Another VR question..

[wacko74]

Can anyone confirm if there is a definite agreement/rule in place that establishes who would be given preference for any VR that is being offered? Is it based on seniority or are there any other criteria taken into consideration?.. i.e. who they can get rid of the cheapest?

I have tried doing a search but can't find anything specific. Thanks!

[Budfrog]

I believe that it is still seniority for OPGs ... different system for managers where they look more closely at cost.

[broughts]

U dnt have to be over 55,anybody is eligible and its done on seniority

[Dorset Plodder]

Knowing RM Wacho I would agree that it'd probably be done on cost. As an employer who would you get rid of? Postie A..who has 30 odd years in the business (So will cost you x amount of weeks pay per year) or Postie B ...who may only have been in for 3 or 4 years (therefore costing you less)?

Postie A (the 30 year man) is also likely to be much older, nearer retirement, and more likely to hang on until the bitter end, no matter how much you add to his delivery and mess him about. He'll have one eye on his considerable pension.

Postie B (the 4 year man) is more likely to be younger, hasn't been in the business long enough to build up a large pension and IMO is going to be CHEAPER to get rid of. On a plus side, for RM, he is also less likely to take all the s**t that's being added on a weekly basis and may very well Jack...saving RM the need to get rid of anyone!

Either way the decision is not going to be made just to keep an old Postie happy and let him retire early.

[Martin Walsh]

The criteria for VR is set out in the MTSF agreement. It used to be first those who were 55 to 64 and half in seniority order. The age discrimation law introduced a couple of years ago changed this. It is now based on pure seniority order.

However it also depended on the resourcing pool for the jobs ie if it was nights in a Mail centre going then it could be that only night duties would be offered VR , it would still then be offered in seniority to those on nights.

[Dorset Plodder]

Your info is appreciated as always Dingo. However do you not think there's probably an RM accountant out there sharpening his pencil....and the bottom line is always going to be the cost to the business?

[wacko74]

Thanks for the replies, I assumed it would be based on seniority but thought the now privatised RM might be a bit more pragmatic and business minded and base it on cost... either way I'm sure I won't be lucky enough to get offered it!

[maisymoo04]

Your info is appreciated as always Dingo. However do you not think there's probably an RM accountant out there sharpening his pencil....and the bottom line is always going to be the cost to the business?

They say every person who takes vr/evr it takes the company 3 years to crawl back the cash u being serious come on

[Martin Walsh]

The average VR cost is 50 grand so it does take Royal Mail at least 2 years to make the saving. I have known some cases where Royal Mail have said the cost of VR to an individual is over 120 k and that in their view it is cost probative but sometimes this can be resolved.

It is no secret that Royal Mail believe the costs within the MTSF are too high in terms of VR and pay protection and are far better than most companies offer. The CWU have managed to keep MTSF and extended the time for a review.

[N1-22postman]

It is based on seniority in our delivery office. 4 VR`s are being offered because of duty cuts and full timers being replaced by part timers. I have accepted my VR offer. I am 62 and done 36 years delivering. I will not miss park and loop!

[maisymoo04]

It is based on seniority in our delivery office. 4 VR`s are being offered because of duty cuts and full timers being replaced by part timers. I have accepted my VR offer. I am 62 and done 36 years delivering. I will not miss park and loop!

Mmm loads a moneeeyyyyyy

[Dorset Plodder]

I can't really see any reason for RM to accept Voluntary Redundancies if the cost is as prohibitive as Dingo suggests.
The way things are going, people will just jack after they've taken enough crap! I always thought it was a standard industry practice to start mucking everyone about when you were thinking of making redundancies. It saves money because people will just leave....and you haven't got to give them anything !!

I think the problem a lot of people make, in all walks of life, is that they believe things should be designed to benefit them!

When in fact it usually turns out that things are more often than not designed to suit others, normally their employers!