Next vote

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 07 Feb 2018, 17:37

General Mannerheim wrote:
k979aaa wrote:
Spedley wrote:
seaside wrote:Why are so many not happy with the deal
Pensions is ok but far from great with a few sticking points, e.g. 'target' income and 67 retirement age. Also, it isn't even legal yet!
Total loss of Voluntary Redundancy.
Debatable Sick Redundancy - if you get another job you don't get paid, e.g. hurt your back so you can't walk and have to leave, then get another job sitting down - it's just goodbye, sayonara.
Lots of vague "we'll work together on that ..."
Lots of things dependant on unspecified trails (e.g. SWW)
7% pay rise (actual) over 3 years.
4:30 last letter for Rural Delivieries
On what page and paragraph does it mention about loss of VR and IHR these things are our safety net for us all these thing's should never have ever been on the table?
It's on page 12.

Right so is this it "As a consequence of the closure current DB scheme it will be necessary to amend certain other collective agreements, in a way that is consistent with the spirit and intent of those agreements to reflect that the scheme will NO LONGER PAY AUGMENTED BENEFITS ON REDUNDANCY OR ILL-HEALTH" thank you General Mannerheim it is only when you look closer at an agreement that the devil becomes more apparent!

Binsey · Post by **Binsey** » 07 Feb 2018, 17:42

k979aaa wrote:
General Mannerheim wrote:
k979aaa wrote:
Spedley wrote:
seaside wrote:Why are so many not happy with the deal
Pensions is ok but far from great with a few sticking points, e.g. 'target' income and 67 retirement age. Also, it isn't even legal yet!
Total loss of Voluntary Redundancy.
Debatable Sick Redundancy - if you get another job you don't get paid, e.g. hurt your back so you can't walk and have to leave, then get another job sitting down - it's just goodbye, sayonara.
Lots of vague "we'll work together on that ..."
Lots of things dependant on unspecified trails (e.g. SWW)
7% pay rise (actual) over 3 years.
4:30 last letter for Rural Delivieries
On what page and paragraph does it mention about loss of VR and IHR these things are our safety net for us all these thing's should never have ever been on the table?
It's on page 12.
Right so is this it "As a consequence of the current DB scheme it will be necessary to amend certain other collective agreements, in a way that is consistent with the spirit and intent of those agreements to reflect that the scheme will NO LONGER PAY AUGMENTED BENEFITS ON REDUNDANCY OR ILL-HEALTH" thank you General Mannerheim it is only when you look closer at an agreement that the devil becomes more apparent!

Just read that myself that's is indeed shocking. It does really open up a can of worms.

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 07 Feb 2018, 17:48

Binsey wrote:
k979aaa wrote:
General Mannerheim wrote:
k979aaa wrote:
Spedley wrote:
seaside wrote:Why are so many not happy with the deal
Pensions is ok but far from great with a few sticking points, e.g. 'target' income and 67 retirement age. Also, it isn't even legal yet!
Total loss of Voluntary Redundancy.
Debatable Sick Redundancy - if you get another job you don't get paid, e.g. hurt your back so you can't walk and have to leave, then get another job sitting down - it's just goodbye, sayonara.
Lots of vague "we'll work together on that ..."
Lots of things dependant on unspecified trails (e.g. SWW)
7% pay rise (actual) over 3 years.
4:30 last letter for Rural Delivieries
On what page and paragraph does it mention about loss of VR and IHR these things are our safety net for us all these thing's should never have ever been on the table?
It's on page 12.
Right so is this it "As a consequence of the current DB scheme it will be necessary to amend certain other collective agreements, in a way that is consistent with the spirit and intent of those agreements to reflect that the scheme will NO LONGER PAY AUGMENTED BENEFITS ON REDUNDANCY OR ILL-HEALTH" thank you General Mannerheim it is only when you look closer at an agreement that the devil becomes more apparent!

Just read that myself that's is indeed shocking. It does really open up a can of worms.

No wonder they did not shout it from the roof top of CWU house this is doing away the MTFS AGREEMENT without even mentioning it very bad what else is hidden in this agreement?

seaside · Post by **seaside** » 07 Feb 2018, 17:52

If all posties are told about this, I think it will be odds on, of a no vote.

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 07 Feb 2018, 18:04

seaside wrote:If all posties are told about this, I think it will be odds on, of a no vote.

Yes even I only found out within the last hour how could our union be so expedient with the wording but it is there in black and white on page 12 paragraph 3 it is to do with the closure of the DB scheme but it is a travesty of justice for our futures!

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 07 Feb 2018, 18:11

just waiting for a positive response to this from some of our union hierarchy. should be good.

BoltonPostie · Post by **BoltonPostie** » 07 Feb 2018, 18:13

daveyeff wrote:just waiting for a positive response to this from some of our union hierarchy. should be good.

Somebody beat you to it.

Q. Can you confirm that the MTSF agreement is NOT going as it implies something sinister on page 12 of the agreement.
A.MTSF is in place in it's current form.

Reply. yes I know that mate, what I asked is there any plans for it to go as I'm concerned that the wording on page 12 makes references to redundancy and ill health benefits that need to be amended, so what's that then?
A.As far as the CWU's position is concerned, mtsf is here to remaon in it's current form, and we will protect it with all our abilities abd energies.
Then a cop out from said PEC member.
A.I dont have agreement in front of me to comment on certain lines on certain pages - rest asured with my comment above ref mtsf

Members reply. I would have thought that was a given that the union would keep the MTSF agreement or indeed any of the other agreements done through the collective bargaining process, but that's not what is implied on page 12 of the agreement this is the wording that is concerning me: "As a consequence of the closure of the current DB scheme it will be necessary to amend certain other collective agreements, in a way that is consistent with the spirit and intent of those agreements to reflect that the scheme will no longer pay augmented benefits on redundancy or ill health." I need to understand what this is before I vote yes to this agreement..

Post by **stodgy88** » 07 Feb 2018, 18:38

From a earlier post augmented benefits on Vr and ill health retirement was mentioned not sure but you could put any money from Vr and IHR into your pension over £30,000 as a tax perk ,think that's what this is saying with the new pension you cant, not that VR and IHR retirement will stop correct me if I'm wrong

seaside · Post by **seaside** » 07 Feb 2018, 18:45

IHR would be less then £30 000 anyway

Post by **stodgy88** » 07 Feb 2018, 18:57

I stand corrected.

frankieboy · Post by **frankieboy** » 07 Feb 2018, 19:29

This is exactly what my union rep has told me, we only seem to look at the 1st page of the agreement and never look at the other 37 pages.

Danelectro · Post by **Danelectro** » 07 Feb 2018, 20:19

seaside wrote:IHR would be less then £30 000 anyway

So it refers to benefits and enhancements relating to the DB scheme triggered by IHR and nothing to do with the bog standard £22k pro rata IHR lump sum?

Post by **rambo1** » 07 Feb 2018, 20:30

As far as I see it, a shorter working week will mean one of two things.
If you're on an easy round and finish early now, you'll be working your hrs. No flyer. Fair enough I say.
And if you're on a round you can't even get done on time now, then the amount the week will be shorter, you will gain in overtime.
Where's the problem with that?
Unless there's a hidden clause which says no overtime will be paid, in which case, work to time. Simples.

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 08 Feb 2018, 11:16

In answer to 'augmented' benefits... In this case augmented is the word... Having a meanin of '' to make bigger'' or improve... These benefits are to be removed... So in other words they are removing the enhancements from VRs and IHRs so you only receive a bare minimum.. 14 grand for redundancies and less for IHR

crimson king · Post by **crimson king** » 08 Feb 2018, 12:36

JKSmudge wrote:May have been an idea to actuslly ask the members what was wanted BEFORE the negotiations... Can't remember anyone saying SWW is a red line = that seems to have been an aim for the union leaders ( do we believe the work is going to significantly reduce to enable us to actually do less hours ? ).

5% pay rise is actually way below inflation as it covers 2 years ( plus we won't actually get it in our pockets for months yet ) and agreeing to 2% for 2019 WTF will the inflation rate be then?

New starters will continue to be classed as 2nd class employees for 5 years with vastly inferior company pension contributions.

Considering voting NO - but at this rate we'll still be negotiating in September

I get the feeling this is exactly what RM would be hoping for; that a lot of posties won't have the stomach for further negotiations and battle and just settle for lump cash, believing that this is the best we'll get.

Which it might be of course, but I for one don't want to accept it without at least registering my disappointment with a NO vote.