two tier pay deal?

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 28 Jan 2016, 18:34

I was told today by a driver from the mail centre, he said the rep told him a ''double'' pay deal is being considered which for D.O. staff is to be a shorter working week with no pay rise included, and the rest of staff (mail centres, mdec etc) is to be a monetary deal but keeping their hours the same. rather strange I thought. anybody heard anything about this?

worktotime · Post by **worktotime** » 28 Jan 2016, 19:13

that should be interesting for the delivery side of it when most of us cant complete within our time and hours we do now , I wonder if it would be another 12 mins knocked off your start time if that's the case then docket should be time and a half ? , another deal of the century ?

Post by **halfull** » 28 Jan 2016, 19:20

hear-say means nothing, but i would vote yes to nothing other than a good size reduction in the working week plus a pay rise! We deserve nothing less!
I keep saying it but the current workload needs sorting before any pay is talked about! Its killing people!

Post by **the beautiful bd south** » 28 Jan 2016, 20:09

That many people in deliveries already start before there time and work their breaks and would probably be daft enough to continue doing so even if Royal Mail got away with such a ridiculous pay deal...
It's time for some people to wake up and smell the coffee.

worktotime · Post by **worktotime** » 28 Jan 2016, 20:18

the beautiful bd south wrote:That many people in deliveries already start before there time and work their breaks and would probably be daft enough to continue doing so even if Royal Mail got away with such a ridiculous pay deal...
It's time for some people to wake up and smell the coffee.

to true , we have clowns in our office who do that everyday but you get fed up of telling them to do the job as r/m and cwu requested.

Spedley · Post by **Spedley** » 28 Jan 2016, 20:21

I heard similar this morning although it may have come from this site!

It wouldn't surprise me if we went to a 35 hour week (from 39) which would be an equivalent of 11.4% pay increase which is about par for a 3 year deal. Work load would stay the same so you'd be expected to claim overtime to complete on the busier days and there would be little chance of finishing early (for those of us that do).

In 3 years RM would almost have a totally part time work force and the "11.4% in real terms" would become a significant pay cut for the rest of your employment.

Very wise move RM - many foolish people would go for it!

dids620 · Post by **dids620** » 28 Jan 2016, 20:37

Although i don't profess to be an expert in the English language but pay rise to me means money going up hence 'rise'. To reduce working hours and then claim equivalent as a pay increase is ludicrous. It doesn't put more money in my bank to tackle inflation, Council tax and anything else that rises year on year.

A2B · Post by **A2B** » 28 Jan 2016, 21:45

dids620 wrote:Although i don't profess to be an expert in the English language but pay rise to me means money going up hence 'rise'. To reduce working hours and then claim equivalent as a pay increase is ludicrous. It doesn't put more money in my bank to tackle inflation, Council tax and anything else that rises year on year.

Exactly my thoughts, very concerned about all the posts in recent weeks advocating a shorter working week, we need a pay increase to pay the bills

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 28 Jan 2016, 21:53

dids620 wrote:Although i don't profess to be an expert in the English language but pay rise to me means money going up hence 'rise'. To reduce working hours and then claim equivalent as a pay increase is ludicrous. It doesn't put more money in my bank to tackle inflation, Council tax and anything else that rises year on year.

So the same weekly pay rate but doing less hours doesn't equate to an increase in the hourly rate, and in increase in the hourly rate doesn't equate to a pay rise?

geordieboy123 · Post by **geordieboy123** » 29 Jan 2016, 05:37

Tman wrote:
dids620 wrote:Although i don't profess to be an expert in the English language but pay rise to me means money going up hence 'rise'. To reduce working hours and then claim equivalent as a pay increase is ludicrous. It doesn't put more money in my bank to tackle inflation, Council tax and anything else that rises year on year.
So the same weekly pay rate but doing less hours doesn't equate to an increase in the hourly rate, and in increase in the hourly rate doesn't equate to a pay rise?

The point being made is that reduced hours don't pay bills despite the increased hourly rate.

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 29 Jan 2016, 06:12

Tman wrote:So the same weekly pay rate but doing less hours doesn't............... equate to a pay rise?

Well done, did you work that one out yourself?
A pay rise is by its very definition an increase in pay, not an increase in hourly rate or a reduction in working hours.

gary1975 · Post by **gary1975** » 29 Jan 2016, 07:40

Surely its a pay increase for the pt staff who have no chance of ever becoming ft ?

A2B · Post by **A2B** » 29 Jan 2016, 15:25

gary1975 wrote:Surely its a pay increase for the pt staff who have no chance of ever becoming ft ?

Maybe they also want the pt staff to have shorter hours rather than increasing the hourly rate? I know there's a few pt staff on 35hr contracts so that could be an interesting scenario

Post by **rambo1** » 29 Jan 2016, 15:40

Could save them much money if they shorten our days and therefore 40 mins m/r becomes 30 mins. 10 mins doesn't seem much but x by 130000 staff..

Post by **britwrit** » 29 Jan 2016, 15:44

Any idea what they're going to do about voluntary overtime? Are we going to get paid for it when we go on holiday? (Not talking about guaranteed overtime like with SA, just what we do on the odd hours here and there week after week.)