dingo wrote:There is just under 30 million in unpaid lump sums for all revisions and the union wants all of this money paid to offices which are due outstanding lump sums.
How does that gel? Only those offices that have had the revisions would be due any outstanding lump sums and considering there are 800 offices without a revision they would be entitled to nothing - unless of course the monies will be paid to some for nothing at all
dvbuk55, your forgetting, the BT2010 deal had provision for winners & ....... need I say more
396 have received their £1000
523 offices are still due £200
27 offices are still due £400
12 offices are still due £600
382 offices are still due £800
134 offices are still due £1000
So why wouldn't the union want the lump sums paid as over a 1000 offices are still owed money .
Any idea dingo how many offices recieve walk sequenced mail
And how many of these have not recieved a penny for it.
Despite savings being made AWD reduced since it being in place.
This ain't no baseball game, you get only one chance and you blew it.
The problem dingo is that everything you bring to the negotiation table and everything you take away has a price.
If Royal Mail agrees to release the £30 million they will want something in return.
Bearing in mind the £30 million only applies to some offices and some more than others...what will the whole of the union have to surrender in order to release this money to offices that have not gone through the difficulties of transformation?
396 have received their £1000
523 offices are still due £200
27 offices are still due £400
12 offices are still due £600
382 offices are still due £800
134 offices are still due £1000
So why wouldn't the union want the lump sums paid as over a 1000 offices are still owed money .
Simply because they haven't reached the criteria where payment is triggered - is that too difficult to understand? It was after all in the BT2010 agreement unless I missed the clause that said you can have the monies without transformation. In point of fact where do those offices stand who haven't yet transformed considering the agreement has now lapsed - has the money lapsed or has the agreement been extended on the fly so to speak because there hasn't been a ballot or would we need one considering half the offices have transformed and half haven't. Why don't we just leave things as they are and use the 30million to pay the colleague share money, seems fair to me then again we had transformation more than 2 years ago.
Fish you know there is never a one side agreement and both parties want to achieve certain things . But I do believe the members who are owed lump sum money would want the union to get that money as soon as possible.
dingo wrote:Fish you know there is never a one side agreement and both parties want to achieve certain things . But I do believe the members who are owed lump sum money would want the union to get that money as soon as possible.
Well where do we stand with the agreement? It finished last month and unless there has been a behind doors extension it's dead. As for the monies owed it should be paid as soon as the lump sum payment criteria has been met otherwise the agreement is a farce and they might as well have given us the money up front on the off chance we would be transformed eventually.
dingo wrote:Fish you know there is never a one side agreement and both parties want to achieve certain things . But I do believe the members who are owed lump sum money would want the union to get that money as soon as possible.
I'm sure they do but I think those negotiations should run separately to the main issues surrounding delivery.
If there is negotiation to be done it should only apply to the pace of change in those offices affected.
If there are concessions to be made those should not affect the entire membership in Royal Mail when the rewards only affect some.
Those that have already received the lump sums have already felt the pain that goes with the transformation plan,they should not be punished further to secure rewards for others.
That would be blatantly unfair.
dingo wrote:Fish you know there is never a one side agreement and both parties want to achieve certain things . But I do believe the members who are owed lump sum money would want the union to get that money as soon as possible.
I'm sure they do but I think those negotiations should run separately to the main issues surrounding delivery.
If there is negotiation to be done it should only apply to the pace of change in those offices affected.
If there are concessions to be made those should not affect the entire membership in Royal Mail when the rewards only affect some.
Those that have already received the lump sums have already felt the pain that goes with the transformation plan,they should not be punished further to secure rewards for others.
That would be blatantly unfair.
Well if I was a soothsayer I'd say hang on to your hat because fairness hasn't exactly been the watchword since BT2010 - remember that famous saying "there's winners and losers" well there was never a truer word but what a despicable approach from a union that asks for unity.
I cant believe members & union officials are arguing against the union fighting for payments to be made to the vast majority of members.
We have it but dont let anyone else have it
The vast majority of offices that have not gone through the whole revision process have done so through no fault of their own.
This ain't no baseball game, you get only one chance and you blew it.
Fish why It acceptable to introduce the reduction in the shorter working week and increase part timers hour rate outside of the revison process but not get the lump sums paid which are now 3 years into the agreement and that revisons are taking longer to deploy and there are not enough planners.
It is within the pace of change discussions and nothing to do with the pay discussions.
gb93 wrote:I cant believe members & union officials are arguing against the union fighting for payments to be made to the vast majority of members.
That's not the argument gb and you know it.
The argument is whether the same parameters should remain in place to receive the lump sums,namely the introduction of revisions or whether those parameters should only apply to some,how much ground the union as a whole should be prepared to give in order to secure those payments and should it be allowed to affect the overall bargaining position?
Trying to reduce it to silly polemic arguments is unhelpful.
gb93 wrote:The vast majority of offices that have not gone through the whole revision process have done so through no fault of their own.
Well if that's true, and I don't believe it is in some instances, I believe not just individual offices but whole areas have been dragging their feet in the hope that this very scenario would be played out, that payment would be made regardless of transformation and they could continue to delay transformation ad infinitum. The whole point of BT 2010 WAS transformation and lump sums payable on each step met.
