender deal. The only part of the union that gets anything out of it is Div reps and above

I’m still reeling from the fact that the PEC really expects me to believe they have won anything for the membership

Why would any union expect their members to agree to give up sick pay (which was fought for over decades)

I’m genuinely shocked at how appalling this agreement is and it’s only made worse by senior leadership trying to tell us it’s a good deal

I don’t know what happens if the members don’t except the deal but I do know that I cannot vote for it.

Well said sir

[Ady128]

Is there anyone here who disagrees that something had to be done about the number of illegitimate sick absences?
Does anyone here think that the process of self certification is not being abused?
Has anyone here a better resolution to fraudulent use of sick pay other than what is proposed in this deal?
Thanks.

Every job I’ve been in has had people who have pushed the limits on sick leave, businesses build in to their forecasts/ business plans for sickness, holidays, pregnancy etc.

Royal Mail are just greedy, they want a bigger slice of the cake, they’re not happy with a profit, they want all the money. Dispite making £768 million profit, they want more. They want not only their slice of the cake, they want everyone else’s cake slice too, even the crumbs.

Nothing will ever satisfy their greed, so it’s up to the reasonable people to control their greed. Like a drug addict, they will cheat & lie to get what they want.

Dispite their claim that we’re bleeding £1.6M a day , I have read only today that the £400M loss this year is looking more like a £46M loss. And as we’ve taken about £200M strike action, if RM hadn’t taken executive action, we’d be in profit !

Our T&C’s CAN be maintained, it just means that the company won’t make as much profit for the shareholder

Royal Mail didn’t make £768m, it was the group which includes GLS. RM made about £400.

[Wolf91]

Is there anyone here who disagrees that something had to be done about the number of illegitimate sick absences?
Does anyone here think that the process of self certification is not being abused?
Has anyone here a better resolution to fraudulent use of sick pay other than what is proposed in this deal?
Thanks.

Every job I’ve been in has had people who have pushed the limits on sick leave, businesses build in to their forecasts/ business plans for sickness, holidays, pregnancy etc.

Royal Mail are just greedy, they want a bigger slice of the cake, they’re not happy with a profit, they want all the money. Dispite making £768 million profit, they want more. They want not only their slice of the cake, they want everyone else’s cake slice too, even the crumbs.

Nothing will ever satisfy their greed, so it’s up to the reasonable people to control their greed. Like a drug addict, they will cheat & lie to get what they want.

Dispite their claim that we’re bleeding £1.6M a day , I have read only today that the £400M loss this year is looking more like a £46M loss. And as we’ve taken about £200M strike action, if RM hadn’t taken executive action, we’d be in profit !

Our T&C’s CAN be maintained, it just means that the company won’t make as much profit for the shareholder

Royal Mail didn’t make £768m, it was the group which includes GLS. RM made about £400.

It’s cross subsidised - Royal Mail can’t pick & choose when it suits. The profit for IDS was £768M, that includes Royal Mail.

[stevejm]

@Wolf 91 ...
Exactly! When the profits were pouring in during the pandemic from the RM side of the business what did the IDS shareholders do?

They didn't say "Nah, this is a temporary profit spike, we'll leave the profits to one side to reward the 'above-and-beyond' key workers during the next pay negotiations " - nope! They dipped their greedy paws in and scooped out some fat dividend profits to the tune of £550 million.

There was no ring-fencing R.M back then was there? And there should be none now!!

Fight the greed!!!

[daveyeff]

35 hr week was in an agreement but I still have to work 37 because the business changed their minds. This proposed agreement is not a legally binding document, RM can change it, ignore or walk away from it any time they like.

Why would I say I was a rep if i wasn’t??

35 hour full-time is 50 minutes less meal relife a week than 36 hours or 35.5 hour week? As to is he a rep probably and is it relevant on here most of us all are in more communication than them. As to the legally binding bit they did walk away from the pervious agreements and nothing will stop them again!

it WOULD be 50mins less meal break a week if we did 5x7hr shifts, but that probs would not be the case. you could have 2 short days on say Monday & Tuesday of say 6hrs 40 mins which will give you 2x 30mins breaks on those days but have the rest of your week Wed-Sat over 7hrs which will give you the full 40mins. so you would only lose 20mins break over the full week.

[Wheres_Zorba]

35 hr week was in an agreement but I still have to work 37 because the business changed their minds. This proposed agreement is not a legally binding document, RM can change it, ignore or walk away from it any time they like.

Why would I say I was a rep if i wasn’t??

35 hour full-time is 50 minutes less meal relife a week than 36 hours or 35.5 hour week? As to is he a rep probably and is it relevant on here most of us all are in more communication than them. As to the legally binding bit they did walk away from the pervious agreements and nothing will stop them again!

it WOULD be 50mins less meal break a week if we did 5x7hr shifts, but that probs would not be the case. you could have 2 short days on say Monday & Tuesday of say 6hrs 40 mins which will give you 2x 30mins breaks on those days but have the rest of your week Wed-Sat over 7hrs which will give you the full 40mins. so you would only lose 20mins break over the full week.

So if your day off was Monday or Tuesday you would be working more than 35 hours??

[Judgee]

Is there anyone here who disagrees that something had to be done about the number of illegitimate sick absences?
Does anyone here think that the process of self certification is not being abused?
Has anyone here a better resolution to fraudulent use of sick pay other than what is proposed in this deal?
Thanks.

All absences are deemed legitimate are they not? This is the RM policy I believe although I could be wrong?

Personally I don't think the piss takers are the ones that 2 weeks off in a year. In our job working outside in all weathers and sharing offices in close proximity to large groups of fellow workers sharing germs, 2 weeks is not extreme! It's the ones that go off for months at a time that's the problem. The ones who seem to have a bad back every other year or some other health problem that is basically down to their word that it's genuine?

Either way I still don't think penalising everyone for the few that abuse the sick policy is the way to go. If they really feel the need to trim it down then something fairer should be brought in. Maybe half pay for every absence over a month or something?