Yamr1 wrote: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.
From the original post by Mr Walsh:
Last year 9000 people left the company 67% of those were on voluntary terms.
So I presume it means everyone who left - retired, fed up, sacked etc etc......
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.
clashcityrocker wrote: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?
It's not really fear mongering because no one can say how many posties will leave of their own accord. Also we don't really have an accurate time frame for the changes to happen. RM talk about a five year plan but I think the parcel strategy changes will be done far quicker than that. Maybe they mean everything will be changed within five years.
The views I express here are mine alone and do not represent the views of Royal Mail Group.
Over the last few weeks we have had a visit from a senior manager and I also attended an area union meeting.
Unsurprisingly 2 different messages.
Manager - categorically there would be no compulsory redundancies over the next few years (cannot remember if it was 3 or 5 that was stated)
Union Speaker - our job security is on the line and part-timers need to vote yes or risk compulsory redundancies as they are mainly those with the least service (I think this statement was made based on a perceived apathy of the generally younger part timers who may not be inclined to vote as per some comments above in this thread and so this may be a tactic to get the Yes vote increased rather than based on any actual RM plan)
Personally I would expect most of any required staff reductions would come from natural wastage (it would not work 100% at all local levels though)
hero22 wrote: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.
Thats a point I made on this forum a few weeks ago, saying why should I, working correctly, lose money striking standing next to people like you describe who are undermining the union's argument from the inside.
clashcityrocker wrote: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.
What, you don't think the cwu are above scare tactics to get a strong yes vote?
If RM got rid of staff by using last in, first out...then I think that this is unfair discrimination. Why should I lose my job because I am not old enough to have been there for 10 plus years. I have been with RM for 2 and a half years now, I have not even had one day off sick, and I know over 15 rounds as well as collections. Why should I lose my job when some other people at my work have been disciplined, have lots of time off, etc. I will not be happy if I lose my job considering the behaviour that some of my coworkers get away with, including sexual harassment.
clashcityrocker wrote: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?
Celgar wrote:..............
It will be last in first out if RM needs to lose staff as that will be the most cost effective option. ............
As per leo's post, on this basis only it would be illegal for RM to select 'last in, first out' - what's your source/evidence for this being the most cost effective?
They could do an asda they changed to contract 6 sign a new contract different terms and conditions or lose your job ie reapply for your job new contract states you must hold a valid driving licence boom job done loads of redundancies
postieblueshirt wrote:They could do an asda they changed to contract 6 sign a new contract different terms and conditions or lose your job ie reapply for your job new contract states you must hold a valid driving licence boom job done loads of redundancies
Maybe my opinion on this isn't fair, I am not sure if discrimination or anything comes into this, but I don't know why RM haven't said to non-drivers that they need to gain a drivers license by a specific date. Having non-drivers causes problems in terms of who you can put on what job, non-drivers have no risk of crashing (or worse) which can lead to dismissal or at worst, prison time, if the non-driver makes an error for example forgets to scan a post box...then the driver has to go and fix the issue.
postieblueshirt wrote:They could do an asda they changed to contract 6 sign a new contract different terms and conditions or lose your job ie reapply for your job new contract states you must hold a valid driving licence boom job done loads of redundancies
Maybe my opinion on this isn't fair, I am not sure if discrimination or anything comes into this, but I don't know why RM haven't said to non-drivers that they need to gain a drivers license by a specific date. Having non-drivers causes problems in terms of who you can put on what job, non-drivers have no risk of crashing (or worse) which can lead to dismissal or at worst, prison time, if the non-driver makes an error for example forgets to scan a post box...then the driver has to go and fix the issue.
If they got rid of non-drivers, our morning IPS & parcel sorting would be fecked. A number of the non-drivers in our office are the older ft experienced type that can do that effectively (unlike p/t folk like me).
rambo1 wrote:
What, you don't think the cwu are above scare tactics to get a strong yes vote?
I think the CWU should be above using scare tactics.
It is one thing to say you believe the number of job losses won't be achieved through natural wastage and there may be compulsory redundancies if we don't stand up and fight now and another to start worrying certain groups of people with the threat of compulsory redundancy without any evidence to back it up.
We don't need to stoop to the politics of Farage and if we do we have already lost.
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.
Yamr1 wrote: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
Depends on where the axe falls. If it mostly falls on Mail Centres , Network and Logistics you will notice.
