Rumours or not

[LouBarlow]

It sucks, but so does pretty much all of that section and the new T&Cs.

the whole deal sucks, every single last part of it

still havnt answered me bro, where are you getting your trust from with RM?

they ripped up the 4 pillars, ripped up the pathway to change, what makes you think they have changed and this be so different?

Firstly, we ripped up those agreements by negating them when we took part in industrial action. Secondly, who says I have to trust RM? I trust the CWU to secure the payments outlined in the agreement.

[Acca Dacca]

What are you basing this on, considering we have a binding contract that clearly states this will be happening? You can’t just pull statements out of your arse without justifying them.

the lump sums being delayed, 4.1.3 and the new sickness procedures 6.4

what are you basing your trust with RM on ?

The language used for the lump sum section was flimsy and open to interpretation. As I’ve said, I will save my anger for that one if the payment doesn’t turn up in September (or hopefully before).

I’m not sure what people were expecting with the sickness procedures. They stated that they would be upping the time period to a year, so of course people were going to have current stages extended by 6 months. It sucks, but so does pretty much all of that section and the new T&Cs.

That’s nonsense

The changes could have applied to any new stage warnings from the point that the new procedure is implemented rather than retrospectively applying the new rule to stages issued in the past. It wouldn’t be unfair to think this would and should have been the case.

It doesn’t affect me as I’m not on a stage but if my stage was about to end and I was told i would now be on it for another 6 months or whatever I would be mightily peeved off

[Woody Guthrie]

If Royal Mail had been genuine that this was simply meant to reduce sick absence going forward and not designed to punish members already on the attendance procedure they would have agreed to move everyone back a stage in the process.

Not an amnesty or a clean slate but a gesture of goodwill that would have made the migration more acceptable and avoided members on a stage 2 having to endure another 6 months of employment insecurity.

It would have been the smart move especially during a recruitment crisis and a "free win" in employee engagement.

[LouBarlow]

What are you basing this on, considering we have a binding contract that clearly states this will be happening? You can’t just pull statements out of your arse without justifying them.

the lump sums being delayed, 4.1.3 and the new sickness procedures 6.4

what are you basing your trust with RM on ?

The language used for the lump sum section was flimsy and open to interpretation. As I’ve said, I will save my anger for that one if the payment doesn’t turn up in September (or hopefully before).

I’m not sure what people were expecting with the sickness procedures. They stated that they would be upping the time period to a year, so of course people were going to have current stages extended by 6 months. It sucks, but so does pretty much all of that section and the new T&Cs.

That’s nonsense

The changes could have applied to any new stage warnings from the point that the new procedure is implemented rather than retrospectively applying the new rule to stages issued in the past. It wouldn’t be unfair to think this would and should have been the case.

It doesn’t affect me as I’m not on a stage but if my stage was about to end and I was told i would now be on it for another 6 months or whatever I would be mightily peeved off

Their system can’t cope with changing payroll, there was no chance that RM were going to operate a two-tier stage process going forward. It would be too complicated. They open themselves up to legal action if someone on a year long stage loses their job because of it, while you still have some workers coming off stages earlier.

[R5001]

What are you basing this on, considering we have a binding contract that clearly states this will be happening? You can’t just pull statements out of your arse without justifying them.

the lump sums being delayed, 4.1.3 and the new sickness procedures 6.4

what are you basing your trust with RM on ?

The language used for the lump sum section was flimsy and open to interpretation. As I’ve said, I will save my anger for that one if the payment doesn’t turn up in September (or hopefully before).

I’m not sure what people were expecting with the sickness procedures. They stated that they would be upping the time period to a year, so of course people were going to have current stages extended by 6 months. It sucks, but so does pretty much all of that section and the new T&Cs.

That’s nonsense

The changes could have applied to any new stage warnings from the point that the new procedure is implemented rather than retrospectively applying the new rule to stages issued in the past. It wouldn’t be unfair to think this would and should have been the case.

It doesn’t affect me as I’m not on a stage but if my stage was about to end and I was told i would now be on it for another 6 months or whatever I would be mightily peeved off

Their system can’t cope with changing payroll, there was no chance that RM were going to operate a two-tier stage process going forward. It would be too complicated. They open themselves up to legal action if someone on a year long stage loses their job because of it, while you still have some workers coming off stages earlier.

For six f***ing months they could've just ticked a box that said "legacy resolution" and closed them early as it came up. Yes they could've and should've done it.

[Acca Dacca]

What are you basing this on, considering we have a binding contract that clearly states this will be happening? You can’t just pull statements out of your arse without justifying them.

the lump sums being delayed, 4.1.3 and the new sickness procedures 6.4

what are you basing your trust with RM on ?

The language used for the lump sum section was flimsy and open to interpretation. As I’ve said, I will save my anger for that one if the payment doesn’t turn up in September (or hopefully before).

I’m not sure what people were expecting with the sickness procedures. They stated that they would be upping the time period to a year, so of course people were going to have current stages extended by 6 months. It sucks, but so does pretty much all of that section and the new T&Cs.

That’s nonsense

The changes could have applied to any new stage warnings from the point that the new procedure is implemented rather than retrospectively applying the new rule to stages issued in the past. It wouldn’t be unfair to think this would and should have been the case.

It doesn’t affect me as I’m not on a stage but if my stage was about to end and I was told i would now be on it for another 6 months or whatever I would be mightily peeved off

Their system can’t cope with changing payroll, there was no chance that RM were going to operate a two-tier stage process going forward. It would be too complicated. They open themselves up to legal action if someone on a year long stage loses their job because of it, while you still have some workers coming off stages earlier.

Aww come on Lou

Is there anything you wont defend Royal Mail on? Im all for a devil's advocate but cmon the f*ck.

[LouBarlow]

What are you basing this on, considering we have a binding contract that clearly states this will be happening? You can’t just pull statements out of your arse without justifying them.

the lump sums being delayed, 4.1.3 and the new sickness procedures 6.4

what are you basing your trust with RM on ?

The language used for the lump sum section was flimsy and open to interpretation. As I’ve said, I will save my anger for that one if the payment doesn’t turn up in September (or hopefully before).

I’m not sure what people were expecting with the sickness procedures. They stated that they would be upping the time period to a year, so of course people were going to have current stages extended by 6 months. It sucks, but so does pretty much all of that section and the new T&Cs.

That’s nonsense

The changes could have applied to any new stage warnings from the point that the new procedure is implemented rather than retrospectively applying the new rule to stages issued in the past. It wouldn’t be unfair to think this would and should have been the case.

It doesn’t affect me as I’m not on a stage but if my stage was about to end and I was told i would now be on it for another 6 months or whatever I would be mightily peeved off

Their system can’t cope with changing payroll, there was no chance that RM were going to operate a two-tier stage process going forward. It would be too complicated. They open themselves up to legal action if someone on a year long stage loses their job because of it, while you still have some workers coming off stages earlier.

Aww come on Lou

Is there anything you wont defend Royal Mail on? Im all for a devil's advocate but cmon the f*ck.

I’m not defending them though. It is a s**t change and I’ve never disputed that. However, if I had been sat on a 6-month long stage before the agreement was signed, I would have presumed that it would have then changed to a 12 month one, as per the agreement changes. Is it right? No. Would I have been pissed? Yes. However, I can see why it has happened.

[Acca Dacca]

Bollocks

Your post was defending them and how they have implemented it. No matter how much you throw in little lines about it being sh*t policy or whatever. The bulk of your posts are from a defensive position.

[Postee2]

I've said this before, but I believe small (retail) shareholders will effectively be wiped out following an eventual share re-issue that will water down and dilute existing small share holders, but give large share holders the opportunity to increase their holding at bargain basement prices.
An equity raise / debt for equity swap whatever you want to call it, at some point I feel is on the cards here.
And to be honest, if it saves the business and our jobs, I'm all up for it.

As a long serving postie who didn't run and cash in their shares at the first opportunity, and who still has the shares, then I would care about the scenario you have just described!

I'm sure you would, and obviously no shareholder wants that scenario in truth. I'm speaking partly from bitter experience myself. It happens, just expressing my opinion that if the finances really are as bad as what we are told, I could see it happening here too.
Even though I don't have any shares left in Royal Mail, tbh personally I still would rather it didn't happen, as I don't want the risk of Royal Mail to sink any further, and would rather it thrive which would be better for all of us.

[LouBarlow]

Bollocks

Your post was defending them and how they have implemented it. No matter how much you throw in little lines about it being sh*t policy or whatever. The bulk of your posts are from a defensive position.

No matter how often you throw in your little ‘nonsense’ or ‘bollocks’ opening single word paragraphs, it doesn’t make your post any more objective. I’m offering my opinion as you are. I’ve told you I think it is s**t. Believe me or not I couldn’t give a toss.

[sixfoottwo]

I thought the Union were having a meeting regards this, sure I read that somewhere no?

It just shows what RM think of us, remember all this when you think about going that extra mile for them it works both ways.

[Acca Dacca]

Bollocks

Your post was defending them and how they have implemented it. No matter how much you throw in little lines about it being sh*t policy or whatever. The bulk of your posts are from a defensive position.

No matter how often you throw in your little ‘nonsense’ or ‘bollocks’ opening single word paragraphs, it doesn’t make your post any more objective. I’m offering my opinion as you are. I’ve told you I think it is s**t. Believe me or not I couldn’t give a toss.

You never started this by saying you can see why this has happened. Everyone can see why this has happened. Your starting position was posting that you didnt understand how anyone could have thought a more sensible position could have been taken, and then went on to post, in my opinion, complete nonsense/bollocks to justify your defence of RM and why they made the decision they did.

It always looks like you are from ''the other side'' when taking your positions. Even if you arent. Throwing in a bit of faux sympathy every now and again doesnt change that.

[Foxel]

Believe me or not I couldn’t give a toss.

Everyone here does despite what they say else there would be enough motivation to comment,

[k979aaa]

Agreement takes two sides to deliver on the obligations of this agreement and one side has already shown it cannot abide by this agreement!

[aiden01]

I thought the Union were having a meeting regards this, sure I read that somewhere no?

It just shows what RM think of us, remember all this when you think about going that extra mile for them it works both ways.

Supposed to be tommorow.