Good deal

[milly]

This isn't aimed at anyone but why wouldn't anyone want a reduction in their working week?

It makes perfect sense to offset the work done by machines and maintain your full time contract if you have one, also any amount that you can take off the delivery span is very welcome to my tired legs that have according to Royal Mail got to do exactly the same number of years I've already done on delivery all over again 23! So 46 years in total

I seem to work with some strange people,they are sick of working for Royal Mail and yet they are opposed to spending less time there.

[matt_1983]

This might be a stupid question, but if theres a change to a 35 hour week, how does that effect our pay. Do we stay on the same hourly rate, or will the hourly rate increase to make weekly pay same as it is now?

[wannabeek]

The idea is that we are paid the same money for doing 35 hrs work as we are currently paid for doing 39 hrs work, so an increase in the hourly rate of pay.

I remember RM saying back in the Spring that they had no objection to this principle so long as it cost the company no more money. That is to say, do the same work you currently do but in fewer hours.

It's going to be a bit of a stalemate potentially but maybe a crucial one if they want to increase delivery spans, in my opinion.

[weary_posty]

Pensions - a compromise I feel is needed. Either the CWU proposal or a larger % from the DC scheme.

Pay - to match inflation for 2 years back dated to April

Work practice - concede to slightly later starts, scrap route ownership and revise all duties implementing time for current practices such as prepping d2d, attempting delivery to neighbour, addition 2d scanning etc.

I would also like to see trolley use enforced and punishable with conduct if not used. Additionally I’d like all employees to work their full hours.

[toomuchcoke]

Pensions - a compromise I feel is needed. Either the CWU proposal or a larger % from the DC scheme.

If compromising to the DC scheme, then what I'd want would be for the RM's pension contributions to remain at the same level. Though with them spread over a larger group (some of whom are currently getting less than that) it would mean a reduction for the people currently in the DB scheme. My guesstimate a while back would be the top tier of the DC scheme would become about 6+13% instead of the 6+9% it is now. Ideally any such agreement should also include removing the current lowest tier, and working towards removing the current intermediate tier because neither of them has a hope of generating a worthwhile income in retirement.

I'd also want to do something about the current "cadet tier" of IIRC 1+1%. I can understand that the RM doesn't really want to be paying pension contributions for people who aren't hanging around that long anyway, but presumably they have some kind of guide for how long people stay so an increment at 3 or 6 months service might not be totally out of line. However that could be a fight for a later date I guess?

Pay - to match inflation for 2 years back dated to April

I'd agree to a 2/3 year deal if it was a decent-enough one! (I prefer 2/3-year deals because it means we end up in the current situation less frequently!) I'd want a least a little over inflation though, even if it was just 0.1%!

And it occurs to me that surely the RM missed a trick by offering us a 1-year deal last time. Surely they should've offered a 3-year deal then, thus meaning the current dispute would only be about the pension rather than pension + pay?

Work practice - concede to slightly later starts, scrap route ownership and revise all duties implementing time for current practices such as prepping d2d, attempting delivery to neighbour, addition 2d scanning etc.

Later starts is plausible IMHO if linked to increased automation and a reduction in the working week. i.e. your start-time moves back, but your finish-time basically stays the same, you spend the same amount of time outdoors with the reduction occurring from the indoor hours. This could tie in with the wanting to push back the acceptance time[1] and also "one wave" for those offices where it's plausible.

[1] Something I support in principle if it means capturing more business, and thus having the opportunity for high pay-rises and dividends in the future ... Though to be clear, I certainly don't support it unconditionally.