Is it a good offer? I need convincing.

Rumple · Post by **Rumple** » 03 Feb 2018, 07:53

Reading through the offer I am sure we are being stitched up. 2 pay rises in 3 years totalling 7% is the best that we can negotiate? The shorter working week is welcome and does increase the hourly rate but does not make it a pay rise if your still taking home the same amount.
As a full timer and seeing how part timers are abused regarding over time and never seeming able to have their contracted hours increased is a joke, but all it says is the agreement that contracts should be reviewed every 6 months just as they should be now, but we know that's b/s. Part timers are being treated like 2nd class employees, quite sad to see.
As for the shorter working week that should be called "the harp agreement" with all the strings attached to it.
NRA being raised to 67, so we are expected to work an extra 2 years to access our full pension.
7% over 3 years, surely that will leave us feeling poorer as its well below inflation.
Will anyone from the CWU say it as it really is? It's the best deal that they could negotiate, but that doesn't make it a good deal.

Wornoutpostie · Post by **Wornoutpostie** » 03 Feb 2018, 08:30

It’s all “Ifs” “Maybe” “Possibly”
At the end of the day it all comes down to my pension - if I’m going loose out - it’s a no from me.

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 03 Feb 2018, 11:45

It's hard to say whether it's a good deal or not because we don't know what the alternative would have been. There was a great deal of scaremongering going on early but it's hard to say how much of that was genuine. Obviously those who support the deal will say that these were real ambitions that Royal Mail had but it's stretching credibility a lot to think that a lot of those proposals were even workable. If Royal Mail had actually wanted a 9-5 operation it would have to completely redesign the entire network and that would have to be planned and costed before it even made it to the negotiating table, if done with any genuine intention that sort of thing is years in development. Would they honestly have gone to all that trouble and then walked away from it?

As for the deal...

Pay:
It's not a great pay deal. 7% over 3 years is not going to keep pace with inflation and 2% in year 3 is very poor. They will try to mix it in with the SWW in order to make it look better the SWW does not help basic pay for full-time staff.

SWW.
While it's understandable that the union is trying to offset the reduction in indoor workload it really only works if the resourcing tools genuinely reflect achievable workload and resourcing meetings are given the priority that they need. This is addressed in the agreement but it's very woolly again and I can't see much help for reps who are out of their depth with what is an over -complicated process already. If the SWW simply turns into 12 minutes less to do the same amount of work and we fail to address the pressure staff are under to achieve these duties all we will have done is encourage more early starting, meal break skipping and unpaid overtime. There are also strings attached to the SWW that mean some offices will achieve it before others, that's a recipe for disaster and a repeat of the same mistake we made the last time.

Protections.
Basically an extra year. Not really giving us much more security.

Pensions
This is probably the biggest issue. It's not what it pretends to be, the transition scheme is not a "wage in retirement" it's just a lump sum saving and the Defined Ambition Scheme if it ever gets the go ahead is simply a collective defined contribution scheme. Although potentially having a larger pot to invest has economies of scale and can bring in greater returns there is far less control for the individual and unlike a DB scheme there is no guaranteed income after retirement. You will still be subject to fluctuations in the value of the plan. Even an individual DC plan allows more security at retirement. You can at least have a guaranteed income to work with. The CDC scheme is nowhere near a "wage in retirement" scheme and shouldn't be sold to the members as such.

Having read through the agreement in detail I think it falls short of what we need and as for Terry's comment about being on the cusp of something special, this isn't it.

woofwoof · Post by **woofwoof** » 03 Feb 2018, 13:35

Can someone explain what this part means

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 03 Feb 2018, 13:44

It was at best a poorly worded attempt at David Cameron's "We're all in this together" speech but you would think that having added both parties, presumably royal mail and the CWU they would have had the sense to add the workforce specifically rather than leave us wondering if we're included in the stakeholders.

seaside · Post by **seaside** » 03 Feb 2018, 13:46

Yes I agree with all the 3 above posts. Can live with pay rise that is below inflation. But the rest of it falls very short I'm sorry to say of what I was expecting

. Workload for posties is not going to ease, think I heard tracks were up 31%, not sure about the rise in other parcels. No extra time to deliver, which is why so many of us struggle to complete on time. Would love to know the percent of part timers that leave within a year, as in my office quite high. I think its due to workload. SWW of maybe 12 minutes nice, but again its 12 minutes less to do the same amount of work. Pensions are going to be less, by how much no idea. So to me I don't think its a good deal.

cubanpete · Post by **cubanpete** » 03 Feb 2018, 15:13

The pension situation is frightening. Royal mail suggested a DC scheme which could provide a guaranteed income in retirement (albeit you don't know what that will be until you retire). It's a little bit like peeing in the dark. The CWU have fought for a guaranteed lump sum (which only guarantees to pay out the contributions to that part of the pension that have been paid in, which is shockingly bad on its own), then an income paid out of a collective pot which could fluctuate in retirement (that is like being shat on in the dark).

How the CWU could fight for a pension deal worse than the original poor offer from Royal Mail beggars belief.

I don't even want to think of what happens to the pot when there there are a lot less workers than there are pensioners.

NWpostie · Post by **NWpostie** » 03 Feb 2018, 16:36

The pension deal doesn't look good, especially when it looks inferior to the DC scheme, an NRA67 is unacceptable to me, I support the collective bit but not the part where the pension pay is heavily dependent on the market and you could potentially get a different payment each month.
Having read other from threads on this including how some pension providers surprised at the deal and the risks.

At least with an individual DC you have more control.

It's a NO from me.

TheRealDeal · Post by **TheRealDeal** » 03 Feb 2018, 18:00

I do sympathise with workers who have to pick up their children from school at around 3.15-3.30 and I realise that the LAT finish time will be a deal breaker for potentially thousands of workers.

The new pension deal does sound better though and will get the yes vote from me on this improvement alone. Any pension deal that involves a safe cash element has got to be good.

I don't know how many 66 and a half year olds will be featured in the Courier as 'loving their jobs' in years to come though, if any.

The 3 year pay deal I can live with but it won't keep up with inflation.

Culture within RM could and would change overnight if only everyone came in bang on time, took their breaks and went home on time/cutting off. It's as good as having a strike without having one IMO and it costs you nothing except holding your nerve.

woofwoof · Post by **woofwoof** » 03 Feb 2018, 18:45

woofwoof wrote:Can someone explain what this part means

The everyone working for each other

mr hil. · Post by **mr hil.** » 03 Feb 2018, 20:50

Interesting bit about all new full time recruits from October 2018 will be on a 35 hour week from day one. All the pro-rata stuff will be the same as the 38/39 hour full-timers the only difference will be they will only be paid for 35 hours, so effectively part time pay with full time benefits.

Post by **aiden01** » 03 Feb 2018, 20:55

mr hil. wrote:Interesting bit about all new full time recruits from October 2018 will be on a 35 hour week from day one. All the pro-rata stuff will be the same as the 38/39 hour full-timers the only difference will be they will only be paid for 35 hours, so effectively part time pay with full time benefits.

When do you ever hear of anyone being recruited ft havent had any in mc for god knows how long.

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 03 Feb 2018, 21:04

It is NO from me as the key is the workplace issues have not been accepted as a problem and no solutions have been found to address the issues not mentioned or seem not to have been mentioned how is it the CWU mentioned this last year. Yet has not bought this up in the negotiations nor between them not come up with any solution to BULLYING AND HARASSMENT including non payment of overtime this so called DEAL is ill thought out and is not worthy of the term deal!

Broxi51 · Post by **Broxi51** » 03 Feb 2018, 21:12

The pension cannot be guaranteed since the Govt has ruled out any pension reform.
The majority of staff will not have to work any later doesn't help those who will. We are a union for all and not just the majority.
A lot of staff were encouraged to work for RM on the premise of getting finished for the afternoon school run and now RM & the CWU
are shrugging their shoulders and saying it's a sign of the times. Not a good answer in my opinion.
The SWW and starting 12 minutes later on a round that I struggle to complete within my time at the moment does not help me.
All it does is create more problems.
Nothing about stamping out the B&H problems within RM either
Sorry but it's a definite 'No' from me.

Strong bull · Post by **Strong bull** » 03 Feb 2018, 21:26

Correct me if I'm wrong but has bullying,unrealistic workloads,p/t workers holiday/sick pay when working near on f/t hours been addressed.

This and the under inflation and nearly a year late payrise

Not a very good deal in my opinion especially when you consider the vote for strike action I'm sure better could have been had.

Don't really understand the pension and the later starts don't bother me.funny enough the people at our place moaning about the later finishes are the ones who work later doing o/t anyway