Union Meeting

[smok3y666]

We had a union meeting stroke strike update thing this morning, anyone else have one? It was basically telling us all to make sure we had voted and every vote counts and that the younger ones in the office to make sure they vote because it is them RM will go after first should any redundancies come of the whole situation and RM get what they want. But from sitting there looking around most of the younger staff (not all) were chatting among themselves or on their phone or just generally not looking interested at all. So good luck to 'em. Then at the end of the meeting even though there was still 10-15 minutes of break left about 75% of our office ran back downstairs to get out on delivery. That about sums our office up. Moan their sacks off but when it comes to it........

[wazer]

YEP ,Just the same in our office.
Staff still coming in early,finishing early,deals done,jobs being left on Saturday but staff back by 11;30,overtime deals,etc just the same as its been for yrs..Playing straight into Ricos hands.Think our union reps should be telling staff that wot there doing is just wot Rico wants to see and tell them as a group.(.Managers should also be putting better ground rules down ).This strike is going to effect all staff level.

[clashcityrocker]

and that the younger ones in the office to make sure they vote because it is them RM will go after first should any redundancies come of the whole situation ...

What evidence does anyone have to make such a statement?

[smok3y666]

and that the younger ones in the office to make sure they vote because it is them RM will go after first should any redundancies come of the whole situation ...

What evidence does anyone have to make such a statement?

Dunno, ask our rep that's what he said. He said it would be "the cheaper option". Makes sense to me. I guess he's either knows, is presuming or lying?

[hero22]

Same in our office too. To be honest there's been no talk of the strike at all in our place, had a brief 5 minute meeting few weeks ago and since then nothing. one guy actually asked what he was supposed to do with the ballot paper and what was it all about. People in early , home and hour before finish time. To be honest I've got to the point were if management were to come in and chop hours and get rid of lot of staff I cudnt argue with them . how can you argue against pda actuals and loss of hours within an office when they are showing people finishing an hour early daily . SELFISH beyond belief some people destroying it for all of us.

[hero22]

and that the younger ones in the office to make sure they vote because it is them RM will go after first should any redundancies come of the whole situation ...

What evidence does anyone have to make such a statement?

I assume he thinks its last in first out so the 'younger ones' may fall into this category. Although not always the case as our office has employed quite a lot of older people recently

[yellowbelly]

and that the younger ones in the office to make sure they vote because it is them RM will go after first should any redundancies come of the whole situation ...

What evidence does anyone have to make such a statement?

Dunno, ask our rep that's what he said. He said it would be "the cheaper option". Makes sense to me. I guess he's either knows, is presuming or lying?

In terms of compulsory redundancies I always thought it would be 'cheaper' to keep 'newbies' or 'young'uns' - more often employed on
shorter contracts - smaller pension contributions required by RM, less costly in terms of employer NI contributions from RM, less holiday, less holiday pay,
claim fewer historic allowances, when it's quieter not paid for hours not worked under a contract with more hours, less Xmas bonus......

Or would the compensation required to pay off those with more time served be too excessive?

[leolion855]

and that the younger ones in the office to make sure they vote because it is them RM will go after first should any redundancies come of the whole situation ...

What evidence does anyone have to make such a statement?

Dunno, ask our rep that's what he said. He said it would be "the cheaper option". Makes sense to me. I guess he's either knows, is presuming or lying?

In terms of compulsory redundancies I always thought it would be 'cheaper' to keep 'newbies' or 'young'uns' - more often employed on
shorter contracts - smaller pension contributions required by RM, less costly in terms of employer NI contributions from RM, less holiday, less holiday pay,
claim fewer historic allowances, when it's quieter not paid for hours not worked under a contract with more hours, less Xmas bonus......

Or would the compensation required to pay off those with more time served be too excessive?

If it came to it, it would have to be at random as aiming at one particular group ( last in, younger staff,older staff, pt ,ft long termers) could be seen as unfair dismissal.Having been through redundancy at other companies it was done on a points system on how useful you are to the company and employee conduct.


Compulsory redundancy
If you decide you need to make compulsory redundancies, you must:

identify which employees will be made redundant
make sure you select people fairly - do not discriminate
Fair selection criteria
Fair reasons for selecting employees for redundancy include:

skills, qualifications and aptitude
standard of work and/or performance
attendance
disciplinary record
You can select employees based on their length of service (‘last in, first out’) but only if you can justify it. It could be indirect discrimination if it affects one group of people more than another.

Do not rely on length of service as your only selection criteria - this is likely to be age discrimination.

Unfair selection criteria
Some selection criteria are automatically unfair. You must not select an employee for redundancy based on any of the following reasons:

pregnancy, including all reasons relating to maternity
family, including parental leave, paternity leave (birth and adoption), adoption leave or time off for dependants
acting as an employee representative
acting as a trade union representative
joining or not joining a trade union
being a part-time or fixed-term employee
age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation
pay and working hours, including the Working Time Regulations, annual leave and the National Minimum Wage
You should always consult employees in a redundancy situation.

https://www.gov.uk/staff-redundant/comp ... redundancy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[fb1969]

Still waiting for the rep to give a briefing - my fault for being part time I guess. Good job this forum means I know the situation and have voted.

[Yamr1]

Royal mail lose about 5000 staff a year through retirement, people leaving..
The 20,000 will be over 4 to 5 year so shouldn't affect anyone

[smok3y666]

and that the younger ones in the office to make sure they vote because it is them RM will go after first should any redundancies come of the whole situation ...

What evidence does anyone have to make such a statement?

I assume he thinks its last in first out so the 'younger ones' may fall into this category. Although not always the case as our office has employed quite a lot of older people recently

Okay. So with the exception of one person I can think of atm then yes in our office the people in their early twenties have been there the least amount of time. I sat in the meeting this morning, looked around, staff that had been there for some time were interested and asking questions. Staff that were younger, didn't have as much time served didn't look so interested and were more interested in chatting to whoever was beside them or browsing the net and I wasn't the only who noticed. I don't know the employment history of other offices and am just saying what happened where I was and that the local rep just happened to notice a lot of young faces and so on and so on.

[Celgar]

and that the younger ones in the office to make sure they vote because it is them RM will go after first should any redundancies come of the whole situation ...

What evidence does anyone have to make such a statement?

The likelihood is that most of the posties with the least seniority will be younger but this won't always be the case. It will be last in first out if RM needs to lose staff as that will be the most cost effective option. Hopefully the new parcel strategy can be stopped in it's tracks. If not I think over the time period 'natural wastage' will mostly cover reductions in staff. More staff will be needed at the LAT hubs so there would be opportunities to move.
If the move to a five day operation gets the go-ahead at the end of 2020 there will be less chance of 'natural wastage' covering it so posties are more likely to lose their jobs then as the cover staff for the five day week won't be needed anymore.

[clashcityrocker]

And all this assumes there will be redundancies of any sort.
Natural wastage could account for all the job losses.
A figure of 9000 leaving the business last year was quoted. Was that an average year? I don't know.
But 20 000 over 5 years then seems possible without anyone having to stress over their job security.
And I don't understand why a rep would be doing that to the members.

All this "they'll get rid of youngster, oldsters, RDCs or people without driving licences" is all a fabrication of someone's fevered imagination.

[Celgar]

Royal mail lose about 5000 staff a year through retirement, people leaving..
The 20,000 will be over 4 to 5 year so shouldn't affect anyone

Over 9000 was the most recent figure and I don't think that included retirement. Just posties leaving to get a different job etc.

[smok3y666]

And all this assumes there will be redundancies of any sort.
Natural wastage could account for all the job losses.
A figure of 9000 leaving the business last year was quoted. Was that an average year? I don't know.
But 20 000 over 5 years then seems possible without anyone having to stress over their job security.
And I don't understand why a rep would be doing that to the members.

All this "they'll get rid of youngster, oldsters, RDCs or people without driving licences" is all a fabrication of someone's fevered imagination.

Well that's come from OUR REP and they're the ones telling us to vote "yes". 20,000 jobs he said, starting at the bottom those with the least service will go first. So are you saying it's fear mongering?