Made to come in 40 minutes early to cover unpaid break

[reddevils]

New starters have always been paid less, I can't recall I ever got "angry" when I found out I was earning less than the postie next to me, or he got 6 weeks holidays to my 4 weeks.

It is vastly inferior. It is a substantial lower per hour wage, they do not get paid breaks, they do not get the delivery supplement worth well over £100 a month, they have to work Sundays, they are not entitled to SA rates.

There has never been a time in royal mail where the comparison between the two posties doing the same job in terms of pay and terms and conditions is so stark. This is in a cost of living crisis and at a time when housing costs are sky high. A significant proportion of new entrants are young people, or people in their 20's who have not been able to purchase property, build savings and so are greatly affected by this.

I am on a legacy contract but I think people need to get some perspective. We can look at historic allowances, or 6 weeks annual leave or new starters in the past having to do a year or two before their wages rising. However none of this compares to the plight of new starters coming into the business. Their terms and pay have been absolutely decimated!

[menditsa]

For example if your paid hours are 08.00 to 15.30 and you take a total of 40 mins break your finish time to clock out is 16.10
Forget what legacy contracts do by clocking off 20 mins early at the end of their shift you can not on the new contract

This is where it f***s up when working with 2 diff contracts, would your partner wait 40 mins while you took your break ? No

That's not what the wtr says. The minimum is a 20 minute break, which does not have to be paid during the working time. The question here is can the break be split into two if it exceeds 20 minutes and can part of it be at the end of the working time? Do other employers do this? Is it reasonable to make a contractual stipulation when the working time has finished?

I'm fully versed with WTD for mobile workers and non mobile workers.

Yes the 40 min break can be split into 2 x 20 min breaks as they exceed the 15 min minimum.

No you cannot take the remaining 20 min at the end.

You totally overlooked the point I made that a new contract cannot clock off 20 mins early, ie: 15.50 as per example I gave.

[Tman]

Can anyone clock off early?

[reddevils]

In its 500 year history there has never been a time where a two-tier contract has created such an extreme gap in pay and terms
between postmen/women.
At one point, like I posted, there was a time served increment meaning your pay could rise the more service you did. There is no
such thing for post 22 starters, their pay is fixed.
On a Sunday they get standard mandatory rates. Many posties on a new contract end up working
both Saturday and Sunday both for standard pay.

If you think you had it badwhen you started and are on a pre-22 contract you have no comprehension of the pay, terms
and conditions that the new staff are suffering.

[Emohawk]

I cannot believe the new starters do not seem to know what their pay, terms and conditions are when they accept the job. And then get angry about it all when they start.

I don't think they get angry at the pay terms and conditions. I think they get angry and being paid less.for doing the same job.

[Emohawk]

New starters have always been paid less, I can't recall I ever got "angry" when I found out I was earning less than the postie next to me, or he got 6 weeks holidays to my 4 weeks.

Yes, but after a year you were on the same pay, and after 20 years you were on the same holiday entirely. Not the case for new starters.

[TopperGas]

Simple thing to do is look for a new job, if the argument is there's none around paying anything better then that justifies RM are paying new starters the correct salary?

Perhaps it also means legacy workers are now over paid but reducing an employees salary is virtually impossible without making them redundant.

[SpacePhoenix]

Simple thing to do is look for a new job, if the argument is there's none around paying anything better then that justifies RM are paying new starters the correct salary?

Perhaps it also means legacy workers are now over paid but reducing an employees salary is virtually impossible without making them redundant.

I personally think that RM are waiting for the number of "Legacy" staff to drop below a certain number then all "Legacy" will be forced onto the newer contracts. RM will know roughly how much each employment tribunal will cost and they'll likely have a figure in mind of what their willing to pay for lost tribunals.

[zacattack]

It's not cheap to hire and train someone, then it takes a few months for the new starters to bed in and be anywhere close to the speed of the older staff so, with the amount of churn that RM have with new staff, i doubt they're saving anywhere near what they thought.
London staff are on £16.24 an hour which compares well with a lot of other jobs with a low barrier to entry but even on that atleast 50% are gone within 3 months.
God only knows what the churn rate is outside London because £13 whatever it is doesn't compare well.
We all know how dm26 will go preisely because RM can't keep staff and the level if sick is so high 75% of sickness is due to the job with knees, backs, shoulders etc, people basically crippled, with DM26 that isn;t going to improve any.
Right now offices that should have 50 staff are having to manage with 40 odd (roughly what they'll have when DM26 comes in) but the moment they 'officially' go to DM26 they need 37 staff will but end up having to manage with 30 to 32.
The more things change the more things stay the same

[Yamr1]

253 UNITS HAVE BEEN DEPLOYED
2/5 150 UNINTS
9DF (1) 44 UNITS
THE OTHERS DIFFRENT OPTIONS

MOST PICKING THE 2/5

[TopperGas]

Simple thing to do is look for a new job, if the argument is there's none around paying anything better then that justifies RM are paying new starters the correct salary?

Perhaps it also means legacy workers are now over paid but reducing an employees salary is virtually impossible without making them redundant.

I personally think that RM are waiting for the number of "Legacy" staff to drop below a certain number then all "Legacy" will be forced onto the newer contracts. RM will know roughly how much each employment tribunal will cost and they'll likely have a figure in mind of what their willing to pay for lost tribunals.

Why do you bother with such scaremongering, even without a union a UK company would struggle to impose a new, inferior, contract on tens of thousands of employees, Witham union they'll have no chance.

What they could well do is offer to buy out the Delivery Supplement etc and so standisise the contracts. We're still losing legacy staff on virtual a weekly basis so it won't be long before they are in the minority, although once they are they'll be nothing for new contracts to be "angry" about it as they will be in the majority!!

[TopperGas]

It's not cheap to hire and train someone, then it takes a few months for the new starters to bed in and be anywhere close to the speed of the older staff so, with the amount of churn that RM have with new staff, i doubt they're saving anywhere near what they thought.
London staff are on £16.24 an hour which compares well with a lot of other jobs with a low barrier to entry but even on that atleast 50% are gone within 3 months.
God only knows what the churn rate is outside London because £13 whatever it is doesn't compare well.
We all know how dm26 will go preisely because RM can't keep staff and the level if sick is so high 75% of sickness is due to the job with knees, backs, shoulders etc, people basically crippled, with DM26 that isn;t going to improve any.
Right now offices that should have 50 staff are having to manage with 40 odd (roughly what they'll have when DM26 comes in) but the moment they 'officially' go to DM26 they need 37 staff will but end up having to manage with 30 to 32.
The more things change the more things stay the same

I sense they are simply writing the cost off on the basis it's a means to an (cheaper) end, as if my DO is anything to go by they couldn't careless if staff leave.

[Emohawk]

Simple thing to do is look for a new job, if the argument is there's none around paying anything better then that justifies RM are paying new starters the correct salary?

Perhaps it also means legacy workers are now over paid but reducing an employees salary is virtually impossible without making them redundant.

I personally think that RM are waiting for the number of "Legacy" staff to drop below a certain number then all "Legacy" will be forced onto the newer contracts. RM will know roughly how much each employment tribunal will cost and they'll likely have a figure in mind of what their willing to pay for lost tribunals.

Why do you bother with such scaremongering, even without a union a UK company would struggle to impose a new, inferior, contract on tens of thousands of employees, Witham union they'll have no chance.

What they could well do is offer to buy out the Delivery Supplement etc and so standisise the contracts. We're still losing legacy staff on virtual a weekly basis so it won't be long before they are in the minority, although once they are they'll be nothing for new contracts to be "angry" about it as they will be in the majority!!

Is this the same Union that agreed to the new inferior contracts in the first place?

[tramssirhc]

Simple thing to do is look for a new job, if the argument is there's none around paying anything better then that justifies RM are paying new starters the correct salary?

Perhaps it also means legacy workers are now over paid but reducing an employees salary is virtually impossible without making them redundant.

I personally think that RM are waiting for the number of "Legacy" staff to drop below a certain number then all "Legacy" will be forced onto the newer contracts. RM will know roughly how much each employment tribunal will cost and they'll likely have a figure in mind of what their willing to pay for lost tribunals.

Why do you bother with such scaremongering, even without a union a UK company would struggle to impose a new, inferior, contract on tens of thousands of employees, Witham union they'll have no chance.

What they could well do is offer to buy out the Delivery Supplement etc and so standisise the contracts. We're still losing legacy staff on virtual a weekly basis so it won't be long before they are in the minority, although once they are they'll be nothing for new contracts to be "angry" about it as they will be in the majority!!

The CWU has form on the mass introduction of new contracts. We only have to look at what happened to CWU members at BT to see how the CWU functions and what it's role is. Should an employer want a standardised contract it will use a union to convince it's members the contract is the right choice for the members. Have a look at the TSSA and what they did to their members at Railtrack. Employers don't need to force conditions on workers when they have a willing stooge in unions like the CWU.

[SpacePhoenix]

Simple thing to do is look for a new job, if the argument is there's none around paying anything better then that justifies RM are paying new starters the correct salary?

Perhaps it also means legacy workers are now over paid but reducing an employees salary is virtually impossible without making them redundant.

I personally think that RM are waiting for the number of "Legacy" staff to drop below a certain number then all "Legacy" will be forced onto the newer contracts. RM will know roughly how much each employment tribunal will cost and they'll likely have a figure in mind of what their willing to pay for lost tribunals.

Why do you bother with such scaremongering, even without a union a UK company would struggle to impose a new, inferior, contract on tens of thousands of employees, Witham union they'll have no chance.

What they could well do is offer to buy out the Delivery Supplement etc and so standisise the contracts. We're still losing legacy staff on virtual a weekly basis so it won't be long before they are in the minority, although once they are they'll be nothing for new contracts to be "angry" about it as they will be in the majority!!

They wouldn't struggle to impose new contracts. Anyone who didn't agree to them would leave and go to an employment tribunal. Even if someone wins their tribunal, they won't get their job back. It's just down to how much money overall RM are willing to pay out for employment tribunals that they lose.