New pay offer announced

[POSTMAN]

- Royal Mail still refuses to pay the correct holiday pay for part timers who work above their contracted hours.

- Royal Mail is still blocking the Agenda for Growth section of a national agreement which allows for part timers to get an increase in contracted hours based on the actual hours they regularly work. The Union is demanding that part timers should get an increase in contracted hours.

https://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communi ... 62&t=81790" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm sure there is more in the CWU bulletins, the stickies in this forum.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Furthermore, the real sticking point is now the Pension because the Union has already won on some major issues and they cannot really win or stop further modernisation and cost cutting g - they really cannot justify going against more productivity and flexibility in a changing and diminishing market.

So why should anyone in the Defined Contribution since 2008 vote to lose pay for the same people that abandoned them or could not care much about them in the last big dispute?

Cake and eating it comes to mind...

We didn't vote on the 2008 Pension changes it was forced on us, we didn't abandon anyone. In fact, we went on strike in 2009.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Can someone please explain why part time 20 hour a week staff should support a strike??
All we have heard so far only seems to apply to full time staff.

We need the full facts please.

Except of course the Union trying to get everyone in the same pension scheme, with the WinRs one being less beneficial to FTimers than the current one.

Not forgetting them including average hours for leave for Ptimers in the current negotiations.

Of course, later starts for FTs means PTs will also start later as well.

Also if we accept legacy payments being withdrawn, albeit voluntarily, for a lump sum, whats to stop them doing the same to the delivery supplement, Christmas Bonus etc. Or even if they bring in different shift patterns for new starters, whats to stop them imposing it on current PT time (and FT) on the same basis as they have tried with legacy payments.

All the facts are on here, but people have to research and read between the lines to see/judge how its going to affect them. Neither the Union nor RM can reasonably be expected to cite what the impact the changes will have individually, they can only generalise.

[clashcityrocker]

We didn't vote on the 2008 Pension changes it was forced on us, we didn't abandon anyone. In fact, we went on strike in 2009.

If the pension changes were introduced by executive action, then we had the option of striking over that issue.
We didn't. We didn't offer any resistance. We have allowed the 2 tier pension system to fester for the past 9 years without the union putting forward any proposals to change that.
I don't remember striking in 2009 in solidarity with my new colleagues who were on an inferior pension scheme.

We (the union) did abandon our new colleagues, just as we have done too little to advance the cause of holiday pay.
We have seen Unison and Unite winning court cases for their members but I don't remember the CWU doing the same.
I think the CWU has been absent from the debate on p/t rights in the workplace. I think that is gross negligence on their part and I hope it doesn't bite them on the arse in the upcoming dispute.

[regalia25]

Furthermore, the real sticking point is now the Pension because the Union has already won on some major issues and they cannot really win or stop further modernisation and cost cutting g - they really cannot justify going against more productivity and flexibility in a changing and diminishing market.

So why should anyone in the Defined Contribution since 2008 vote to lose pay for the same people that abandoned them or could not care much about them in the last big dispute?

Cake and eating it comes to mind...

We didn't vote on the 2008 Pension changes it was forced on us, we didn't abandon anyone. In fact, we went on strike in 2009.

Surely the whole point of striking is to prevent it being "forced on us". As the CWU are expecting us to do now.

[jetblack]

Yep - its quite a clever trick to have split the workforce over pensions (which they have done and are currently still trying to do over other issues).
What would have been the chances of anyone going on strike in 2009 for the rights of postmen and women who weren't even working for Royal Mail at that point ? People seem to hum and haa over striking for their own terms and conditions, let alone those of future employees not even currently in the employ of RMG.
Of course, 5 or 6 years down the line you've got a divided workforce and you've effectively hung yourself with the rope provided by management.

The union need to be a bit more savvy in this regard.


Still, they are definitely on the right course with one pension for all with the WINRS scheme. Can't do much about past mistakes, but we can do the right thing going forward.

Just to be clear, those on the current DB scheme will be worse off under the WINRS scheme (way better off than under RMG proposed DC scheme though) - whilst current members of the DC scheme will be way better off under the unions WINRS scheme.

[chrisj]

Thanks Postman for the insight into the world of CWU bulletins - we only see these bulletins here; we do not have a union rep and the area rep is useless.

Nonetheless, saying that RM refuses to do something is not a ringing endorsement of the Union's effort on a matter that is just as crucial; if not more than three very expensive defined benefit pension enjoyed by employees prior to 2008 or legacy payments or even pay rise.

Can you imagine the impact of a success on part time benefits and entitlements will make to what is now a growing percentage of the workforce and it will stop RM's drive for a predominantly part time workforce. And such a thing will help us all in the end. All with a push for folks in delivery to do the job properly and work their time - more jobs and less demand for unreasonable productivity push in some areas.

So they talk about things does not mean they will do anything specific - we have already being divided but the Union is not saying how we can all benefit after this dispute.

Are they seriously going to push for defined benefit for all - I do not think so!

The CWU needs to communicate better - they have a lot email but not using them. Only now am I getting a letter from CWU after all this time and it was just wooley. But there is a live chat on Facebook tonight - yippee; but am working OT... I doubt it will address part timer's concern.

If the CWU cannot make RM do the things that they agree to then what are we doing?

[chrisj]

Yep - its quite a clever trick to have split the workforce over pensions (which they have done and are currently still trying to do over other issues).
What would have been the chances of anyone going on strike in 2009 for the rights of postmen and women who weren't even working for Royal Mail at that point ? People seem to hum and haa over striking for their own terms and conditions, let alone those of future employees not even currently in the employ of RMG.
Of course, 5 or 6 years down the line you've got a divided workforce and you've effectively hung yourself with the rope provided by management.

The union need to be a bit more savvy in this regard.


Still, they are definitely on the right course with one pension for all with the WINRS scheme. Can't do much about past mistakes, but we can do the right thing going forward.

Just to be clear, those on the current DB scheme will be worse off under the WINRS scheme (way better off than under RMG proposed DC scheme though) - whilst current members of the DC scheme will be way better off under the unions WINRS scheme.

Why would you strike for new starters? Obvious! Isn't it?

Because, in the words of the Manic Street Preachers, 'if you tolerate this then, you children will be next...'

Furthermore, the future new starters are going to be your colleagues and stalwarts of the future; and you might just come to rely on them...

Did anyone envisage that we will now be at a stage where the number of part timers is almost as full time, and park and loop and ft/pt pairings; double/treble prepping and senior colleagues ending up being reserves and newer part timer walkholders after revision.

Of course, we are the 'self preservation society'&

[sweepster70]

Furthermore, the real sticking point is now the Pension because the Union has already won on some major issues and they cannot really win or stop further modernisation and cost cutting g - they really cannot justify going against more productivity and flexibility in a changing and diminishing market.

So why should anyone in the Defined Contribution since 2008 vote to lose pay for the same people that abandoned them or could not care much about them in the last big dispute?

Cake and eating it comes to mind...

We'd be zero hours and minimum wage in no time with a view like yours chrisj.
There is no way a Postman working for Royal Mail would come out with a statement like that. Your view means nothing, as this ballot will not include you.
If CWU/Royal Mail negotiate anything close to the WINRS pension for us all, then they will see their pension rise dramatically and I'm talking thousands each year.

[fishtank]

While it's obviously right to try to protect the terms and conditions of those yet to join the business and I've always campaigned against accepting any changes to future benefits there is a distinction to be made between someone choosing a job with poorer benefits and someone having those changes imposed on them after they have invested 20-30 years of their working life in the company.

There are very few choices available for a 50 year old postie who's spent 30 years destroying their body for Royal Mail when they find out they're going to be £5000 poorer in retirement, blaming those staff for not fighting hard enough to keep the DB scheme open to new entrants when it was £8 billion in deficit and threatening to drag the business and our jobs under is a bit pathetic.

[jetblack]

Thanks Postman for the insight into the world of CWU bulletins - we only see these bulletins here; we do not have a union rep and the area rep is useless.

a) if you are interested you can get access to LTB's by going to the CWU website. No need to rely on anyone then. b) become a rep. Get someone to nominate you. Be active. Take part. Do something.

So they talk about things does not mean they will do anything specific - we have already being divided but the Union is not saying how we can all benefit after this dispute.

I just explained briefly how everyone will benefit under the CWU proposal on pensions in my last post.

Are they seriously going to push for defined benefit for all - I do not think so!

Why in Christs name do you think that ballots are going out this week exactly ? Don't tell me - to keep the printers in work, right ?

If the CWU cannot make RM do the things that they agree to then what are we doing?

Er, looking at someone to blame ??

.. there is a distinction to be made between someone choosing a job with poorer benefits and someone having those changes imposed on them..

I hear what you are saying FT. But the end result of making that distinction is that you've (not you personally of course) wilfully laid the ground work for a divided workforce and undermined the [future] effectiveness and/or possibility of collective bargaining.
Same idea with legacy payments.
Its poor strategy on the unions part. Its all well and good till you get to the end game and you have the dawning realisation that you actually lost the game about 9 moves back.

[clashcityrocker]

blaming those staff for not fighting hard enough to keep the DB scheme open to new entrants when it was £8 billion in deficit and threatening to drag the business and our jobs under is a bit pathetic.

Not really.
It wasn't that we didn't fight hard enough, we didn't fight at all. And it should have been obvious that sooner or later they were coming for us.
Perhaps in 2008 we should have negotiated a unified position.
As it is, it appears the union is a little late arriving at the party, that all of a sudden (after 9 years) they are worried about the two tiers.

I also get the feeling that if the pay proposal was 3- 4% and there were no changes to the pipeline, then nobody would be discussing the proposed pension changes.
Certainly nobody would be contemplating strike action over the changes.

[k979aaa]

What is new about a bribe a few hundred quid and forever lose 2.6% as it stands today if I am not mistaken what they don't tell you is it is pro rata so you only get a percentage of the bung. And money is not everything it is what they want for it and that price would be a price too much if they knew the whole truth what royalmail want from YOU!

[wacko74]

It's such a derisory revised offer, especially the ''lump sum'' (more of a pimple sum) it's clearly not even worth consideration and does make me think that RM really aren't that worried about strike action taking place despite all the propaganda.

[sweepster70]

blaming those staff for not fighting hard enough to keep the DB scheme open to new entrants when it was £8 billion in deficit and threatening to drag the business and our jobs under is a bit pathetic.

Not really.
It wasn't that we didn't fight hard enough, we didn't fight at all. And it should have been obvious that sooner or later they were coming for us.
Perhaps in 2008 we should have negotiated a unified position.
As it is, it appears the union is a little late arriving at the party, that all of a sudden (after 9 years) they are worried about the two tiers.

I also get the feeling that if the pay proposal was 3- 4% and there were no changes to the pipeline, then nobody would be discussing the proposed pension changes.
Certainly nobody would be contemplating strike action over the changes.

There are a lot of people like myself who will be loosing over £7000 a year.That's £140 a week less in pension money, so to say that nobody would be discussing the proposed pension changes is wrong.