what would be the criteria for VR's

[Postmangit]

Not taking mine as yet.

[stodgy88]

As far as I'm aware, the figures for VR or IHR are not affected if you've already taken any of your pension.
RobertT
Offline
posted on another forum,and RobertT is a expert in the pension field.

[stodgy88]

Answering Deadly,s post

[Seymour Buts]

They are not gonna pay people to leave when any amount of job losses will be easily absorbed into natural staff turnover. They know many of the old boys just quit anyway with all the changes.

[Deadly]

As far as I'm aware, the figures for VR or IHR are not affected if you've already taken any of your pension.
RobertT
Offline
posted on another forum,and RobertT is a expert in the pension field.

Answering Deadly,s post

[daveyeff]

If it did come to VR’s what would Royal Mail look at?
Age?
Service Time?
Seniority ?

Seniority

That might have been the case in the past but what is there to say that is guaranteed to be the case now?

It might well prove most cost effective to get rid of the most senior staff with all their various money for nothing grandfather payments, but equally, management might decide it's most cost effective to give priority to the ones who will get little or no redundancy payout?

Surely it's entirely up to management to decide who goes and on what terms, given that most other previous agreements now appear to null and void?

the post is about VRs (''VOLUNTARY'' redundancies). giving priority to people who will get little or no redundancy payout is not going to get many takers..... probably none whatsoever.

[wacko74]

If it did come to VR’s what would Royal Mail look at?
Age?
Service Time?
Seniority ?

Seniority

That might have been the case in the past but what is there to say that is guaranteed to be the case now?

It might well prove most cost effective to get rid of the most senior staff with all their various money for nothing grandfather payments, but equally, management might decide it's most cost effective to give priority to the ones who will get little or no redundancy payout?

Surely it's entirely up to management to decide who goes and on what terms, given that most other previous agreements now appear to null and void?

the post is about VRs (''VOLUNTARY'' redundancies). giving priority to people who will get little or no redundancy payout is not going to get many takers..... probably none whatsoever.

Yes fair enough it is specifically about ''VOLUNTARY'' redundancy, but I was just making the point that what happened in the past might not necessarily be what happens in the future (i.e seniority)

And I'd disagree that it wouldn't get any takers from newish starters, I'd imagine there are plenty of people right at the very bottom of the seniority list who are already thoroughly disillusioned with the job and would take a relatively small amount of a grand or two if they were offered it.
Whilst RM would be happy for the most senior and most expensive to pay off to just leave of their own volition when hours get changed and walks get made even bigger... adopting a policy of ''why pay them off when you can piss them off''

[steelgers]

I'm not sure if they do still take them on. Point is they used to and there are a lot who have been in a while and will be expensive to cut. Also if the large packets are being taken away then going after non drivers wouldn't be the most obvious criteria. Maybe they will actually do some research for a change and look into attendance among other things.