Pay offer update! 0.37% Self funded!

Spedley · Post by **Spedley** » 19 Apr 2016, 13:59

I don't believe any of this. Also, I don't believe talks have just started 3 weeks after the pay rise was due.

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 19 Apr 2016, 17:01

Spedley wrote:I don't believe any of this. Also, I don't believe talks have just started 3 weeks after the pay rise was due.

The unofficial ones have been going on for months, this is the first unofficial notice of the first official offer, but with the managers kicking off about theirs I expect RM and the CWU to play hardball.

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 19 Apr 2016, 17:10

worktotime wrote:I may sound thick but can somebody tell me what these payments are ? RRIS , PBS , ICS .

RRIS - Recruitment Retention Incentive Scheme

PBS (Productivity Bonus Scheme).
ICS (Interim Consolidated Scheme).

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... =1&t=74101" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dingo wrote:Prior to PBS was outstanding bonus money from wound up bonus schemes such as Delivery Remuneration.

Some of this money helped get others the full £100 Christmas Bonus and also paid for £5 of the £26 .28 pay rise in 2003.

Under BT2010 PBS and ICS become reserved rights payments to those offices who still had them and only staff employed prior to this receive them.

Stormproof · Post by **Stormproof** » 19 Apr 2016, 18:29

I rely on my PBS payment every month, probably like a lot of staff. It may not be a lot but every little helps. They can shove their pathetic offer I'd rather keep my bonus.

Post by **pj2001** » 19 Apr 2016, 20:40

Cwu and RM come up with this sort of crap every time they want to stitch you up with a deal that has more strings than the Philharmonia Orchestra. You'll end up with 2%, 6 hour delivery's working 9 till 5 and all the other crap they want to force on you. Ditch the Cwu give yourselves a pay rise instead of paying spivs in shiny arsed suits to stitch you up, rant over

tansorboy · Post by **tansorboy** » 19 Apr 2016, 21:13

Good idea to get rid of all the old allowances, imho. All the rounds are the same, aren't they? So why should some people earn more than others? Especially failed phgs....

Post by **pj2001** » 19 Apr 2016, 23:04

tansorboy wrote:Good idea to get rid of all the old allowances, imho. All the rounds are the same, aren't they? So why should some people earn more than others? Especially failed phgs....

I take it that you don't have any 'old allowances' that you can thrown in the pot, this is a wage cut and the real no no is that the cwu thinks that this is acceptable to its members

Post by **Lounge Lizard** » 20 Apr 2016, 06:36

So we can keep the weekly £23.58 Delivery Supplement ?

Post by **milly** » 20 Apr 2016, 09:29

I very much doubt that this story has any truth in it.
Most of the ex PHGs in my office have long since retired and they are becoming fewer year on year.
I am probably one of around 30 left in my office, and out of that number at least half of them are near or at retirement age and would take VR in a blink of an eye.
There are no significant savings to be made by taking away reserve rights in my opinion.

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 20 Apr 2016, 14:17

pj2001 wrote:
tansorboy wrote:Good idea to get rid of all the old allowances, imho. All the rounds are the same, aren't they? So why should some people earn more than others? Especially failed phgs....
I take it that you don't have any 'old allowances' that you can thrown in the pot, this is a wage cut and the real no no is that the cwu thinks that this is acceptable to its members

So why did they refuse it.......

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 20 Apr 2016, 14:34

I'm not sure it's wise to speculate too much on rumours of rejected pay deals since by their very nature even if they are true they are no longer valid since they've been rejected, these payments are very important to some members and hearing they may be at risk will cause unnecessary worry.

That brings me to my next point, why would you "leak" a rejected deal?

motherhubbard · Post by **motherhubbard** » 20 Apr 2016, 14:43

fishtank wrote:
That brings me to my next point, why would you "leak" a rejected deal?

So that when you present a crap deal you can legitimately claim that it is better than what was originally on offer.

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 20 Apr 2016, 14:57

There was a time when I pictured negotiations as a rocky film, two giants slugging it out for 15 rounds, both bloodied and bruised and slightly brain damaged at the end but with a bit of mutual respect for each other.

I think it really appears to go like this..

Royal Mail: here's a really s**t offer you can leak to your members and get them really pissed off.
Union: cheers
Royal Mail: we'll spend the next 6 months "locked in talks" in some plush hotel on expenses of course.
Union: nice
Royal Mail: here's the real deal we'll announce in 6 months as a triumph of cooperation.
Union: sorted

motherhubbard · Post by **motherhubbard** » 20 Apr 2016, 15:46

fishtank wrote:There was a time when I pictured negotiations as a rocky film, two giants slugging it out for 15 rounds, both bloodied and bruised and slightly brain damaged at the end but with a bit of mutual respect for each other.

That might have been how it was ......maybe up until Eubank v Watson.
I'll let you decide which boxer the CWU most resembles.......

Post by **POSTMAN** » 20 Apr 2016, 15:47

It's from a very good source.
Obviously it's a game and a piss take from them.