cloherty1976 wrote:
Hope you keep applying for a full time position.
I am pretty happy with my lot to be honest, was just trying to highlight that I understood where ChrisJ was coming from based on my experiences.
Thanks for the sentiment though
The problem is that there are no FT jobs to 'apply' for - not within delivery anyways.
There is very little chance that any part-timer will get FT jobs. This is not just a new thing within RM - only the lucky few have got made up because of the general revision. And from now in, there is even less of chance - the country itself has become a part-time low-paid economy.
Where does it say that the allocation of shares will be based on hours worked in the last few months? In that case some might get more shares than the average 39 hours FT contract.
If we're splitting hairs, I used to get a £13 early shift allowance and now get what £22 so = £9
Why do you get £13
Not fair why do the FT ers get shafted........
See.
If you get your facts right first you don't spout bollocks
A touch aggressive, not sure if that was entirely necessary...
However, I did n't say anything was n't fair, I just said I could see where ChrisJ was coming from, as I am in a similar P/T role. And that it irritated me that I worked more hours than them yet did not get the same bonus'.
What is all this with 'used to get' I am not referring to what used to happen I am referring to what is happening now.
cloherty1976 wrote:
Hope you keep applying for a full time position.
I am pretty happy with my lot to be honest, was just trying to highlight that I understood where ChrisJ was coming from based on my experiences.
Thanks for the sentiment though
The problem is that there are no FT jobs to 'apply' for - not within delivery anyways.
There is very little chance that any part-timer will get FT jobs. This is not just a new thing within RM - only the lucky few have got made up because of the general revision. And from now in, there is even less of chance - the country itself has become a part-time low-paid economy.
Where does it say that the allocation of shares will be based on hours worked in the last few months? In that case some might get more shares than the average 39 hours FT contract.
chrisj wrote:
Where does it say that the allocation of shares will be based on hours worked in the last few months? In that case some might get more shares than the average 39 hours FT contract.
All post by me in Green are Admin Posts. Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility. If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
wandle wrote:I have a strong feeling that The CWU (Union) probably had the biggest say in that particular matter. Why?
Because it gives you the opportunity to wheel out your divisive anti-union anti-full-time mantra....again,and again.
Part-timers are not treated badly in all offices,certainly not in mine,maybe your office is especially s**t,perhaps you all need to take a look in the mirror.
PhilthyPhil wrote:If you are PT and do OT then the extra delivery supplement is included in your OT rate
Ok , thanks for that, I was not aware of that. To be honest it was more the bonus' that were a bone of contention, I was just using the d2d payment to reinforce my point.
wandle wrote:
Employees are to receive 10% of the company's entire share capital, in the form of shares. The exact number that each employee will receive is hard for us amateurs to determine, because it's not a straight calculation. If all employees were to receive an equal amount of shares, regardless of whether they are full-time or part-time, the maths would be simple. But because the ConDems decided that part-timers will get a pro-rata (smaller) number of shares, much hangs on the ratio of FT to PT, in establishing the number. My guess is around 680-700 shares apiece, for FT staff.
!
I beg to disagree on the assuption that it was the ConDems alone that decide to give part-timers pro-rata number of shares. 10% of the shares would have been exactly the same regardless of the way it is shared out. So PT getting smaller number should be no bother to RM or govt?
I have a strong feeling that The CWU (Union) probably had the biggest say in that particular matter. Why? Because it is there typical way of operating - pandering to the more militant FT (and more senior) staff.
I am peed off about the fact that the shares have been made pro-rata - what exactly is the justification for such a move? We should have all shared and share alike regardless of hours contracted. Some people have just been made FT (lucky them) in offices where such an accommodation is possible whereas some other posties in other offices have been waiting more than 10 years to become FT with no joy.
Are FT staff more productive or not paid for the hours they work just like a PT staff? Some in my office are just about 1 or 2 months senior to others and they get to be FT staff just because...
CWU are always favouring the FT staff but they do not mind taking subs from PT staff for doing for them very little - they do not even care about their training, inferior working conditions, recurring temp contracts, stringent probation and the constant bullying from some managers and senior members of staff.
Thanks CWU.
Face facts ... we are p/t ... we will always be p/t ... we will always be pro-rata for anything (even when the Christmas Boxes arrive in the office - the f/t always get the whisky and leave us with the choccies )... this despite the fact that we p/ters know damn well that in so many areas we are being f*cked/screwed over by the f/ters - who have their cosy little niche,get away with murder ... and in many cases DO NOT do the job properly ... and ;leave us to pick up the slack ..
Can I be arsed about the share price - no ..
+1 big up for chrisJ
"We're under model" - oh no we're not - stick your lapse elsewhere ...
All PT might not be treated in a bad way but the way a lot of things are set-up means majority of PT staff are disadvantaged compared to the FT staff...
Only a FT staff will think that the lot of the PT staff is just fine and dandy.
Regardless of the number of hours worked; the 10% should have been shared equally.
What exactly difference does it make. The vast majority of PT staff will still get much lower shares than the FT colleagues. The pro-rata ideology is the problem.
For PT staff to qualify for the full value of shares, they will have to have put in a lot of OT (if any); and in delivery, I will not begrudge them their shares cos of the hard graft involved. MC is another situation totally.
Like someone said, we pay reduced Subs so perhaps we should have reduced Strike action
All PT might not be treated in a bad way but the way a lot of things are set-up means majority of PT staff are disadvantaged compared to the FT staff...
Only a FT staff will think that the lot of the PT staff is just fine and dandy.
Regardless of the number of hours worked; the 10% should have been shared equally.
What exactly difference does it make. The vast majority of PT staff will still get much lower shares than the FT colleagues. The pro-rata ideology is the problem.
For PT staff to qualify for the full value of shares, they will have to have put in a lot of OT (if any); and in delivery, I will not begrudge them their shares cos of the hard graft involved. MC is another situation totally.
Like someone said, we pay reduced Subs so perhaps we should have reduced Strike action
How about it is done on seniority so someone who has done 40 years gets forty times what someone done a year. That would be fair.
chrisj wrote: The pro-rata ideology is the problem.
I can't think of any business that does not pay staff bonuses and supplements on a pro-rata basis.
Even management and city bonuses are a percentage of salary which is much the same as pro rata.
Do you really believe that someone who works one day a week in Royal Mail should be entitled to the same bonus as someone who works 39hrs?
In that case a £400 lump sum would be the equivalent of 5 weeks wages to the part-timer and 1 weeks wages to the full-timer.
All PT might not be treated in a bad way but the way a lot of things are set-up means majority of PT staff are disadvantaged compared to the FT staff...
Only a FT staff will think that the lot of the PT staff is just fine and dandy.
Regardless of the number of hours worked; the 10% should have been shared equally.
What exactly difference does it make. The vast majority of PT staff will still get much lower shares than the FT colleagues. The pro-rata ideology is the problem.
For PT staff to qualify for the full value of shares, they will have to have put in a lot of OT (if any); and in delivery, I will not begrudge them their shares cos of the hard graft involved. MC is another situation totally.
Like someone said, we pay reduced Subs so perhaps we should have reduced Strike action
ChrisJ I don't actually agree with that bit, and this is where it might seem like I am contradicting myself if you don't read what I have written.
I don't see why someone who only works 25 hours a week is rewarded with the same bonus/ shares etc. as a F/T as they have not contributed the same (through their own choice or not). However OT should be taken into consideration and averaged hours used to determine the pro-rata payments up to the same level as F/Ters.
In my previous employment any holiday pay came with your basic + the average hours of overtime payment you had done per week for the last 13 weeks. So effectively if you regularly worked 12 hours ot for the last 13 weeks, you would get paid an extra 12 hours (at the ot rate as well, which was double dolly). I am not suggesting that should be the case with holiday payments but with regard to the other supplementary payments I think that is fair.
Hope that is clear as it is bit rushed due to the football just about to start!
chrisj wrote: The pro-rata ideology is the problem.
I can't think of any business that does not pay staff bonuses and supplements on a pro-rata basis.
Even management and city bonuses are a percentage of salary which is much the same as pro rata.
Do you really believe that someone who works one day a week in Royal Mail should be entitled to the same bonus as someone who works 39hrs?
In that case a £400 lump sum would be the equivalent of 5 weeks wages to the part-timer and 1 weeks wages to the full-timer.
Well some of the non executive directors tried to get a full allocation of free shares but were told not to accept them only a few days ago.
How about i wade into this debate. Why is it that a PTer who is contracted to work say 25 hours but say throughout the year say does 32 hours 1 week, 28 the next, 35 the week after, 31 week after that, then has annual leave takes 25 hours holiday pay as contracted, comes back to work and does 30 hours. So does that PTer just deserve to get shares for 25hours? Hell no thats not fair, and im FT
As with normal companies, no matter what pay grade etc yu are and look at the american way, every1 and even the cleaners get the same shares regardless of pay grades etc and hours worked
