Could some kind person do an EVR calculator?

[stephen500]

As the heading, Could somebody put up a calculator for EVR untill 2013 based on the proposed aggreement.
I would love to see where I stand.
Thanks.

[Judgee]

It varies according to age, pension pot etc. But going by what I was offered its around £8k + 1 weeks wages for every year you have worked for RM. Add another £1k for phantom shares which they pay on top. This is for Someone under 40 years of age with no pension pot.

Not particularly accurate for you I guess but it might give you a rough idea of what they might offer

[postie222]

Existing MtSF arrangements will remain in place for all employees, except for 50-54 year old RMPP qualifying members where the statutory change in the Minimum Pension Age
1200 8th March 9
Business Transformation 2010 and Beyond
means that they will only receive compensation based on aggregate service subject to a minimum of 6 months and a maximum of two years’ pay, calculated as follows:

0.5 weeks’ Pay for each full year of service where age during year less than 22

1.0 weeks’ Pay for each full year of service where age during year is 22 or above, but less than 41

1.5 weeks’ Pay for each full year of service where age during year is 41+
and multiplied by 3.75.
This is the deal if the agreament is ratfied

[Postal1]

So this means that even if someone only has 1year service will receive 6months pay?

[stephen500]

Thanks for your answers.
One last question what is classed as pay for evr?
Basic pay, yes.
allowances??

[headscrewedon]

So this means that even if someone only has 1year service will receive 6months pay?

YES, but...
After October 2010, EVR would be offered in strict seniority order, so someone with only 1yrs service would be unlikely to actually get EVR. Unless their whole office / mail centre was being closed

[gary1961]

Existing MtSF arrangements will remain in place for all employees, except for 50-54 year old RMPP qualifying members where the statutory change in the Minimum Pension Age
1200 8th March 9
Business Transformation 2010 and Beyond
means that they will only receive compensation based on aggregate service subject to a minimum of 6 months and a maximum of two years’ pay, calculated as follows:

0.5 weeks’ Pay for each full year of service where age during year less than 22

1.0 weeks’ Pay for each full year of service where age during year is 22 or above, but less than 41

1.5 weeks’ Pay for each full year of service where age during year is 41+
and multiplied by 3.75.
This is the deal if the agreament is ratfied

In the new download pdf document from "cwule.org/Document/MTSF.pdf" the multiplied by 3.75 is missing. Does this mean that the amount is no longer multiplied by 3.75, or is it a clerical error?

[Carnoustie]

Existing MtSF arrangements will remain in place for all employees, except for 50-54 year old RMPP qualifying members where the statutory change in the Minimum Pension Age
1200 8th March 9
Business Transformation 2010 and Beyond
means that they will only receive compensation based on aggregate service subject to a minimum of 6 months and a maximum of two years’ pay, calculated as follows:

0.5 weeks’ Pay for each full year of service where age during year less than 22

1.0 weeks’ Pay for each full year of service where age during year is 22 or above, but less than 41

1.5 weeks’ Pay for each full year of service where age during year is 41+

and multiplied by 3.75.
This is the deal if the agreament is ratfied

In the new download pdf document from "cwule.org/Document/MTSF.pdf" the multiplied by 3.75 is missing. Does this mean that the amount is no longer multiplied by 3.75, or is it a clerical error?

Even if the 3.75 multiplier is still in force, there is a stark fact that's just occurred to me.

Using the basic tot-ups highlighted above, anyone whose total weeks' pay is greater than 28 will get the maximum 104 weeks pay (2yrs', in old money ) AND NEVER MORE THAN THAT.

But that number (28) can be reached at a relatively young age.....

For example, person A joined RM at around age 19.

3 yrs service x 0.5 weeks = 1.5 weeks pay
18 yrs service x 1.0 weeks = 18 weeks' pay
6 yrs service x 1.5 weeks = 9 weeks' pay

So, he's entitled to 28.5 weeks pay x 3.75, right ?
WRONG. Because that works out at 106.875 weeks, and you can't get more than 2 years' money (104 weeks' pay)

So, at age 46, with 27 years service behind him, his payout will never get any bigger, no matter how many more years service he accrues