new pay offer

cpsteve · Post by **cpsteve** » 01 Feb 2018, 19:23

k979aaa wrote:
gunho wrote:We might be working less hours but an increase in real terms would have been better. Money makes the world go round. 3:30 finish, that kills the school run, not a good deal in my eyes
Well you could have a 4:30 finish or even 5:00 as RM were proposing for £250 take it or leave it lump sum one off. The thing that gets me is this change in culture and what we will have to do in the future?

If you want to add an hour onto the finish time you tell everyone you want two. If you want to bank unworked hours tell everyone you are cutting the hours worked. For me it makes no odds but for the early start no break mob they will either stop or do more work.

Acca Dacca · Post by **Acca Dacca** » 01 Feb 2018, 19:45

So many strings attached to the 1 hour reduction its unreal

Subject to trial of this, that and the other

Looks like plans for us all being electronically monitored and performance assessed

Post by **rambo1** » 02 Feb 2018, 07:54

world class male wrote:
Creditshampoo wrote:I think I need the power to ban people
i think i need the power to knock gobshites off their high horses for talking crap to someone asking a genuine question

Post by **rambo1** » 02 Feb 2018, 08:00

world class male wrote:
plymouth3 wrote:The offer could have been worded better, but you've got it all wrong.

Firstly when the weekly hours reduce our pay stays the same, so in effect it is a pay rise. They say 2 hours reduction is equivalent to an extra 5.33% pay increase. We get paid weekly and not hourly.
.
that makes more sense , i did the calculation using hourly rates

So by the time we get around to having 2 hrs off, we will in effect have had over a 12% pay rise from today's level . although in real terms in a purely 'take home cash' way, you will have to do 2 hrs docket to realise the extra 5.3% . Is this correct?

Post by **kevbo** » 02 Feb 2018, 17:13

rambo1 wrote:
world class male wrote:
plymouth3 wrote:The offer could have been worded better, but you've got it all wrong.

Firstly when the weekly hours reduce our pay stays the same, so in effect it is a pay rise. They say 2 hours reduction is equivalent to an extra 5.33% pay increase. We get paid weekly and not hourly.
.
that makes more sense , i did the calculation using hourly rates
So by the time we get around to having 2 hrs off, we will in effect have had over a 12% pay rise from today's level . although in real terms in a purely 'take home cash' way, you will have to do 2 hrs docket to realise the extra 5.3% . Is this correct?

Correct for full timers

smearl · Post by **smearl** » 02 Feb 2018, 17:18

The 5% pay rise is highlighted like some supermarket promotional offer designed to catch your eye. As it is only backdated 6 months instead of 1 year the pay rise is only 3.5% for the years 2017/2018 and 2018 /2019. Add in the 2% for 2019/2020 and we have a 3 year deal working out at 3% per year. This is less than the expected inflation rate. Don't get your hopes up re the reduction in the working week-it is full of ifs buts and maybes.

maisymoo04 · Post by **maisymoo04** » 02 Feb 2018, 17:37

world class male wrote:
Creditshampoo wrote:I think I need the power to ban people
i think i need the power to knock gobshites off their high horses for talking crap to someone asking a genuine question

now now children

Post by **postiewhite** » 04 Feb 2018, 11:05

Is this backpay on hours worked or basic hrs? Im on a 28hr PT contract and have earned 20k already.

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 04 Feb 2018, 11:07

postiewhite wrote:Is this backpay on hours worked or basic hrs? Im on a 28hr PT contract and have earned 20k already.

It flows through to all pay, overtime, supplements etc

clashcityrocker · Post by **clashcityrocker** » 04 Feb 2018, 11:15

smearl wrote: Add in the 2% for 2019/2020 and we have a 3 year deal working out at 3% per year.

It is 7% over 3 years which amounts to 2.33% per year.

Celgar · Post by **Celgar** » 04 Feb 2018, 13:45

Jefferson Starfish wrote:You're missing the fact that we won't be losing an hours pay when we drop down to 38 hours per week! Or when that goes down to 37 hours.

Yes they will reduce our work time by one hour and they will still pay us for the hour. When you stop for a minute and consider the idea it doesn't make any sense. Then you realise the work we did in that hour will still arrive into the office and we will still do that work.

John Lydon once said something along the lines of : "Do you ever get the feeling you've been used?" .

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 04 Feb 2018, 14:03

Look at this way 1 hour less at work in bed and no loss of pay for full time staff for part time staff a pay rise and they deserve it also it will equalise the pay gap which I am all for.

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 04 Feb 2018, 16:00

Shaders wrote:It gives us a pay rise without costing them any extra,

Both of those facts are wrong.

If you're full-time it's not a pay rise, it's a rise in hourly rate, huge difference if you're trying to buy milk with it.

The SWW will cost royal mail because part-time staff will get a pay rise, a real one you can actually buy milk with.

superports · Post by **superports** » 04 Feb 2018, 16:54

I can't figure out how I will be expected to do the same amount of work in an hour less. Hopefully the union will clarify.