Equalisation

[TopperGas]

Just means the people who used to do overtime won't do it anymore it'll come back to bite them

Why would the old contracts stop? Are they getting any less?

I assume they are referring to just new contracts? However it does mean old contracts are unlikely to now ever see the OT rate increased.

[SMS1969]

Just means the people who used to do overtime won't do it anymore it'll come back to bite them

Why would the old contracts stop? Are they getting any less?

I assume they are referring to just new contracts? However it does mean old contracts are unlikely to now ever see the OT rate increased.

Yeah will never happen, it just goes up with the pay rise, but ends up never more than the standard rate.

[Clappedoutpostie]

I’m on 40 hours - new contract for 30 months
If I average 2x4 hr SAs a week I will be earning over £2000 less PA than I am now
So whereas I had to do 48 hrs a week to bring my wage up to a decent (legacy) amount,now I will have to do at least 52 hours a week to reach the same amount - assuming I get the chance
And the gap between what I gross and what a legacy Will gross doing those hours of OT will be even higher than previous

I don’t think your allowed to do SA on the new contract but I could be wrong.

[Agencyoap]

I’m on 40 hours - new contract for 30 months
If I average 2x4 hr SAs a week I will be earning over £2000 less PA than I am now
So whereas I had to do 48 hrs a week to bring my wage up to a decent (legacy) amount,now I will have to do at least 52 hours a week to reach the same amount - assuming I get the chance
And the gap between what I gross and what a legacy Will gross doing those hours of OT will be even higher than previous

I don’t think your allowed to do SA on the new contract but I could be wrong.

Yeah we can but it’s classed as OT for new contracts not as an SA
But you still have to apply for it
Thing is all of our daily IPS (Parcels small and DP) are run as SAs
You apply for them each day 2 weeks in advance and you get allocated a number of 3 or 4 hour shifts dependant on number of people applying

[Shaugi]

Just means the people who used to do overtime won't do it anymore it'll come back to bite them

Why would the old contracts stop? Are they getting any less?

I’m on 40 hours - new contract for 30 months
If I average 2x4 hr SAs a week I will be earning over £2000 less PA than I am now
So whereas I had to do 48 hrs a week to bring my wage up to a decent (legacy) amount,now I will have to do at least 52 hours a week to reach the same amount - assuming I get the chance
And the gap between what I gross and what a legacy Will gross doing those hours of OT will be even higher than previous

Exactly this. OT at a higher rate used to be a benefit, OT at standard rate is a liability. By the time the tax man has had his cut we'll all be better off not doing any OT

[scotchy1962]

I know it no longer affects me but i am struggling to see why the union would endorse this.
I thought the idea was to get a pay rise and try to get the new contract workers some sort of uplift which takes them closer to legacy.
For the life of me i cannot see any reason to give someone a pay rise and then take it off their o/t rate which they rely on to get by.
Do you not want the new contracts to join the union or are they not joining in enough numbers for you to give a feck.
Is this really what it has come too, screwing over part of the workforce to aid the others, lovely!
Hopefully the membership will have a bit of humanity still in them and vote this down.

[world class male]

our negotiating team sold them yes vote on the last deal that we would all be equal by sept25, something that was never going to happen whoever run/owned RMG
then give them a kick in the ghoulies and say it's now jan27, probably then extended again,
they promised all that our pay trickle for years 2 & 3 meant that we would all get an inflation based raise, no matter
if it ends up a "no" vote then i really hope that all of those involved in negotiations over what seems an eternity admit they cannot do anything else and will all resign to give way to someone else to have a go at representing us, otherwise more and more will quit the union

[TopperGas]

I know it no longer affects me but i am struggling to see why the union would endorse this.
I thought the idea was to get a pay rise and try to get the new contract workers some sort of uplift which takes them closer to legacy.
For the life of me i cannot see any reason to give someone a pay rise and then take it off their o/t rate which they rely on to get by.
Do you not want the new contracts to join the union or are they not joining in enough numbers for you to give a feck.
Is this really what it has come too, screwing over part of the workforce to aid the others, lovely!
Hopefully the membership will have a bit of humanity still in them and vote this down.

I can't see the OT rate being reduced is aiding anybody apart from RM, it seems to me that they've decided to make equalisation cost neutral i.e. the 1.75% pay rise will be paid for them by the reduction in the OT rate.

Perhaps RM really are skint and they simply can't afford equalisation?

[TopperGas]

our negotiating team sold them yes vote on the last deal that we would all be equal by sept25, something that was never going to happen whoever run/owned RMG
then give them a kick in the ghoulies and say it's now jan27, probably then extended again,
they promised all that our pay trickle for years 2 & 3 meant that we would all get an inflation based raise, no matter
if it ends up a "no" vote then i really hope that all of those involved in negotiations over what seems an eternity admit they cannot do anything else and will all resign to give way to someone else to have a go at representing us, otherwise more and more will quit the union

New contracts only form a small minority of the CWU members voting, whatever they are offered as part of the deal is really irrelevant to the outcome of the vote.

[Agencyoap]

our negotiating team sold them yes vote on the last deal that we would all be equal by sept25, something that was never going to happen whoever run/owned RMG
then give them a kick in the ghoulies and say it's now jan27, probably then extended again,
they promised all that our pay trickle for years 2 & 3 meant that we would all get an inflation based raise, no matter
if it ends up a "no" vote then i really hope that all of those involved in negotiations over what seems an eternity admit they cannot do anything else and will all resign to give way to someone else to have a go at representing us, otherwise more and more will quit the union

New contracts only form a small minority of the CWU members voting, whatever they are offered as part of the deal is really irrelevant to the outcome of the vote.

I stand to be corrected but I understand that the additional 1.75% will only go to new entrants to vote on - of which, again I stand to be corrected, there are approx 15k members

[yellowbelly]

our negotiating team sold them yes vote on the last deal that we would all be equal by sept25, something that was never going to happen whoever run/owned RMG
then give them a kick in the ghoulies and say it's now jan27, probably then extended again,
they promised all that our pay trickle for years 2 & 3 meant that we would all get an inflation based raise, no matter
if it ends up a "no" vote then i really hope that all of those involved in negotiations over what seems an eternity admit they cannot do anything else and will all resign to give way to someone else to have a go at representing us, otherwise more and more will quit the union

New contracts only form a small minority of the CWU members voting, whatever they are offered as part of the deal is really irrelevant to the outcome of the vote.

I stand to be corrected but I understand that the additional 1.75% will only go to new entrants to vote on - of which, again I stand to be corrected, there are approx 15k members

Where do you understand this from?

[pm55]

I can't see the OT rate being reduced is aiding anybody apart from RM, it seems to me that they've decided to make equalisation cost neutral i.e. the 1.75% pay rise will be paid for them by the reduction in the OT rate.

Perhaps RM really are skint and they simply can't afford equalisation?

After the initial anger that losing that OT rate is a pay cut for me, I'm actually not that bothered by it. I've been averaging around 60 hours a week throughout christmas pressures, sometimes hitting 65 hours or so chasing that OT rate and probably average around 52 hours a week over the year.
Those big weeks are tiring and I've been thinking of reducing my hours to focus on other side projects that I can make an income from and this change just makes it so I'll never work more than 50 hours a week at RM now.

But if others do this and so much of the christmas pressure relies on people doing massive amounts of overtime, who will do the work if parcels keep increasing? Are they planning on increasing staff levels to compensate for it? More staff means more contracted hours paid out and RM runs on overtime. I wonder if this is actually a mistake from RM or if I'm just overthinking it. Interesting to see how all these changes effect the busiest time of year.