How many are only bothered about the money?

[dvbuk55]

Difference being the £100 put into basic pay will be payed every year and increase
each year rather than just one off payment.
So quite an improvement in my eyes. Over 20 years it is over £2000 opposed to £100.

Yes I thought someone would come up with that informative nugget - however this agreement is for 3 years only and after that? How many people do you think will be employed in 20 years time in what will be left of the core business. Put in true perspective it is £2 a week, less tax, insurance and the inevitable increase in subs year on year for as long as your employment survives.

[Martin Walsh]

Dvbuk as usual you understand wrong the £300 was never for agreeing a deal it was and is a replacement for colleague share and there will be two payments per year one before Christmas and one in April.

Now why would anyone rather have £100 lump sum rather that into your weekly pensionable pay I do not know.

[dvbuk55]

Dvbuk as usual you understand wrong the £300 was never for agreeing a deal it was and is a replacement for colleague share and there will be two payments per year one before Christmas and one in April.

Now why would anyone rather have £100 lump sum rather that into your weekly pensionable pay I do not know.

Ask those who are left what they think 5 years from now. Replacement for colleague share? How come it was promised by Moya to those who didn't strike ? Which was a master stroke by the way and one the union hadn't an answer for, legal or not. One thing I didn't misunderstand dingo was those who touted BT2010 as the deal of the century and now I eagerly await the repercussions of the ground breaking deal. Which looks like it isn't going to address the pension issue again nor the problems in delivery and has now gone back to a 3 year deal................nothings agreed until everything is agreed..............well most things that is...........well what RM decided they would agree to.

Now how about the survey on deliveries and then to see if they would take action.................well they voted to take action and guess what......no need to guess.

[chrisj]

I have to admit that dingo assertion that the £300 lump sum offered as part of the pay deal was infact something to do with colleague share is mystifying - where did that information come from.

It is quite suspicious that the sum as specifically quoted in the pay deal and it was on the presumption that we did not Strike before Xmas... Could it be that the CWU knows a lot more than we do about RM's tactics or that the CWU through dingo are now trying to claim that the £300 which was later turned into a bribe for non-strikers was a red herring, all along.

I do not think so, myself. At the time, the £300 bribe got the CWU worried and it was reflected in the bulletins and was even reflected in the vote results. The other funny thing about the result is that the CWU were qucik to claim an overwhelming success at the ballot whereas they were quietly bricking it because of the relative large numbers of NOs, neutrals, non-members and that £300 bribe that about colleague shares all along.

Union hierarchy is appearing just like our politicians - they just want your vote and after that, they know what is best for you; and they do not even have to tell you anything; until next time that they want your vote, again. And they will sing like canaries when they are winning...

[OnAFlyer]

My understanding is that the £300 is now £200 and the other £100 has gone into the pay rise so you get it week in week out year in year out.

If the original offer was 2.6% and it has been significantly improved with the £100 in our basic does that mean ill be getting 2.65%?

Isn't £100 0.5% (of £20k) not 0.05%, so 2.6% would become 3.1%.

If the pay has only been increased by 0.05% then the CWU need a calculator and have been done over because that's £10 per year.

[robd]

Dvbuk as usual you understand wrong the £300 was never for agreeing a deal it was and is a replacement for colleague share and there will be two payments per year one before Christmas and one in April.

Now why would anyone rather have £100 lump sum rather that into your weekly pensionable pay I do not know.

am somewhat confused by this,a payment that replaces the profit related pay scheme(colleague share) is to be made in dec and april,is this in addition to the half yearly dividends we are expected to receive from our actual shares??

[north london driver]

how was the colleague shares issue been brought in this agreement nothing was mentioned before.
the colleague shares should be a seperate issue it was a farce from day one, if the union was going to
contest royal mail with the falseified figures of when staff should have been paid out this should have gone to
a high court, one minute shares were making a profit then overnight the money dissapeared, leighton and his crew
at the time should all be doing time now.

[dvbuk55]

how was the colleague shares issue been brought in this agreement nothing was mentioned before.
the colleague shares should be a seperate issue it was a farce from day one, if the union was going to
contest royal mail with the falseified figures of when staff should have been paid out this should have gone to
a high court, one minute shares were making a profit then overnight the money dissapeared, leighton and his crew
at the time should all be doing time now.

No doubt there'll be some bullshit explanation for it BUT if it IS colleague share money they're paying us with our own money yet again.

[chrisj]

My understanding is that the £300 is now £200 and the other £100 has gone into the pay rise so you get it week in week out year in year out.

If the original offer was 2.6% and it has been significantly improved with the £100 in our basic does that mean ill be getting 2.65%?

Isn't £100 0.5% (of £20k) not 0.05%, so 2.6% would become 3.1%.

If the pay has only been increased by 0.05% then the CWU need a calculator and have been done over because that's £10 per year.

You are right onaflyer - it is 3.1% not 2.65. I will do my own calculation next time...

[arnold cheshire]

Difference being the £100 put into basic pay will be payed every year and increase
each year rather than just one off payment.
So quite an improvement in my eyes. Over 20 years it is over £2000 opposed to £100.

£1.28p a week thanks cwu

[postality]

Difference being the £100 put into basic pay will be payed every year and increase
each year rather than just one off payment.
So quite an improvement in my eyes. Over 20 years it is over £2000 opposed to £100.

£1.28p a week thanks cwu

Every little helps

[arnold cheshire]

Difference being the £100 put into basic pay will be payed every year and increase
each year rather than just one off payment.
So quite an improvement in my eyes. Over 20 years it is over £2000 opposed to £100.

£1.28p a week thanks cwu

Every little helps

it certainly does

[cloherty1976]

Dvbuk as usual you understand wrong the £300 was never for agreeing a deal it was and is a replacement for colleague share and there will be two payments per year one before Christmas and one in April.

Now why would anyone rather have £100 lump sum rather that into your weekly pensionable pay I do not know.

This is twisting something to the extreme. She offered £300 not to go on strike end of!

[Martin Walsh]

Cloherty complete rubbish , she put her offer in a letter to Dave Ward based on negotiations about a profit share scheme which would be aimed at the replacement of colleague share.

The bribe only came about once we balloted .

[cloherty1976]

Cloherty complete rubbish , she put her offer in a letter to Dave Ward based on negotiations about a profit share scheme which would be aimed at the replacement of colleague share.

The bribe only came about once we balloted .

Have we seen it?