POLL: FT,PT,deliveries or another unit. VOTE HERE NOW!!!!!!!

[Big Daz]

2010 payrise is 5.20 for a 30 hour week

My ESA is £4.65

80% of DTD calls is 376 for me

376 X 3 = 1128 X 1.67 pence is £18.83

My supplement is £15.45

Some weeks I have 3 sets, some 2 sets, some 1 set, very rarely none, various PP item payments and sometime the higher paying ones turn up when I’m on leave, happened last month. So I go for the 18.83 figure X 43 weeks to work out my annual payment, this is £809.69

My payrise is 55 pence more than the amount of ESA I lose so that and the supplement combined is £16

£16 X 52 weeks = £832


2011 payrise and the SWW boosting the hourly rate means financially the proposed agreement is irrelevant for me as a individual so my judgement as a individual comes down to operational issues.

Judging by the results of the poll so far, it's definitely a winner for part time staff on delivery.

Any part timer on delivery that votes yes needs that hole in their head plugged.It's not even up for debate,part time delivery staff are getting shafted.

The only shafting I might get will be operational and therefore no more or less than a FT and im the rep so aint no shafting gonna happen. The amount of DTD currently being delivered and the level of supplement being recieved determine if the change will be better or worse in terms of your pay after 52 weeks. It is solid fact that this agreement creates winners and loosers . Those on full 12.37 ESA1 and high amounts of DTD calls will be far more likley to be loosers in terms of figures on payslips. For some of us its the supplement being 52 weeks as to DTD being 43 weeks that stops us going under. Of course A/L also plays a part. If I had 4.5 weeks AL rather than 6 then I might not be slightly better off.

[Just_My_Opinion]

2010 payrise is 5.20 for a 30 hour week

My ESA is £4.65

80% of DTD calls is 376 for me

376 X 3 = 1128 X 1.67 pence is £18.83

My supplement is £15.45

Some weeks I have 3 sets, some 2 sets, some 1 set, very rarely none, various PP item payments and sometime the higher paying ones turn up when I’m on leave, happened last month. So I go for the 18.83 figure X 43 weeks to work out my annual payment, this is £809.69

My payrise is 55 pence more than the amount of ESA I lose so that and the supplement combined is £16

£16 X 52 weeks = £832


2011 payrise and the SWW boosting the hourly rate means financially the proposed agreement is irrelevant for me as a individual so my judgement as a individual comes down to operational issues.

Judging by the results of the poll so far, it's definitely a winner for part time staff on delivery.

Any part timer on delivery that votes yes needs that hole in their head plugged.It's not even up for debate,part time delivery staff are getting shafted.

The only shafting I might get will be operational and therefore no more or less than a FT and im the rep so aint no shafting gonna happen. The amount of DTD currently being delivered and the level of supplement being recieved determine if the change will be better or worse in terms of your pay after 52 weeks. It is solid fact that this agreement creates winners and loosers. Those on full 12.37 ESA1 and high amounts of DTD calls will be far more likley to be loosers in terms of figures on payslips. For some of us its the supplement being 52 weeks as to DTD being 43 weeks that stops us going under. Of course A/L also plays a part. If I had 4.5 weeks AL rather than 6 then I might not be slightly better off.

With reference to the above in larger print Big Daz. Is it fair that a paying member of the CWU should be a loser because of this agreement? Surely the CWU should be fighting for a deal which benefits all it's PAYING members? How do you justify to a member that has paid maybe 20 or even 30 years of subs that this agreement could as you put it make them 'a loser'?


Thanks member for the thousands of pounds you have given us over the years but this current agreement will make you 'a loser'?

[Big Daz]

No member can be convinced to vote yes if they are significantlly worse off, all that can be done is to point out that with 2011 and maybe even as late as 2012 for some will see the situation reversed. Will that be enough to make them be happy/vote yes? the realist in me says no.


I wrote down yesterday the DTD calls for each duty in my D.O all are puny compared to some of the duties expressed on this site.

Ive got a senior man who I proved to thursday would be £15 a year better off as the supplement being paid on leave is enough to counter act the weekly drop. I used the DTD figure on his payslip If he was on 4.5 weeks leave rather than 6 he would be doing more DTD over a year which would counteract the 15 a year better off and make him worse off by a similar amount.

Ive got a senior man who has 6 weeks leave on a rural with 193 calls for DTD purposes which is 155 at 80%, I doubt he wil lose out.

Ive got a junior mbr who does not get shift allowance and that is all that stands between him breaking even/slightly gaining and losing out. If had shift money it would be a different story.

[dvbuk55]

No member can be convinced to vote yes if they are significantlly worse off, all that can be done is to point out that with 2011 and maybe even as late as 2012 for some will see the situation reversed. Will that be enough to make them be happy/vote yes? the realist in me says no.


I wrote down yesterday the DTD calls for each duty in my D.O all are puny compared to some of the duties expressed on this site.

Ive got a senior man who I proved to thursday would be £15 a year better off as the supplement being paid on leave is enough to counter act the weekly drop. I used the DTD figure on his payslip If he was on 4.5 weeks leave rather than 6 he would be doing more DTD over a year which would counteract the 15 a year better off and make him worse off by a similar amount.

Ive got a senior man who has 6 weeks leave on a rural with 193 calls for DTD purposes which is 155 at 80%, I doubt he wil lose out.

Ive got a junior mbr who does not get shift allowance and that is all that stands between him breaking even/slightly gaining and losing out. If had shift money it would be a different story.

A whole, actual whole £15 a year better off - FFS - I'm surprised he's still talking to any of you with such untold wealth at his disposal - not to mention of course the increased workload he's going to get - Oh right you didn't mention that.

[Just_My_Opinion]

No member can be convinced to vote yes if they are significantlly worse off, all that can be done is to point out that with 2011 and maybe even as late as 2012 for some will see the situation reversed. Will that be enough to make them be happy/vote yes? the realist in me says no.


I wrote down yesterday the DTD calls for each duty in my D.O all are puny compared to some of the duties expressed on this site.

Ive got a senior man who I proved to thursday would be £15 a year better off as the supplement being paid on leave is enough to counter act the weekly drop. I used the DTD figure on his payslip If he was on 4.5 weeks leave rather than 6 he would be doing more DTD over a year which would counteract the 15 a year better off and make him worse off by a similar amount.

Ive got a senior man who has 6 weeks leave on a rural with 193 calls for DTD purposes which is 155 at 80%, I doubt he wil lose out.

Ive got a junior mbr who does not get shift allowance and that is all that stands between him breaking even/slightly gaining and losing out. If had shift money it would be a different story.

And what about the majority of full time delivery staff who have also paid into the CWU for years, WHO WILL BE WORSE OFF? Justify that.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Well I have just checked my own figures and last year

£877.63 in D2D
£658.84 in ESA = £1536.47 in payments I will no longer get

£1071.20 in Delivery Supplement which I will get
£352.11 with 2% rise = £1423.31 I will get

means a loss of £113.16 a year or £2.17 a week -

The cynic in me would say that I can break even or get a rise by leaving the CWU.

[Just_My_Opinion]

Well I have just checked my own figures and last year

£877.63 in D2D
£658.84 in ESA = £1536.47 in payments I will no longer get

£1071.20 in Delivery Supplement which I will get
£352.11 with 2% rise = £1423.31 I will get

means a loss of £113.16 a year or £2.17 a week -

The cynic in me would say that I can break even or get a rise by leaving the CWU.

How many are also in this boat? Is there any full timers on delivery actually making anything out of this agreement? Whether it be better terms or conditions or financially. Also TrueBlueTerrier the £877.63 was for delivering no more than 3 D2D items in a week. So the loss could actually be classed as more as the £1071.20 delivery supplement will not increase no matter if you deliver 2 or 7 D2D items a week.

[Big Daz]

Get a grip Just_My_Opinion I'm a local rep not a CWU big wig who negotiated the proposed agreement.

My job is to explain to the members in my D.O and my D.O alone the rationale behind what their national represetatives are proposing.

There is also a meeting for the members in my D.O and three neighbouring D.O's this coming thursday with the ADR, his Sub ADR and a PEC member.

If there is any justfying to be done, then the PEC member will do it Thursday.

[Just_My_Opinion]

Get a grip Just_My_Opinion I'm a local rep not a CWU big wig who negotiated the proposed agreement.

My job is to explain to the members in my D.O and my D.O alone the rationale behind what their national represetatives are proposing.

There is also a meeting for the members in my D.O and three neighbouring D.O's this coming thursday with the ADR, his Sub ADR and a PEC member.

If there is any justfying to be done, then the PEC member will do it Thursday.

Temper, temper. How will you explain to your members in your D.O. and your D.O. alone the rationale behind what their national representatives are proposing will make some of them worse off and losers as you put it earlier?

[Big Daz]

Well I have just checked my own figures and last year

£877.63 in D2D
£658.84 in ESA = £1536.47 in payments I will no longer get

£1071.20 in Delivery Supplement which I will get
£352.11 with 2% rise = £1423.31 I will get

means a loss of £113.16 a year or £2.17 a week -

The cynic in me would say that I can break even or get a rise by leaving the CWU.

Well done for solid maths on actual amount earned over 52 weeks, thats what i want mbrs in my D.O to do. I think its very important everone knows the exact changes to the figures on their payslip. If the CWU and RML had put the 3.5% this year TBT your £352.11 would rise to £616.19 which I make as leaving you £2.90 a week better off?

Something as simple as altering the % order makes the difference between seeing a higher figure on week 52 or a lower figure on week 52.

[Just_My_Opinion]

Well I have just checked my own figures and last year

£877.63 in D2D
£658.84 in ESA = £1536.47 in payments I will no longer get

£1071.20 in Delivery Supplement which I will get
£352.11 with 2% rise = £1423.31 I will get

means a loss of £113.16 a year or £2.17 a week -

The cynic in me would say that I can break even or get a rise by leaving the CWU.

Well done for solid maths on actual amount earned over 52 weeks, thats what i want mbrs in my D.O to do. I think its very important everone knows the exact changes to the figures on their payslip. If the CWU and RML had put the 3.5% this year TBT your £352.11 would rise to £616.19 which I make as leaving you £2.90 a week better off?

Something as simple as altering the % order makes the difference between seeing a higher figure on week 52 or a lower figure on week 52.

The £877.63 that TrueBlueTerrier worked out for D2D items was for delivering no more than 3 in any one week. Will the deliver supplement rise if members deliver 5,6,7 or even 8 D2D items a week?

[Big Daz]

Simple

I will explain everyhting that the powers that be have explained and then leave the mbrs to decide if thast is a good enough reason for the proposed different set up. The letter from HQ to mbrs was very clear that only they can decide if the deal is good enough for them and they were also told they would be able to vote on the most informed basis possible, that is how I conduct my affairs as a local rep.

Explaining and justfying are two different things, lets not get muddled up shall we?

It will be a dark day when someone cant explain something with being leapt upon from a great height as if they were personally responsible for what is being explained.

[Just_My_Opinion]

Simple

I will explain everyhting that the powers that be have explained and then leave the mbrs to decide if thast is a good enough reason for the proposed different set up. The letter from HQ to mbrs was very clear that only they can decide if the deal is good enough for them and they were also told they would be able to vote on the most informed basis possible, that is how I conduct my affairs as a local rep.

Explaining and justfying are two different things, lets not get muddled up shall we?

It will be a dark day when someone cant explain something with being leapt upon from a great height as if they were personally responsible for what is being explained.

So your not justifying this deal in any way, shape or form?

[clashcityrocker]

Explaining and justfying are two different things, lets not get muddled up shall we?

Big Daz you don't seem to have understood one basic fact.
Either you subscribe to the "Dave and Billy are corrupt. Gibson's an idiot. It's all about the gravy train" train of thought or you are an apologist for the deal.
Either you know someone with 6000 drops who will be losing about 10 million squids/year when we are doing 1000 D2D every day or you are out of touch with the membership.
The sad thing is the money issue is the least of our worries in this deal.

[Big Daz]

Im tallking about real money being earnt right hear and now, not potential earnings. I deal in figures on payslips and whether they go up or down in a few weeks time.

You can not lose what you never had.

Look I work 30 hours a week now and will continue to do so, there is no way on earth I can go above 3 sets of DTD a week without alterations to my duty.

All this talk of extra work is really quite amusing and is based on nothing more than a lack of faith of DTD into workload doing what it says on the tin. The way some complain you would think DTD isnt planned on going into workload.

30 hours I do now and 30 hours I shall do after revision activty.