Mirror reckon they know...

[Rob Ray]

It is understood that the deal would give posties a £175 lump sum to cover from April - when the talks should have been concluded - to October and be followed by a 5.4 per cent rise this month and a further 1.5 per cent next April.

Article here

/7 months is £25 a month extra over the period of the dispute

Assuming an average postal worker wage of £17,000, thats er... 1.02% one-off pay increase for that period afat average goes? Is that right? followed by resetting to previous wages, then six months at 5.4% more (so over the year that'd be 3.21% for the average worker) and another year presumably at 1.5%? Assuming the percentage raise is cumulative, which it probably won't be, 8% pay rise by April 2009?

Sorry my maths ain't my strong point so if a numbers type comes on they should check that...

[baldrick]

Radio 4 reporter at the talks is saying that there has been some movement on changing the retirement age to 60.
And he says that flexibility proposals would be negotiated locally.

[Pokemon Postmon]

Link broken...here's a new one!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories ... -19945819/

I don't like this idea of negotiating next years paydeal as how can they predict what interest rates, etc will be then?
Still, it's all a bit too vague to really judge ATM.

[strangler]

It is understood that the deal would give posties a £175 lump sum to cover from April - when the talks should have been concluded - to October and be followed by a 5.4 per cent rise this month and a further 1.5 per cent next April.

Article here

/7 months is £25 a month extra over the period of the dispute

Assuming an average postal worker wage of £17,000, thats er... 1.02% one-off pay increase for that period afat average goes? Is that right? followed by resetting to previous wages, then six months at 5.4% more (so over the year that'd be 3.21% for the average worker) and another year presumably at 1.5%? Assuming the percentage raise is cumulative, which it probably won't be, 8% pay rise by April 2009?

Sorry my maths ain't my strong point so if a numbers type comes on they should check that...

Figures were on display for last few days in my office same as above. Not sure about 8%, as you say wait for a numbers type to come on here.

[norbet colon]

Link broken...here's a new one!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories ... -19945819/

I don't like this idea of negotiating next years paydeal as how can they predict what interest rates, etc will be then?
Still, it's all a bit too vague to really judge ATM.

Crozier's arrogance is staggering , his huge but very fragile ego cannot deal with any criticism whatsoever .So he's basically saying run that old banger into the ground , run round like a lunatic etc, all that petrol , come in early etc , H&S goes out of the window. That's a right cowboy corporate attitude , if you don't like it tough; from the late 80's/early 90's. It's amazing how those cowboy outfits change their attitude ,when a H&S Inspector comes round . All he's bothered about, is saving money, all take ,no give .

[de-coded]

If this comes out correct then MDEC workers would get the following,

£175 Lump Sum works out at an equivlant of 2.1% Pay Rise for the backdated element, then if 5.4% if then applied a monthly increase of £63.72 a month, taking the annual salary to £14916.

Then after next years increase of 1.5% annual wages would be £15139. Still someway off the wages of a postman

[lovejoy]

If this comes out correct then MDEC workers would get the following,

£175 Lump Sum works out at an equivlant of 2.1% Pay Rise for the backdated element, then if 5.4% if then applied a monthly increase of £63.72 a month, taking the annual salary to £14916.

Then after next years increase of 1.5% annual wages would be £15139. Still someway off the wages of a postman

Yes but remember that Royal Mail didn't even want you to have any pay rise and the CWU forced you in with OPGs!!!!

[madsorter]

man i feel for mdec workers, i used to do video coding and its no easy job let me tell u, used to be more drained from a shift of that than sorting packets, wrist aches that stay with you for weeks, flashing letters in front of the eyes when you goto bed etc etc, surely they should be payed in line with us ????

[de-coded]

Madsorter - When you did video coding did alot of you suffers from Tendonitis related problems ?

cheers

[phgsog]

in agreement with you madsorter why shouldnt mdec get paid the same as us video coding was less enjoyable than the old code desks with v/c your eyes are strained more your fingers ached more i just could not get into it looked forward to the break every hour the old code desks just seemed more fun with their jams and the odd £10 pound note come through that had been put in place by IB much more relaxed
fingers crossed on a good outcome to this strike at least we have got some more people to bitch about other than some of the braindead jv's

[IWW Fellow Worker]

The CWU have got to look after the MDEC's, which means we have got to support the CWU when they do. All the way back out onto the street if that's what it takes.

[astrobatz]

I used to do MAA coding, started getting migranes every night.
Stopped and went on LSM's, No more migranes.

[Spedley]

If we earn £17000 per year then

The new pay offer:
£17000 + 5.4% = £17918 (this year)
£17918 + 1.5% = £18187 (from next April)

The old pay offer:
£17000 + 2.4% = £17408
£17408 + 2.4% = £17825 (I can't remember if 2.4% was affered next year?)

As you can see we are £362 better off over 2 years but when you consider the £500 we've lost due to getting the deal it is not so good :(
The only thing in it's favour is that the £362 would be every year and would also be subject to pay rises but I wouldn't count on RM not to have new plans by then.

It is just aswell it's never been about pay!

[Rob Ray]

Surely you'd add the two years together for each to make £872 difference over two years?

Except the 5.4% is only active for six months (starting from the agreement being signed to next april) so that'd be

£17000 + (5.4%/2) + £175 lump sum = £17634 (this year)
Then £18187 (for next year).

That'd be £588 better off over two years on a salary of £17,000?

[catch]

If we earn £17000 per year then

The new pay offer:
£17000 + 5.4% = £17918 (this year)
£17918 + 1.5% = £18187 (from next April)

No it's not!

You don't get a pay rise for April - October (just lump sum) - half the year!

So:

The new pay offer:

£17000 + 2.7% = £17459 + £175 lump sum mean you're only about £200 better off than the old deal this year.

£17918 + 1.5% = £18187 (from next April)

The old pay offer:
£17000 + 2.4% = £17408
£17408 + 2.4% = £17825 (I can't remember if 2.4% was affered next year?)

Then £300 better off next year (although iirc the old deal didn't say anything about next year so you'd have a chance to negotiate, which is given up for the next year and a half in the new deal just to make the numbers look better than they actually are for the media.

edit: Rob Ray beat me to it!