LTB 263/20 - COVID-19 RECOGNITION PAYMENT

[Woody Guthrie]

It's not really anything to do with how much it is, it's to do with treating your staff fairly.

In the vast majority of cases these people who isolated had no choice, it is a legal requirement and a moral responsibility.

Why should they then be made to feel that they haven't contributed as much as someone who couldn't care less if people died, turned up at work and infected everyone?

[Murdoch]

It's not really anything to do with how much it is, it's to do with treating your staff fairly.

In the vast majority of cases these people who isolated had no choice, it is a legal requirement and a moral responsibility.

Why should they then be made to feel that they haven't contributed as much as someone who couldn't care less if people died, turned up at work and infected everyone?

I think it's been pretty fair, in all of the situations I can think of. Unless I'm missing something.

If you self-isolated because you got one of the high risk letters, you could isolate for 12 weeks, and receive full pay during that time. 456 hours of pay.

If you had to self-isolate because you or somebody in your household had symptoms, you received full sick pay for that time and you don't receive a stage. And you'll likely still get most of the bonus (pro-rata). So, 38 to 76 hours of pay + whatever remains of the bonus.

If you've been at work this whole time with no symptoms, you receive the full bonus. Which is what, about 16ish extra hours of pay before tax.

The only other scenario are those that decided to take unpaid leave. Which was clearly their own personal choice.

[Woody Guthrie]

Pretty fair isn't fair it's just a acceptable (to you) version of unfair. It's completely subjective.

For many years men felt it was "pretty fair" to pay women less for doing the same job.

"Pretty fair" should cut no ice with a union or its members.

[Murdoch]

Pretty fair isn't fair it's just a acceptable (to you) version of unfair. It's completely subjective.

For many years men felt it was "pretty fair" to pay women less for doing the same job.

"Pretty fair" should cut no ice with a union or its members.

Overlooking the fact, you're taking a semantic point way too far, I could have quite as easily said. I think it's been handled fairly. Which it has.

There are bigger unfairnesses that are overlooked by the union, such as part-time staff not getting holiday pay at equivalent rates to the hours they actually work.

Which is a far greater contribution, than a measly 200 quid one off payment. That is a systemic failure of the union to act in the interest of ALL of its members, and very little has been done on this issue since I've joined the company. In fact I was staggered by the inaction on this.

[Woody Guthrie]

I'll explain the simple reasons the only 'fair' way to pay this bonus was to give everyone the same amount.

There is no way to quantify the risk members were taking on or the relative contribution they gave to the company.

Was someone working 38 hrs on a rural in the North of Scotland contributing more or more at risk than someone working 25 hrs in a mailcentre in Central London at the height of the pandemic?

No they weren't.
Who was more likely to have to self-isolate?

[Woody Guthrie]

You bring up the point of part-time pay and holidays as an example of a more "worthy" cause but there are no worthy and unworthy causes when it comes to treaty people fairly.

There's just fair and unfair.

You fight for everyone or you fight for yourself.

[Murdoch]

I'll explain the simple reasons the only 'fair' way to pay this bonus was to give everyone the same amount.

There is no way to quantify the risk members were taking on or the relative contribution they gave to the company.

Was someone working 38 hrs on a rural in the North of Scotland contributing more or more at risk than someone working 25 hrs in a mailcentre in Central London at the height of the pandemic?

No they weren't.
Who was more likely to have to self-isolate?

It's funny you should mention "North of Scotland", the weekend before the lockdown began, day trippers flooded to the North and West of Scotland and undoubtedly spread Covid-19 into remote areas. The isle of Skye had a particularly nasty outbreak decimating a carehome. One of the first confirmed Covid-19 deaths within Royal Mail was in the North East of Scotland.

While that's just an aside, the point I'm making is that risk of contracting Covid-19 doesn't really come into it, everybody could make an argument that they are just as exposed to the risk as the next postal worker.

Nobody is claiming the payment is associated with "risk", it's a discretionary payment rewarding the extra work that postal workers have undertaken to deliver the serviced at a challenging time, when parcel volumes have increased dramatically. That's how I see it anyway.

Personally, I just can't see how anybody that's been off this entire time, would expect the payment, and think it's unfair if they don't get it.

[Murdoch]

You bring up the point of part-time pay and holidays as an example of a more "worthy" cause but there are no worthy and unworthy causes when it comes to treaty people fairly.

There's just fair and unfair.

You fight for everyone or you fight for yourself.

To make a semantic point myself. I never said it was a more "worthy" cause. I said the contribution was far greater. As in, postal workers lose out on a lot more money from that, than they do a one off discretionary payment.

So If you want to fervently pick a cause that will make a difference to the pay in postal workers pockets, that would be the one to pick. This is not a moral comparison, simply a financial one.

[Woody Guthrie]

So If you want to fervently pick a cause that will make a difference to the pay in postal workers pockets, that would be the one to pick.

That's the point.
The cause is equal treatment.
You don't ignore one form of inequality in pursuit of another just because it's financially more important.

The business got this wrong on almost every level, it should not have been pro-rata because that implies that hours worked are somehow linked to contribution, it shouldn't have been linked to sick absence because not only does that encourage presenteeism which could kill people in these circumstances it also ignores the fact that members were legally obliged to self-isolate and linking it to unpaid leave means those suffering the greatest financial difficulties get an extra kick in the teeth when the business had the opportunity to offer a helping hand.

In the grand scheme of things how much will the business save using these measures? In my opinion it was another example of Royal Mail's small minded management ethos that drags this company back time and again.

The union's acceptance of this? ... par for the course these days unfortunately.
The CWU is a shadow of its former self and even that former self wasn't particularly ripped.

[Murdoch]

The presentism point, would be a valid one depending on whether it's pro-rata or not. Lets assume the lockdown is for 12 weeks, and the bonus is paid pro-rata (I'm not sure if it is). You work 10 out of 12 of those weeks because you self-isolated for 2, and worked your arse off for 10, so you get 5/6th of the bonus. I don't think anybody is going to think, oh my wife is laid up with a cough and fever, I better pop to work for that extra 33 quid.

Now, if the situation is that if you've had any absence during the period of lockdown, then you lose all of the bonus, despite having worked your arse off for most of it. Then I would agree, that would be unfair.

I see the inequality issue you raise differently of course. The "inequality" for me, arises from people doing a said amount of work, getting paid less for it. Which occurs when part-time people continuously work over their contracted hours, but only get paid their contacted hours when on annual leave. This one off bonus payment doesn't do that, it pays people equivalent to how much they've actually worked during the lockdown.

I am assuming it will be paid on a pro-rata basis, I take it that hasn't been confirmed?

[2yearpostie]

I think the easiest option is if RM and the union withdraw the offer a payment and we all get an equal share of £0, that should stop the fighting.

[Murdoch]

I think the easiest option is if RM and the union withdraw the offer a payment and we all get an equal share of £0, that should stop the fighting.

It's all just a friendly discussion.

And of miniscule importance compared to what's happening in the wider country. The UK just ran a deficit of £62 Billion in April alone to cover the costs of tanking the economy. They paid over 8 million workers £14 billion last month to sit at home, or go to the beach, or visit Durham, or whatever the current advice is. Many of those workers on furlough, won't even have a job to go back to at this rate, and certainly with these donkeys in charge of running the country.

[hero22]

I'll explain the simple reasons the only 'fair' way to pay this bonus was to give everyone the same amount.

There is no way to quantify the risk members were taking on or the relative contribution they gave to the company.

Was someone working 38 hrs on a rural in the North of Scotland contributing more or more at risk than someone working 25 hrs in a mailcentre in Central London at the height of the pandemic?

No they weren't.
Who was more likely to have to self-isolate?

In your opinion its the only 'Fair' way of doing things. Many would disagree with you Woody. Or is that being unfair ?

[Woody Guthrie]

In your opinion its the only 'Fair' way of doing things. Many would disagree with you Woody. Or is that being unfair ?

You don't have to agree with me but at least I can put forward a coherent argument one way or the other.

None of the "reasons" not to pay certain sections the same amount stack up to any scrutiny.

What are you left with then?

[tommytucka]

When is this £200 supposedly being paid then? All seems to have gone hush hush since first being mentioned