Can we have a simple explanation?

gb93 · Post by **gb93** » 13 Mar 2017, 20:11

1.... 35 hour week. Is that including a paid 40 min meal relief as now.
2.... Shorter working week & a pay rise. Does that mean ft will get an increase in their take home pay on top of a shorter working week. Or does it mean our take home pay will remain the same but the hourly rate will go up.
I for one don't think these points are being explained clearly enough especially point 1 so would like some top union bods to explain them more clearly to members.

plaguelift · Post by **plaguelift** » 13 Mar 2017, 21:29

1 Yes. Paid 40 minute break. (Although I think they're trying for unpaid)
2. Reduction in hours to 35 but take home pay remains the same. (A sneaky way of giving us a pay rise)

gb93 · Post by **gb93** » 14 Mar 2017, 09:35

Thanks for that put in a clear simple way.
I for one think if we can get the 35 hour week with a 30 min paid break it would be a good result.
And I am quite happy about the pay rate to if it means pt getting a pay rise. ( lm ft by the way)

South_London_Postie · Post by **South_London_Postie** » 14 Mar 2017, 14:11

As a full timer you will get a hourly pay rise too as your overtime rate will go up.

So if you worked 39 hours (Including overtime) after the deal, depending where in the country you are you could see up to an extra £58 a week. Not bad aye!

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 14 Mar 2017, 15:29

the target of 35 hrs a week wont be achieved until 2019 though. (that's if it IS achieved)

walkthewalk · Post by **walkthewalk** » 14 Mar 2017, 16:04

So all p/t staff get a pay rise but f/t staff do not get a pay rise, the union I pay into will say it saves jobs and at the same time I'm hoping the union are fighting this Moyà is no doubt forcing the union into a corner, we all knew this was coming hence why we should all be part of the union to make Moyà not as bullish in deteriorating our jobs.

Martin Walsh · Post by **Martin Walsh** » 14 Mar 2017, 16:14

The need for a Shorter Working Week is compelling. Every reduction we have ever had and we have had 4 in the last 32 years has included a pay increase.

From an activist view and I mean senior activist most are saying our claim must include a pay rise especially as over the next 3 years inflation is predicted to be over 2.5%.

In terms or meal reliefs our claim is to still have paid meal reliefs. However professional drivers do not have paid meal reliefs and currently work a 35 hour net Working Week.

Part timers will automatically get a pay increase due to the Shorter Working Week.

The cost of the Shorter Working Week is let's say a debatable. Under the Way Forward the 90 minute reduction 68% was absorbed. Under BT 2010 the hour was where it can be absorbed.

Remember what if Royal Mail who are under real pressure to improve effirency from Of COM who measure effirency by hours and traffic namely Weighted Items Per Gross Hour suddenly recorded less hours due to the Shorter Working Week the end result is Royal Mail's effirency goes up provided they clear the work with those hours.

Now it won't be as easy as that as Royal Mail wants pensions savings , they want all legacy payments removed including PHG , Ex Bonus , RRIS payments and the Christmas bonus £100. They want no sick pay for the first 3 days half pay reduced from 6 months and SSP early , they want to pay you for hours you have actually worked not your attendance times. They want much much more including later starts etc.

So on the reduction of the Working Week we want both reduced hours and improved pay.

Are we heading for a battle on these issues it certainly seems it. Royal Mail and its big shareholders want to reduce staffing costs as currently the only two things which is making them money is GLS and selling buildings. The key strategy from them now is to reduce staffing costs from pensions, pay , cuts in jobs and office closures.

Rommagic · Post by **Rommagic** » 14 Mar 2017, 16:18

Dingo any EVR in the next two years you think?.

Martin Walsh · Post by **Martin Walsh** » 14 Mar 2017, 16:23

They have said they want to cease MTSF as they think the terms need to be reduced and are currently unaffordable .

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 14 Mar 2017, 16:26

knockin bet.

datasaint · Post by **datasaint** » 14 Mar 2017, 16:52

Won't a 35 hour week work in their favour anyway. If there is less indoor work, which is predominantly done by FT 39 hour staff, then they would have had an issue with what to do with them.

Seems clear though a PT workforce is what they want, who will flex up when it's heavy.

calum1502 · Post by **calum1502** » 14 Mar 2017, 17:02

dingo wrote:The need for a Shorter Working Week is compelling. Every reduction we have ever had and we have had 4 in the last 32 years has included a pay increase.

From an activist view and I mean senior activist most are saying our claim must include a pay rise especially as over the next 3 years inflation is predicted to be over 2.5%.

In terms or meal reliefs our claim is to still have paid meal reliefs. However professional drivers do not have paid meal reliefs and currently work a 35 hour net Working Week.

Part timers will automatically get a pay increase due to the Shorter Working Week.

The cost of the Shorter Working Week is let's say a debatable. Under the Way Forward the 90 minute reduction 68% was absorbed. Under BT 2010 the hour was where it can be absorbed.

Remember what if Royal Mail who are under real pressure to improve effirency from Of COM who measure effirency by hours and traffic namely Weighted Items Per Gross Hour suddenly recorded less hours due to the Shorter Working Week the end result is Royal Mail's effirency goes up provided they clear the work with those hours.

Now it won't be as easy as that as Royal Mail wants pensions savings , they want all legacy payments removed including PHG , Ex Bonus , RRIS payments and the Christmas bonus £100. They want no sick pay for the first 3 days half pay reduced from 6 months and SSP early , they want to pay you for hours you have actually worked not your attendance times. They want much much more including later starts etc.

So on the reduction of the Working Week we want both reduced hours and improved pay.

Are we heading for a battle on these issues it certainly seems it. Royal Mail and its big shareholders want to reduce staffing costs as currently the only two things which is making them money is GLS and selling buildings. The key strategy from them now is to reduce staffing costs from pensions, pay , cuts in jobs and office closures.

Any good news to convey to the Members Dingo ? (:

Martin Walsh · Post by **Martin Walsh** » 14 Mar 2017, 17:07

Yes the CWU are not agreeing to Royal Mails plans and have proposed a united pension scheme for all which is significantly better than the DC scheme Royal Mail want.

The reality is if not for the union We would be working under Royal Mail plans already and with a Inferior DC scheme.

calum1502 · Post by **calum1502** » 14 Mar 2017, 18:00

dingo wrote:Yes the CWU are not agreeing to Royal Mails plans and have proposed a united pension scheme for all which is significantly better than the DC scheme Royal Mail want.

The reality is if not for the union We would be working under Royal Mail plans already and with a Inferior DC scheme.

Agree 100% Dingo .No Union=RM have Carte blanche to do what they want ! Good to hear we are fighting it .

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 14 Mar 2017, 18:09

I think part of any agreement has to address the increased outdoor workload and the average age of our delivery staff, the business at present has no strategy for dealing with older members of staff other than getting rid of them through IHR. In the past processing offered some kind of escape route when delivery became physically too demanding but that's no longer a viable option.

Even PostNL which has always been a favourite model for the business has a strategy for dealing with older members of delivery staff, it is absolutely embarrassing that Royal Mail is allowed to bury its head in the sand over an issue that can only get worse with a poorer pension on offer, a longer wait for state pension, no MTSF and no default retirement age.