Supply Chain Pay Latest

[cashman]

Dear Colleague

POL: PAY NEGOTIATIONS – ADMIN / SUPPLY CHAIN GRADES

A further meeting was held earlier today to discuss pay for our Admin and Supply Chain members. Representing the Union was Andy Furey, Assistant Secretary, and Carl Maden, Postal Executive member. The talks, on this occasion, were led by Debbie Moore, POL HR Director, together with Keith Rann, Head of Supply Chain, and Matthew Starks, Head of Employee Relations.

Regrettably, these negotiations broke down due to management’s insistence that the pay offer was totally conditional on the Union adopting Supply Chain’s strategy going forward, which includes:

 New ways of working for all
 The operation of all Cat VIII vehicles moving to a single person
 Three day working for all Crews with rostering to be scheduled over a Monday to Saturday operation
 Bank holiday working as part of normal duties

Whilst acknowledging that the monies on offer have improved on that previously published; unfortunately, the overall package now on offer is, without question, unacceptable in return for the conditions that have only just been linked to the offer.

The “conditional” revised pay offer is as follows:

 Year 1 – 2011/12 – 3% (no change from the offer previously published)

 Year 2 – 2012/13 – 3.5% (1.5% increase from the previously published offer)

 Year 3 – 2013/14 – 2.5% (the previous offer was for two years)

In regard to years 2 and 3, POL’s offer includes a small element of what they describe as “inflation-proofing”. Specifically, this means inflation first has to hit 4.5% for year 2, and 3.5% for year 3 before our members receive an additional 50% of the differential from 4.5% and 3.5% respectively. Whilst POL call this “inflation-proofing”, it is actually a formula for the continuance of depressing pay should inflation be in excess of the offer.

The “inflation-proofing” offer described above means that our members will lose out as they will not get any additional pay if inflation is between 3.5% and 4.5% in year 2, and 2.5% and 3.5% in year 3. In essence, in the event that inflation is 5% for year 2, then the 50% extra increase would only be applied from 4.5% to 5%, which would only be worth an additional 0.25%, making for a pay rise of 3.75% against an inflation background of 5%.

If the example above was replicated over years 2 and 3 of the offer, then the value of the overall pay increase would be worth just 7% in comparison to a 10% (RPI) increase in the cost of living.

Also, it should be noted, that the offer for year 1 is only 3%, whereas inflation has been consistently 5% or above for the whole of 2011 and is forecast to continue rising during the rest of the year. In effect, this means at least a further 2% reduction in our members take home pay versus the cost of living. Continuing with the example above, the value of the offer over the course of the three years would be 10% against an RPI of 15%. Essentially, POL is seeking to constantly dumb down our members’ earnings over a period of three years and then, to add insult to injury, POL insist the offer is conditional to significant changes to our members’ ways of working.

It is fair to say that this is the first time during these protracted negotiations that POL have attempted to link a change programme and changes to our members’ ways of working to the pay offer. Indeed, when POL communicated the earlier offer to our members on 24th June 2011, there was absolutely no mention of the significant changes to working conditions or the change programme required to deliver these. POL’s way of doing business can only be described as a blatant attempt to deliberately mislead our members, with the objective of getting them to embrace the pay offer, whilst not telling them the full facts.

In regard to next steps, I will be writing to Paula Vennells, POL Managing Director, outlining in detail our reasons for rejecting the “conditional” pay offer described earlier in this LTB. Our objective going forward remains that we wish to secure a one year pay agreement (with no conditions attached) that is worthy of our recommendation to the members.

It should be noted that this is now a very serious situation which is not of the Union’s making. It is POL who, at this late stage of the negotiations, has introduced a new dimension in relation to a change programme and all this entails. In view of this serious situation, coupled with the fact that no further meetings are planned, this LTB is being posted directly to our members’ home addresses so that they are fully aware of these new and unwelcome developments.

We remain committed to reaching a negotiated settlement at the earliest opportunity; however, without conflict, this is looking increasingly unlikely due to the stance of POL.

Any enquiries relating to this LTB should be directed to cbowers@cwu.org

Yours sincerely


Andy Furey
Assistant Secretary

11LTB753.doc

[WARDY]

I work for supply chain and when our depot got the terms and conditions for the rise, our guys were up in arms. who the hell is going tp work three x 12 hour shifts including saturdays as part of the normal week, give up scheduled attendance, give up bank holidays for in the long run feckin hee haw. I would rather tell them to stick their pay rise and do without and leave our working conditions as they are. What a cheek, as the first pay offer did not include any conditions are they having a laugh now at these new conditions. Well all I can say is stick it where the sun never shines.

[MinisterofCucumber]

This 'conditional' offer has united the members in my unit. Even the Nazis and the favourites will not accept this.

Are management trying to provoke a strike or is this their usual trick of presenting a totally unacceptable option first to make their next offer look less bad?

What was the Union's tough response?

The Furey "will be writing to Paula Vennells, POL Managing Director".

Didn't he write another letter to someone else, before?

It has taken 6 months for management to come up with this offer. We should have had a pay rise back in April. If the Union were serious, they would ballot us on this offer instead of subjecting us to this yearly pantomime.

It will be the same as every year. They will wait until December to ballot us on a pay deal. They will only tell us about the money and give us a vague summary of the 'strings' that are attached. Our own back pay will be used to bribe us into agreeing to something we have never been informed of, only it will be the "best deal ever".

This Christmas, could both parties do us the courtesy of making the full final offer available to both members and non-members so that everyone knows what we are voting on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmDE_Ony ... re=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;