Voluntary retirement ?

[Tman]

It's never been based solely on seniority. There were other factors like age, length of service etc which were all taken into account, but the bottom line always was losing staff at the cheapest cost.

P/Ts have probably got first go at VR because that's why they were recruited in the first place, ie, they could be cheaply and easily dispensed with if the need arose, unlike F/Ts.

CWU should never have agreed to P/Ts in the first place.

[Tman]

Best of luck on that, then.

I see you've got no time for the odious Billy Bragg either?

[johnnyp]

why are p/t staff being given first choice of vr?
In the last few years, its went on seniority?

who agreed change, when and why?

just another thing the cwu have given up on.

im furious.

its about time some senior folk in the business from the cwu(funded by the tune of 27 million) got thir fingirs oot.

Are VRs covered by the MTSF National Agreement?

[POSTMAN]

I always though VR's were done on seniority,wasn't that one of the things that was going on before the strikes,management were by-passing seniority and sending letters to different members who were on the right shift to go ie nights.

One bloke down our way went and he wasn't the most senior man,he just happened to be on nights.

[johnnyp]

All of ours have been done on seniority using the MTSF agreement.im 100% sure of it.

[DGP1]

What is this beast 'voluntary retirement', I always thought it a mythical creature (like the Yeti), it's never happened in my office and because my office now runs on OT I can't see it happening anytime soon.

[johnnyp]

Normally occurs when you have surplus staff mate.

[Tman]

All of ours have been done on seniority using the MTSF agreement.im 100% sure of it.

But it isn't that simple, as I've previously said.

Over a certain age (was 60 a while back) you had no chance, and below a certain age/number of years you had no chance either, and in between those factors, you had the "powers-that-be" choosing who could go on a cheapness or "how much can RM afford to lose them" basis.

At it's most simple, RM would choose two members of staff at £20,000, rather than two at two years salary (the rough max you could ever get) if there was to be a reduction in numbers.

[DGP1]

Normally occurs when you have surplus staff mate.

Surplus we have surplus managers but not staff

[johnnyp]

Normally occurs when you have surplus staff mate.

Surplus we have surplus managers but not staff

[gaza1968]

The reason is that is some offices in east of Scotland the duties that were lost after a revison were part time, and there were more fuul time than before so royal argued that vrs had to be offered to the part time staff first based on seniorty but if none wanted it then bumping exercise would take place where an full timer would get EVR then a part timer would be made up to full time, in practice very few part timers take up the offer. I would add that we argued against the managment postion but also did a sweep of the part timers and found out that they never wanted it as the were getting a full time contract if they refused the offer

[Stormproof]

I was told today our EVR letters are due next week, we already have 13 vacant duties and they want to lose another 10 , so we won't have any surplus staff, at this rate we won't have any staff at all.

[Martin Walsh]

VRs are covered by the MTSF agreement. The fact is if there is a surplus and the need for VRS then the first indivudals who get asked is those ageed between 55 and 65 in senioirity order. Then after it is based on seniority order down but with a cap on those who are ageed between 50 and 54 who may leave on the basis on TMA by mutural concent. If this still does not remove the surplus then MTSF allows those who are aged between 50 and 54 to leave on full terms albeit it Royal Mail have started to stop this happening on the grounds of cost.

There is no agreement to allow just part time staff to go in front of full time. The only way this should happen if the revision is purely based on part timers. If it based on both full time and part time staff then management are breaking the National Agreement and a disagreement should be raised at Area Level and if neccesary to Divisonal level who can refer a point of principle to our repsective headquaters.

The CWU have not agreed any changes to the MTSF, so it is not right to criticise .

[johnnyp]

Cheers for that info dingo