Relations between old guard and newbies

[Smoothbackground]

I’ve cited as fact because I was citing facts. Just because you don’t know it, doesn’t make it untrue.

Facts are verifiable. You are unable to point to a single thing to corroborate your “facts” because they are something you have either made up, guesstimated or had spoon-fed to you by a CWU rep.

[Londonsburning]

I’ve cited as fact because I was citing facts. Just because you don’t know it, doesn’t make it untrue.

Facts are verifiable. You are unable to point to a single thing to corroborate your “facts” because they are something you have either made up, guesstimated or had spoon-fed to you by a CWU rep.

One fact is new starts are paid a whopping 8p an hour above NMW. That is £3.20 per week over and above on a 40 hour contract... Like yourself

[Barnacle]

I’ve cited as fact because I was citing facts. Just because you don’t know it, doesn’t make it untrue.

Facts are verifiable. You are unable to point to a single thing to corroborate your “facts” because they are something you have either made up, guesstimated or had spoon-fed to you by a CWU rep.

Do your own research and choose someone else to insult.

[Smoothbackground]

I’ve cited as fact because I was citing facts. Just because you don’t know it, doesn’t make it untrue.

Facts are verifiable. You are unable to point to a single thing to corroborate your “facts” because they are something you have either made up, guesstimated or had spoon-fed to you by a CWU rep.

Do your own research and choose someone else to insult.

Have I insulted you?

[Smoothbackground]

I’ve cited as fact because I was citing facts. Just because you don’t know it, doesn’t make it untrue.

Your “hard facts” seem to be quite wobbly and elastic, nor do they bear up to scrutiny.

In his most recent post to this forum Martin Walsh referenced there being 83,000 delivery OPGs. In one of its recent TV-style shows the CWU mentioned there being 19,000 new-entrant delivery OPGs. This means new entrants now make up almost a quarter of the delivery workforce (22.9% to be slightly more precise). This increase of several percentage points in less than a year, esp bearing in mind the supposed recruitment freeze while the takeover was going through, show that it is a steep-climbing trajectory.

[Barnacle]

I’ve cited as fact because I was citing facts. Just because you don’t know it, doesn’t make it untrue.

Your “hard facts” seem to be quite wobbly and elastic, nor do they bear up to scrutiny.

In his most recent post to this forum Martin Walsh referenced there being 83,000 delivery OPGs. In one of its recent TV-style shows the CWU mentioned there being 19,000 new-entrant delivery OPGs. This means new entrants now make up almost a quarter of the delivery workforce (22.9% to be slightly more precise). This increase of several percentage points in less than a year, esp bearing in mind the supposed recruitment freeze while the takeover was going through, show that it is a steep-climbing trajectory.

My numbers are based on all employees.

Stop trying to find numbers in order to disagree with my numbers. You aren’t even a union member so do not have access to info.

If you don’t want to believe my numbers because they don’t fit your theory, fine.

[postmanpatscat2]

Only problems that ever seem to come up between old and new are usually to do with seniority? Some new starters that think that they should get their own walk after being with the company for five minutes and that it's "so unfair" they have to do all the crap stuff for a few years! Even though the rest of us all had to take a turn at that when we all started!

All the rounds in our office are crap and unachievable now. Even single duties nobody wants because they have to take their oversize parcels m, whereas as shared van duties throw out shoe box or over sized packets out.

Seniority doesn't mean s**t here now and doesn't make you any better off even if you have a top 3 pick..

[SkiSunday]

I’ve cited as fact because I was citing facts. Just because you don’t know it, doesn’t make it untrue.

Your “hard facts” seem to be quite wobbly and elastic, nor do they bear up to scrutiny.

In his most recent post to this forum Martin Walsh referenced there being 83,000 delivery OPGs. In one of its recent TV-style shows the CWU mentioned there being 19,000 new-entrant delivery OPGs. This means new entrants now make up almost a quarter of the delivery workforce (22.9% to be slightly more precise). This increase of several percentage points in less than a year, esp bearing in mind the supposed recruitment freeze while the takeover was going through, show that it is a steep-climbing trajectory.

I think you'll find that a large percentage of those 19,000 new starts have already left the business akshully.

[itsthepostie]

I’m a new start, in just over a year now…

Imho we aren’t even Royal Mail staff. The old contracts are Royal Mail staff. New contracts are, I don’t even know what we are tbh…

Anyway, I’ve enjoyed my time there for the most part. Will be leaving in the next month for a new job. Good relations with most of the old timers. There is a clique with one arsehole at the helm, but I mean you get that almost anywhere I’d guess.

Anyway, good luck one and all.

[postslippete]

You're quite right and my gut feeling is that there will always be a two-tier workforce for years to come in RM and what is happening in the negotiations is some sort of delayed compromise. The language has changed from "levelling up" to "harmonising" new entrants pay, terms and conditions. RM doesn't want to equalise anything - it wants headcount flexibility and cost savings. There might be a 'framework' by the CWU to try and reverse the two-tier model but it's over 3 years and in the meantime offices are recruiting even more new entrants on inferior pay, terms and cons. So what is stopping RM from using the next 3 years to lock in as many cheap contracts as possible??

There is no recruitment freeze because of the USO reforms which I suspect are leading regular staff to go on sick, leave work behind etc etc and the Union are heavily involved in trying to make these reforms work....But the numbers don't lie and if 1 in 4 are on inferior contracts now and recruitment continues, then this could quite easily be 1 in 3 in the next year or so and at which point the equalisation plan then becomes either too expensive to implement or conveniently forgotten.

The USO reform is a double edged sword - it's primarily designed to reduce staff numbers and increase our overall manageable workload. But if the business continues to recruit more staff on lower terms and more legacy staff leave then ultimately it will undermine any national pay gains, create a lot of resentment and further weaken our bargaining position for the future. RM is playing the long game here. If they say that they can't afford to upgrade the new entrants pay, terms and conditions now - then obviously they have zero intentions of doing so in the future.

[SkiSunday]

You're quite right and my gut feeling is that there will always be a two-tier workforce for years to come in RM and what is happening in the negotiations is some sort of delayed compromise. The language has changed from "levelling up" to "harmonising" new entrants pay, terms and conditions. RM doesn't want to equalise anything - it wants headcount flexibility and cost savings. There might be a 'framework' by the CWU to try and reverse the two-tier model but it's over 3 years and in the meantime offices are recruiting even more new entrants on inferior pay, terms and cons. So what is stopping RM from using the next 3 years to lock in as many cheap contracts as possible??

There is no recruitment freeze because of the USO reforms which I suspect are leading regular staff to go on sick, leave work behind etc etc and the Union are heavily involved in trying to make these reforms work....But the numbers don't lie and if 1 in 4 are on inferior contracts now and recruitment continues, then this could quite easily be 1 in 3 in the next year or so and at which point the equalisation plan then becomes either too expensive to implement or conveniently forgotten.

The USO reform is a double edged sword - it's primarily designed to reduce staff numbers and increase our overall manageable workload. But if the business continues to recruit more staff on lower terms and more legacy staff leave then ultimately it will undermine any national pay gains, create a lot of resentment and further weaken our bargaining position for the future. RM is playing the long game here. If they say that they can't afford to upgrade the new entrants pay, terms and conditions now - then obviously they have zero intentions of doing so in the future.

[SkiSunday]

Like we've been saying now for many years, RM want to reduce the so called "legacy" staff. I'm sure DK will be more interested in reducing "Management" rolls on the next cutback, then the York pushers/machine unblockers in processing.

[Smoothbackground]

I’ve cited as fact because I was citing facts. Just because you don’t know it, doesn’t make it untrue.

Your “hard facts” seem to be quite wobbly and elastic, nor do they bear up to scrutiny.

In his most recent post to this forum Martin Walsh referenced there being 83,000 delivery OPGs. In one of its recent TV-style shows the CWU mentioned there being 19,000 new-entrant delivery OPGs. This means new entrants now make up almost a quarter of the delivery workforce (22.9% to be slightly more precise). This increase of several percentage points in less than a year, esp bearing in mind the supposed recruitment freeze while the takeover was going through, show that it is a steep-climbing trajectory.

My numbers are based on all employees.

Stop trying to find numbers in order to disagree with my numbers. You aren’t even a union member so do not have access to info.

If you don’t want to believe my numbers because they don’t fit your theory, fine.

I have identified and cited references for the figures I’ve quoted. You, on the other hand, have bandied your own “stats” around on this forum as though hard facts. As I say, your figures don’t bear up to scrutiny.

[Smoothbackground]

I’ve cited as fact because I was citing facts. Just because you don’t know it, doesn’t make it untrue.

Your “hard facts” seem to be quite wobbly and elastic, nor do they bear up to scrutiny.

In his most recent post to this forum Martin Walsh referenced there being 83,000 delivery OPGs. In one of its recent TV-style shows the CWU mentioned there being 19,000 new-entrant delivery OPGs. This means new entrants now make up almost a quarter of the delivery workforce (22.9% to be slightly more precise). This increase of several percentage points in less than a year, esp bearing in mind the supposed recruitment freeze while the takeover was going through, show that it is a steep-climbing trajectory.

I think you'll find that a large percentage of those 19,000 new starts have already left the business akshully.

Really? How would you know? As we uncovered on the other thread — remember, the one where you were rumbled — you are an ex employee who no longer works for the business. Unless you’ve since rejoined on a new-entrant contract??

[SkiSunday]

I think you'll find that a large percentage of those 19,000 new starts have already left the business akshully.

Really? How would you know? As we uncovered on the other thread — remember, the one where you were rumbled — you are an ex employee who no longer works for the business. Unless you’ve since rejoined on a new-entrant contract??
[/quote]

How would I know? Because 90% of new starts at my DO over the last 3 years have left... What exactly is your point here other than attacking a fellow member of this forum??