What parts of the deal are below the 1996 employment rights act, out of interest?
The extra 2 hours in the winter.
Under the act, When variable hours are worked, pay should be averaged out over a maximum of 12 weeks. Under the deal we will not be paid for those extra hours until the following summer. That is well short of our statutory right.
It is moot though as if a no vote is returned, Royal Mail will likely resort to their original plan of moving start times beyond those two hours and we will all be working later anyway.
Working later hours isnt the same as working longer hours.
RM wanting us to be working longer in the autumn/winter is a different issue to later start/finish times.
If you tolerate this, then your paid break will be next
What parts of the deal are below the 1996 employment rights act, out of interest?
The extra 2 hours in the winter.
Under the act, When variable hours are worked, pay should be averaged out over a maximum of 12 weeks. Under the deal we will not be paid for those extra hours until the following summer. That is well short of our statutory right.
It is moot though as if a no vote is returned, Royal Mail will likely resort to their original plan of moving start times beyond those two hours and we will all be working later anyway.
Working later hours isnt the same as working longer hours.
RM wanting us to be working longer in the autumn/winter is a different issue to later start/finish times.
What parts of the deal are below the 1996 employment rights act, out of interest?
The extra 2 hours in the winter.
Under the act, When variable hours are worked, pay should be averaged out over a maximum of 12 weeks. Under the deal we will not be paid for those extra hours until the following summer. That is well short of our statutory right.
It is moot though as if a no vote is returned, Royal Mail will likely resort to their original plan of moving start times beyond those two hours and we will all be working later anyway.
Working later hours isnt the same as working longer hours.
RM wanting us to be working longer in the autumn/winter is a different issue to later start/finish times.
Working longer indoors does not bother me at all.
What bothers you or doesnt bother you isnt the point though
If you tolerate this, then your paid break will be next
What parts of the deal are below the 1996 employment rights act, out of interest?
The extra 2 hours in the winter.
Under the act, When variable hours are worked, pay should be averaged out over a maximum of 12 weeks. Under the deal we will not be paid for those extra hours until the following summer. That is well short of our statutory right.
It is moot though as if a no vote is returned, Royal Mail will likely resort to their original plan of moving start times beyond those two hours and we will all be working later anyway.
Working later hours isnt the same as working longer hours.
RM wanting us to be working longer in the autumn/winter is a different issue to later start/finish times.
Working longer indoors does not bother me at all.
What bothers you or doesnt bother you isnt the point though
Of course it is. I work on deliveries. Doing an extra twenty minutes work a day on sorting is literally the least problematic aspect of this agreement.
What parts of the deal are below the 1996 employment rights act, out of interest?
The extra 2 hours in the winter.
Under the act, When variable hours are worked, pay should be averaged out over a maximum of 12 weeks. Under the deal we will not be paid for those extra hours until the following summer. That is well short of our statutory right.
It is moot though as if a no vote is returned, Royal Mail will likely resort to their original plan of moving start times beyond those two hours and we will all be working later anyway.
Working later hours isnt the same as working longer hours.
RM wanting us to be working longer in the autumn/winter is a different issue to later start/finish times.
Working longer indoors does not bother me at all.
What bothers you or doesnt bother you isnt the point though
Of course it is. I work on deliveries. Doing an extra twenty minutes work a day on sorting is literally the least problematic aspect of this agreement.
What bothers YOU isnt the point though unless I missed something and you are the only one who gives the OK to anything RM want to introduce?
Besides, your not bothered being asked to wash the toilets so dont think anyone should really take much notice what does or doesnt bother you when it comes to our daily workload
Last edited by Acca Dacca on 26 Jun 2023, 23:48, edited 1 time in total.
If you tolerate this, then your paid break will be next
Why are you trying to belittle him?
The most important job is the job of a cleaner, without them nothing would happen.
Remember Covid? The most important jobs are the one's that don't pay enough.
Why are you trying to belittle him?
The most important job is the job of a cleaner, without them nothing would happen.
Remember Covid? The most important jobs are the one's that don't pay enough.
Not belittling him. We arent toilet cleaners. He said he would be happy to spend a shift cleaning the toilets. I wouldnt. Because thats not my job description. Im sure the cleaners in my office wouldnt want to do a walk, because thats not their job description.
Anyway back to the original point, it doesnt matter to me what Lou would be happy doing for a shift - that matters to him alone.
Btw he brought up toilet cleaning in a previous post, I didnt just pluck that out of thin air.
If you tolerate this, then your paid break will be next
What bothers YOU isnt the point though unless I missed something and you are the only one who gives the OK to anything RM want to introduce?
Besides, your not bothered being asked to wash the toilets so dont think anyone should really take much notice what does or doesnt bother you when it comes to our daily workload
So you are saying, I should vote on what bothers other people then? I’m not sure what point you are even making. Surely the indoor working seasonal variation is less important to you than the start times changing, the decimation of sick pay et al? We must have that in common at least? I think you are just being argumentative for the sake of it now.
What bothers YOU isnt the point though unless I missed something and you are the only one who gives the OK to anything RM want to introduce?
Besides, your not bothered being asked to wash the toilets so dont think anyone should really take much notice what does or doesnt bother you when it comes to our daily workload
So you are saying, I should vote on what bothers other people then? I’m not sure what point you are even making. Surely the indoor working seasonal variation is less important to you than the start times changing, the decimation of sick pay et al? We must have that in common at least? I think you are just being argumentative for the sake of it now.
Think the point that he made was that he wasn't prepared to work the longer hours in winter - and he's right - for Royal Mail to do that they need an agreement
Whether you're bothered doesn't come into it. The company need an agreement if they want seasonal variations.
On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world.
What bothers YOU isnt the point though unless I missed something and you are the only one who gives the OK to anything RM want to introduce?
Besides, your not bothered being asked to wash the toilets so dont think anyone should really take much notice what does or doesnt bother you when it comes to our daily workload
So you are saying, I should vote on what bothers other people then? I’m not sure what point you are even making. Surely the indoor working seasonal variation is less important to you than the start times changing, the decimation of sick pay et al? We must have that in common at least? I think you are just being argumentative for the sake of it now.
Think the point that he made was that he wasn't prepared to work the longer hours in winter - and he's right - for Royal Mail to do that they need an agreement
Whether you're bothered doesn't come into it. The company need an agreement if they want seasonal variations.
Why does RM need an agreement? Is it because of the law ? If so then we have a government who can rush through changes to employment laws very very quickly as it did with the doctor's planned strikes. I always believed that if circumstances at work change ie workload, technology, demand etc then the employer can give due notice to change working patterns. I don't think it's against the law. However I am not an expert but I bet - whether yes or no in the ballot - RM will have a plan. I would also stake my life that RM have had their legal team crawl all over these changes to make sure the legal issues are watertight.
I'll be leaving i couldn't possibly be a member of a union who thinks its ok to tear up t's and c's,might be cutting my nose off but i've gone past caring.
I'll be leaving i couldn't possibly be a member of a union who thinks its ok to tear up t's and c's,might be cutting my nose off but i've gone past caring.
Without these changes, you would be a member of a union who thinks it is ok to have redundancies so they couldn’t win in your eyes either way.
What bothers YOU isnt the point though unless I missed something and you are the only one who gives the OK to anything RM want to introduce?
Besides, your not bothered being asked to wash the toilets so dont think anyone should really take much notice what does or doesnt bother you when it comes to our daily workload
So you are saying, I should vote on what bothers other people then? I’m not sure what point you are even making. Surely the indoor working seasonal variation is less important to you than the start times changing, the decimation of sick pay et al? We must have that in common at least? I think you are just being argumentative for the sake of it now.
Think the point that he made was that he wasn't prepared to work the longer hours in winter - and he's right - for Royal Mail to do that they need an agreement
Whether you're bothered doesn't come into it. The company need an agreement if they want seasonal variations.
.....this is the thing......they have that agreement and we've all seen it signed off and ratified by the PEC. That's what collective bargaining is. The ballot is internal CWU admin but I do acknowledge that RM would prefer a yes vote but legally I would suggest the deal has already been made.
.....this is the thing......they have that agreement and we've all seen it signed off and ratified by the PEC. That's what collective bargaining is. The ballot is internal CWU admin but I do acknowledge that RM would prefer a yes vote but legally I would suggest the deal has already been made.
So because the the CWU admin team have agreed it, it's pretty much a done deal anyway? Fair enough - I'm not a legal expert!
On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world.
.....this is the thing......they have that agreement and we've all seen it signed off and ratified by the PEC. That's what collective bargaining is. The ballot is internal CWU admin but I do acknowledge that RM would prefer a yes vote but legally I would suggest the deal has already been made.
So because the the CWU admin team have agreed it, it's pretty much a done deal anyway? Fair enough - I'm not a legal expert!
CWU admin didn't agree it...it was the top officers. I haven't seen any statements from either side saying "subject to yes vote". It's been written up and communicated as an agreement.