RMCtv : Simon 'Foghorn Leghorn' Thompson on todays meeting with the CWU

[Dexydog]

But ST wants our union to agree to the longer hours in the winter and shorter in the summer which simon said himself you could be working up to 44 hours in the winter which we all know could mean more,thats what he is wanting were not just making this up thats what he wants,some one who is on 30 hours contract will be put on a new contract of flexi time.

OK, I officially give up trying to explain no matter what RM want, they cannot override employment LAW.

[postieblueshirt]

this is mentioned on the people app im sure if you want to opt in or out.You cannot work more than 48 hours a week on average - normally averaged over 17 weeks. This law is sometimes called the 'working time directive' or 'working time regulations'. You can choose to work more by opting out of the 48-hour week. If you're under 18, you cannot work more than 8 hours a day or 40 hours a week

[Dexydog]

Correct.

[richietns]

They can change our contracts to suit there agenda though which wouldnt have anything to do with employment law but am assuming it would have to be okayed by the union,its ok your allowed your opinion you dont have to "officially give up" its a real threat from RM, the union are on our side thats why we have such good t&cs now,RM are trying to grind us down who knows the outcome?

[richietns]

Correct.

So thats 48 hours a week in winter then we can be working upto which is what ive been trying to tell you.

[Dexydog]

Fire and re-hire and the legalities surrounding that little nugget are a different argument.
The union don't have to agree to anything- isn't that why we're on strike?
Yes, of course they can rip our contracts and start executive action like they already have imposing the 2% pay rise.
What they cannot do is rip up your current contract and replace it with one that breaks employment law, unless they want suing for constructive dismissal.

[Dexydog]

Correct.

So thats 48 hours a week in winter then we can be working upto which is what ive been trying to tell you.

Oh Jesus Christ Almighty no!!!

[richietns]

It wouldnt be breaking employment law they can have us working upto 48 hours in the winter by executive action as long as they gave it back in summer so you would be on the same hours but working more in winter.

[Wolf91]

How do you know “commit to deliver” even means just completing your own round everyday, whatever the volume, as bad as that would be on some days as it is…

Remember about a year ago when Simon put out that letter “don’t just clear your frame, clear your office”. His intentions are obvious.
How do you know commit to deliver doesn’t means staying out to complete your duty, and on some days until the office is clear?

[richietns]

How do you know “commit to deliver” even means just completing your own round everyday, whatever the volume, as bad as that would be on some days as it is…

Remember about a year ago when Simon put out that letter “don’t just clear your frame, clear your office”. His intentions are obvious.
How do you know commit to deliver doesn’t means staying out to complete your duty, and on some days until the office is clear?

I agree try telling dexydog that.

[Dexydog]

Mate, listen.
Yes you could be right.
Who knows?
No-one is challenging it- RM saying they want it doesn't automatically mean they can enforce it.
The working time directive is there to stop employers making employees work MORE than 48 hours.
You can sign out of this if you choose to do more.
48 isn't a target, nor is it an amount they can MAKE you work.
What I'm saying is the union need to look at if what they want to do around annualised hours is legally enforceable in any contract.
I said before, if it is we're basically goosed and the union, and us, may just have to accept that if they bring it in by executive action.
Until its challenged, no-one can move onto the other issues and get this sorted one way or the other.

[Wolf91]

You can sign out of EU law, that states you only have to work a MAXIMUM of 48 hours, to allow you to work more if you wish.
The law doesn't say you HAVE to work 48 hours a week.
So no matter RM think they want, you won't have to do 48 hours if you don't want to do so.
They very simply cannot make you.

And what happens when they make you sign the new contract in which you are able to work 48 hours *if required* or you are out the door?
You know exactly what this means if they bring it in, you just don’t seem to want to face the reality of it.

[Dexydog]

I said before, fire and re-hire on a new contract is a whole other ball game.
I also said in the post before you accused me of not wanting to face the possibility of it happening, that we may have to accept it if it is in fact legal.
It may come to that.
But that point of law hasn't been addressed.
I have my eyes fully wide open to that possibility.
But if it were that easy, don't you think they would have done that already?
Who knows, they might sack us all on Monday when we go back, say "sign this new contract if you want to be paid this Friday".
Then it's game on.
I'm simply saying they can't do anything that would break employment law.

[chrisj]

Dexy, you have tried but some people just think the worst of Royal Mail or swallow all the conspiracies from the CWU and others.

No one is saying the proposals are not going to negatively affect most us but what good is a pay rise and no change now and then the company stagnates and job losses ensues and pensions are affected.

Those wanting to finish RM should realise that all current benefits might not be there - Pensions, Redundancies, IHR is even a decent living...

As we speak, a lot of people's pension are in a dodgy state following the mini-budget fallout, the incoming recession and global upheaval... Half a loaf might be better than none. Even Universal Credit is not going to be paid in line with inflation...

* I know a bloke at my place that still has all his shares, he bought some as well during floatation, did Saye, buys partnership shares but has recently invested money when the shares went down. Guess what, he is on the picket line undermining his investment that is already about 60% down from its height. He is down at least £6000 and he is losing money in the strikes to gain what?

He is a 30 year guy still in his 50s - nice standalone round, SA, comes in early and untouchable to managers. Why is he voting against his own interests? That is why people like ST remain rich and some of us work really hard till later age...

* Those of us on contribution based pensions are already down on investments and those that invest in RM for their pensions will also be down... It is not just about us getting a better wage or very favourable unchanging terms.

The CWU are leading us to ruins!

Some talk about VESA and big shareholders but most of those shareholders must be sitting on a big loss right now; and yet we moan so much about the payout... Then the CWU meets them in secret...

[Dexydog]

Honestly, I think we're just pawns in a very large game.
Who knows what the truth is in all this.
The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
Each side has their own agenda.
My take is we 100% need to be on strike to protect us, and anyone new coming in on new contracts.
But ONLY if the union is both telling the truth, and doing all it can to refute RM's claims.
They most certainly are doing a terrible job of debunking a lot of what we are arguing about on here.
I'm also fairly certain ST would do and say anything if he stands to gain from it.
So where does that leave us?- having to go on strike when all this could be cleared up if only people were decent and told the truth,
and faced up to the realities of us now being a private company.