pay deal

[fed_up_postie]

when the pay deal is eventually agreed will we all have a back payment or will RM say the pay deal starts when its agreed?




:lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo
:lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo

[stephen500]

will RM say the pay deal starts when its agreed?

It will be as it has been recently from the date of the agreement, so if we get an agreement by the end of March 2008 we should get about one weeks pay!


:lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo
:lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo

It will be as it has been recently from the date of the agreement, so if we get an agreement by the end of March 2008 we should get about one weeks pay!

[bristolchris]

when the pay deal is eventually agreed will we all have a back payment or will RM say the pay deal starts when its agreed?




:lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo
:lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo :lfo :cfo

That will depend on how stupid AL&C are, but would hazard a pretty save guess yes ( back payment)!, as we expect nothing less.

[pistol]

they are normally backdated...time will tell i suppose???

[bigsharkboy]

it will be part of the talks they will have to consider accepting a higher % rise or take the back pay it happened a couple of years back where we accepted a higher % pay rise rather than the full back pay

it comes up at annual conference and always sparks a good debate and like the exec always says they would be mad to turn down a higher % pay rise over back pay

im sure the CWU will make it part of the debate and will be interesting to see what happens in a couple of weeks (hopefully)

[Carnoustie]

it comes up at annual conference and always sparks a good debate and like the exec always says they would be mad to turn down a higher % pay rise over back pay

WHAT ?

I think I have just lost all faith in the executive, if what you say is true bigsharkboy !

Listen, if the talks produce an agreement by September 4th, and ballot papers are sent out soon after, even assuming the deal struck is accepted by a majority vote, it's likely to be paydate Friday 28th September before we get the increase, and any backpay that is well feckin overdue. This is a pay increase that is supposed to have been done and dusted and in our pay packets in APRIL, remember

We are fully entitled to what will be almost SIX MONTHS of backpay, by the time they finally put it in our wages.

The executive need to look very closely at the detail of any proposal that offers a higher percentage increase over fully backdated backpay. If you are telling me that they will always settle for a higher percentage, we need to kick any member of the executive who doesn't have a grasp of basic maths off that executive.

If I offered you say 3.5%, fully backdated to April 2007, or 5.5% now, but with no backpay, which one would you accept ?

The mug's answer would be OOOH, GIVE ME THE 5.5%, DON'T WORRY ABOUT BACKPAY

Basic pay is £323 per week

£323 x 5.5% = £17.77/week
If that is NOT backdated, and only paid from Sept 28th - 31 March 2008 (approx 27 weeks), your total extra pay from accepting such an offer would be £479.79 (27 x £17.77)

BUT

£323 x 3.5% = £11.31/week
Backpay to April 2007 (approx 25 weeks) would be £282.75
Extra £11.31/week over the next 27 weeks, to 31 March 2008 = £305.37
Total extra pay from accepting the 'lower' offer would thus be £588.12

So the carrot of an "extra" 2% that is not fully backdated is - surprise, surprise - a con, as demonstrated above, where a lower percentage that is fully backdated is actually the better deal, by a margin of over £100.

Please don't tell me our executive are not savvy enough to work this out !!!!!!!!!

Any further rise in basic after April 2008 is a totally separate issue, a matter for the next round of negotiations, which if the recent ones are anything to go by, Dave Ward and Billy Hayes better start working on as soon as this current deal has been sorted, if it's going to take six feckin months

:lfo :cfo

[Stormproof]

Wow are you related to Carol Vordeman?

[Big Daz]

The 2.5% combined with the 23.5 million that was hidden under the double bed what will that bring basic pay up to?

Am i right in thinking around £335 a week?

[dvbuk55]

it comes up at annual conference and always sparks a good debate and like the exec always says they would be mad to turn down a higher % pay rise over back pay

WHAT ?

I think I have just lost all faith in the executive, if what you say is true bigsharkboy !

Listen, if the talks produce an agreement by September 4th, and ballot papers are sent out soon after, even assuming the deal struck is accepted by a majority vote, it's likely to be paydate Friday 28th September before we get the increase, and any backpay that is well feckin overdue. This is a pay increase that is supposed to have been done and dusted and in our pay packets in APRIL, remember

We are fully entitled to what will be almost SIX MONTHS of backpay, by the time they finally put it in our wages.

The executive need to look very closely at the detail of any proposal that offers a higher percentage increase over fully backdated backpay. If you are telling me that they will always settle for a higher percentage, we need to kick any member of the executive who doesn't have a grasp of basic maths off that executive.

If I offered you say 3.5%, fully backdated to April 2007, or 5.5% now, but with no backpay, which one would you accept ?

The mug's answer would be OOOH, GIVE ME THE 5.5%, DON'T WORRY ABOUT BACKPAY

Basic pay is £323 per week

£323 x 5.5% = £17.77/week
If that is NOT backdated, and only paid from Sept 28th - 31 March 2008 (approx 27 weeks), your total extra pay from accepting such an offer would be £479.79 (27 x £17.77)

BUT

£323 x 3.5% = £11.31/week
Backpay to April 2007 (approx 25 weeks) would be £282.75
Extra £11.31/week over the next 27 weeks, to 31 March 2008 = £305.37
Total extra pay from accepting the 'lower' offer would thus be £588.12

So the carrot of an "extra" 2% that is not fully backdated is - surprise, surprise - a con, as demonstrated above, where a lower percentage that is fully backdated is actually the better deal, by a margin of over £100.

Please don't tell me our executive are not savvy enough to work this out !!!!!!!!!

Any further rise in basic after April 2008 is a totally separate issue, a matter for the next round of negotiations, which if the recent ones are anything to go by, Dave Ward and Billy Hayes better start working on as soon as this current deal has been sorted, if it's going to take six feckin months

:lfo :cfo

Your math is correct in principle but flawed in practice.

You cannot discount future rises on the 5.5% increase which, over time, would more than recompense any back pay lost.

[bigsharkboy]

it comes up at annual conference and always sparks a good debate and like the exec always says they would be mad to turn down a higher % pay rise over back pay

WHAT ?

I think I have just lost all faith in the executive, if what you say is true bigsharkboy !

Listen, if the talks produce an agreement by September 4th, and ballot papers are sent out soon after, even assuming the deal struck is accepted by a majority vote, it's likely to be paydate Friday 28th September before we get the increase, and any backpay that is well feckin overdue. This is a pay increase that is supposed to have been done and dusted and in our pay packets in APRIL, remember

We are fully entitled to what will be almost SIX MONTHS of backpay, by the time they finally put it in our wages.

The executive need to look very closely at the detail of any proposal that offers a higher percentage increase over fully backdated backpay. If you are telling me that they will always settle for a higher percentage, we need to kick any member of the executive who doesn't have a grasp of basic maths off that executive.

If I offered you say 3.5%, fully backdated to April 2007, or 5.5% now, but with no backpay, which one would you accept ?

The mug's answer would be OOOH, GIVE ME THE 5.5%, DON'T WORRY ABOUT BACKPAY

Basic pay is £323 per week

£323 x 5.5% = £17.77/week
If that is NOT backdated, and only paid from Sept 28th - 31 March 2008 (approx 27 weeks), your total extra pay from accepting such an offer would be £479.79 (27 x £17.77)

BUT

£323 x 3.5% = £11.31/week
Backpay to April 2007 (approx 25 weeks) would be £282.75
Extra £11.31/week over the next 27 weeks, to 31 March 2008 = £305.37
Total extra pay from accepting the 'lower' offer would thus be £588.12

So the carrot of an "extra" 2% that is not fully backdated is - surprise, surprise - a con, as demonstrated above, where a lower percentage that is fully backdated is actually the better deal, by a margin of over £100.

Please don't tell me our executive are not savvy enough to work this out !!!!!!!!!

Any further rise in basic after April 2008 is a totally separate issue, a matter for the next round of negotiations, which if the recent ones are anything to go by, Dave Ward and Billy Hayes better start working on as soon as this current deal has been sorted, if it's going to take six feckin months

:lfo :cfo

i never said that we wouldnt get back pay like you said the exec would have to look very carefully into the deal and weigh up the pros and cons and we would have the final say with a ballot

and you quote 2% increase with no back pay as a example but im def no carol vorderman but who says it will be 2% it might be 3% or 10% without back pay
the point i was tryin to make was dont automatically expect backpay until we see the final deal like the previous post stated it will increase our basic pay long term rather than a short term gain in back pay

just to clarify at conferences i have attended many moons ago motions went in demanding that the CWU dont accept future pay deals where theres no back pay

and to my limited knowledge they have always failed to be carried because you would be tying one hand behind the cwu back when it comes to negioations
hope that claries my original post
trust me im looking forward to the possibility of a large lump sum of backpay but my view is RM will offer us a higher % than 2.5% and not pay the back pay as happened some years ago

[POSTMAN]

If i rem right and it was 2-3-4 years ago maybe longer as i think i was on lates (7 years ago)the pay deal went on and we didn't recieve backpay,we recieved a lump sum instead.
I'm not 100% but i'm sure there was summin like it.

But i can't see DW&BH swallowing summin like that this time round.

[pistol]

As and when the deal goes through...if it is backdated i for one think we should have our strike pay reinstated..either that or have the blacklegs scab pay stopped out of thiers..that way we havn't been doing this for them selfish gits!!! anyone agree?

[fed_up_postie]

i totally agree, scab bastards!!!!

[evilc]

As and when the deal goes through...if it is backdated i for one think we should have our strike pay reinstated..either that or have the blacklegs scab pay stopped out of thiers..that way we havn't been doing this for them selfish gits!!! anyone agree?

Yeah I do :cfo :lfo