Bonus and Bribe

[Darren Bent]

Will there be a bonus whether the bribe is accepted or not. I mean outside the big agreement.

[MinisterofCucumber]

Yes, the Colleague Share plan.

We get a dividend in 2010, a sell-back opportunity in 2011 and a final sell-back in 2012.

ftp://ftp.royalmail.com/Downloads/publi ... ochure.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[headscrewedon]

Yes, the Colleague Share plan.

We get a dividend in 2010, a sell-back opportunity in 2011 and a final sell-back in 2012.

This 2010 Agreement supercedes all of that original document - if there is a Yes vote, of course.

We were supposed to get a dividend in June this year - that £400 will now be paid earlier, on ratification of the agreement.

We were supposed to get a further chunk of shares this year. Instead, those monies will be used to fund the three lump sums (£200+£400+£400) that are linked to revisions over the three years of the 2010 agreement.

The ColleagueShares already issued are still worth £1072 (at the most recent valuation of £1.51 each). The 2010 agreement states they will be bought back in 2011 and 2012, in two equal chunks of £536. Although my own understanding of that part is that the total value of those shares could increase or decrease at the next valuation date (whenever that is).

[MinisterofCucumber]

So the money we were going to get anyway now has strings attached.

FFS, this deal gets better and better.....not.

[headscrewedon]

So the money we were going to get anyway now has strings attached

Ever since ColleagueShares were introduced, loads of people have posted on here about them being phantom shares that, when the time came for RM to buy them back, would "suddenly have plummeted in value, so we get f_ck all from them".

The only guarantee was that they would be worth something at the end of the scheme. But there was a maximum total payout under the scheme of £5300, and we've had £1600 of that in dividends already. So if RM did what those past posters imagined, and cooked the books to make the share price plummet, that's ALL we would have got.

There might be strings, but at least the CWU have had some success in crystallising hard cash from the new way of dealing with the CS money. Obviously, we'd all prefer it to have gone into basic pay, but so far, this is what's been paid-out:

a) Dividends already paid-out before this 2010 agreement: £800+£400+£400 = £1600
b) Dividend brought forward on ratification of agreement: £400
c) Lump sums linked to revisions ('with strings attached'): £200+£400+£400 = £1000

That's £3000 paid out, and a possible £1072 or more to come. Plus, if the original CS scheme had continued as per the document you linked to, anyone who's joined the business since 2007 would see nothing at all from the scheme, even though they would be bound by the revisions that trigger the lump-sum payments. At least this way they will get £1400 out of it, albeit indirectly, from the payouts in parts b) and c) shown above.

[MinisterofCucumber]

Plus, if the original CS scheme had continued as per the document you linked to, anyone who's joined the business since 2007 would see nothing at all from the scheme, even though they would be bound by the revisions that trigger the lump-sum payments.

This is not true.

If the original CS scheme continues as per the document I linked to, the stakeholder dividend will be paid if we achieve overall Group profit targets.

Notice that I use the correct tense and do not write as if the agreement has already been accepted.

[headscrewedon]

Plus, if the original CS scheme had continued as per the document you linked to, anyone who's joined the business since 2007 would see nothing at all from the scheme, even though they would be bound by the revisions that trigger the lump-sum payments.

This is not true.

If the original CS scheme continues as per the document I linked to, the stakeholder dividend will be paid if we achieve overall Group profit targets.

That means you trust Royal Mail not to put provision for future redundancies into the 2009/10 accounts, so that the Group overall declares a loss, and the dividend is not paid. I notice you write as if Royal Mail are trustworthy and that the £400 was certain to have been paid

How are the ColleagueShares allocated?
To be eligible for ColleagueShares you have to be
permanent (or have a continuous long-term temporary
contract), have been employed in the UK on 17 May
2007 (the issue date)

Removing this year's allocation of ColleagueShares and replacing that with 'lump sums with strings' totalling £1000 would mean - if the agreement were to be accepted - that people who started after 17/5/2007 would get £1400 instead of nothing.

Notice that I use the correct tense and do not write as if the agreement has already been accepted.
Duly noted.

[MinisterofCucumber]

Why would RM want to fiddle Group profit results downwards?

It would mean that senior execs would not get their bonus.

Headscrewedon,

You are probably paid much more money than I am. The difference between us is that I am voluntarily trying to defend people that are being shafted. I don't get paid, I do it because I believe it is right. You may be cleverer than me but you are losing our skirmishes. This is because you are being paid to defend the indefensible.

This deal is a disgrace. How can you defend it with a clear conscience?

[k979aaa]

When will anyone who comes on here learn that BONUSES ARE ONLY PAID TOO MANAGERS NOW!.

[headscrewedon]

This deal is a disgrace. How can you defend it with a clear conscience?

Read my posts on some of the other threads. I don't agree with this deal. See http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 3&start=15" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The only part of the deal the negotiators can claim to have gained anything on is the aspect that deals with money set aside for ColleagueShares. The rest of it is cr@p. I plan to vote No and then cancel my CWU subs as soon as my ballot paper is in the post. Your other assumptions about me, my role and how much I am paid are as wide of the mark as Billy and Dave are in thinking people will vote Yes to this woeful agreement

[MinisterofCucumber]

Nice one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHL8-84ek2A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;