ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (Updated 2021)... HERE

ANNOUNCEMENT : PLEASE BE AWARE WE ARE NOT ON FACEBOOK AT ALL!

voluntary redundancy and 104 weeks

Postal workers discussion forum. Discuss the day to day life in a Blue Shirt.
Martin Walsh
Posts: 4276
Joined: 19 Sep 2007, 20:12
Location: neverland

voluntary redundancy and 104 weeks

Post by Martin Walsh »

There is no changed to MTSF within this agreement.
clashcityrocker
Posts: 16711
Joined: 22 Sep 2009, 13:50
Gender: Male
Location: strummerville

voluntary redundancy and 104 weeks

Post by clashcityrocker »

dingo wrote:There is no changed to MTSF within this agreement.
I hate to read between the lines but dos that mean - "but there will be in another agreement"?
And it still doesn't explain about "enhanced" payments on p.12.
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.
daveyeff
Posts: 4699
Joined: 12 Mar 2010, 19:38
Gender: Male

voluntary redundancy and 104 weeks

Post by daveyeff »

this is the very answer that people have been going on about though Dingo. its VERY misleading!! our area rep has said exactly the same thing. is the MTSF 'GOING' to change once this agreement gets voted in and ratified? or is it going to stay as it is? because the wording as you will no doubt be very aware of on p.12 paints a very different picture. it IS stating that they will NO LONGER PAY augmented (made bigger) payments for REDUNDANCIES and IHR. meaning that future payments for redundancies and IHR will be paid at the standard (piss poor) rate. are you saying the wording is wrong? we've misunderstood? its been misquoted? or they are lying? please clarify and put all our minds at rest. until I get confirmation on this issue I know that i'm voting no!!
Binsey
Posts: 390
Joined: 14 Aug 2015, 17:33
Gender: Male

voluntary redundancy and 104 weeks

Post by Binsey »

daveyeff wrote:this is the very answer that people have been going on about though Dingo. its VERY misleading!! our area rep has said exactly the same thing. is the MTSF 'GOING' to change once this agreement gets voted in and ratified? or is it going to stay as it is? because the wording as you will no doubt be very aware of on p.12 paints a very different picture. it IS stating that they will NO LONGER PAY augmented (made bigger) payments for REDUNDANCIES and IHR. meaning that future payments for redundancies and IHR will be paid at the standard (piss poor) rate. are you saying the wording is wrong? we've misunderstood? its been misquoted? or they are lying? please clarify and put all our minds at rest. until I get confirmation on this issue I know that i'm voting no!!

I suspect I know how RM and the Courts will interpret it!

Really hope I am wrong on this.
Martin Walsh
Posts: 4276
Joined: 19 Sep 2007, 20:12
Location: neverland

voluntary redundancy and 104 weeks

Post by Martin Walsh »

MTSF was not discussed within the talks.

There has not been any significant changes to MTSF since 2003 and the CWU will fight to keep MTSF.

There are no planned talks on MTSF.
jimt81
Posts: 12
Joined: 29 Oct 2009, 21:17
Gender: Male

voluntary redundancy and 104 weeks

Post by jimt81 »

Thank you for clarifing that Dingo
daveyeff
Posts: 4699
Joined: 12 Mar 2010, 19:38
Gender: Male

voluntary redundancy and 104 weeks

Post by daveyeff »

thank you Dingo, I have also received confirmation from HQ.
petercostello
EX ROYAL MAIL
Posts: 65
Joined: 12 Jul 2007, 20:03

voluntary redundancy and 104 weeks

Post by petercostello »

As far as I know it's still 104 weeks my union rep has stopped our office getting any vrs so he can get his schedule attendance. I work for distribution .