Royal Mail News Flash - Securing Our Future

UnhappyGremlin · Post by **UnhappyGremlin** » 29 Apr 2017, 14:22

Read the first two pages but didn't bother with the second two.
I figured they had more bullshit in them I didn't need to know.

lightningpostman · Post by **lightningpostman** » 29 Apr 2017, 18:02

the war will soon start to take shape.

UNION JACK · Post by **UNION JACK** » 29 Apr 2017, 20:59

This statement makes me feel sick that this is what the company thinks of us and how they want to treat us after all the hard work we put in day in day out,going home exhausted after walking for 5 hours in heat ,rain,wind,and the cold.I will see you all on the gate because i'd rather not work at all than work under those conditions. Its time to make a stand against these big companies making huge profits at the detriment to the workers,i shall not let them kill me while moyra and her cronies live in a lavish lifestyle.
Just remember guys and girls managers and Royal Mail have a lot more to lose than us so called workshy posties.

Post by **Lincox** » 29 Apr 2017, 22:02

Neither the Management or the Union pay the bills, the customer does.

I would ask Moya Greene to explain to the customer how much she intends to reduce her and many of the other top managers huge pensions, expense allowances, in order that Royal Mail are competitive with the competition.

How can you reduce the company contribution to this new defined benefit scheme and yet still maintain the same definition of pensionable pay. Basically you cannot unless at the same time you reduce the accrual rate. Whereas pre 2008 at the moment pension accrues at 1/60th of pensionable pay for each year of scheme membership, it would have to reduce to 1/80th or even worse for Royal Mail to be able to reduce their contribution. If they intend investing some of the contributions in order to provide a guaranteed lump sum, that guaranteed amount would have to start off so small in order to provide that guarantee, with no certainty that this would grow by any substantial amount. They are replacing defined benefits with partially defined/investment linked benefits. Planning for retirement will become the lottery it is now for the Defined Contribution Plan.

number one · Post by **number one** » 30 Apr 2017, 07:56

If they want to compare us to yodel then I would be quite happy to be paid between 65p and £1 per item I deliver. Earning £1000+ a day would be just great. I would even be happy to pay for the fuel in the van. I wouldn't be bothered about holiday pay nor sick pay. Bring it on.

UNION JACK · Post by **UNION JACK** » 30 Apr 2017, 08:01

number one wrote:If they want to compare us to yodel then I would be quite happy to be paid between 65p and £1 per item I deliver. Earning £1000+ a day would be just great. I would even be happy to pay for the fuel in the van. I wouldn't be bothered about holiday pay nor sick pay. Bring it on.

maybe the CWU could put this proposal to them i'd be happy to go over 10 mins for that deal

magicw · Post by **magicw** » 30 Apr 2017, 10:52

Sold us down the river of Privatisation at a bargain basement price for their mates in the City, by saying the company couldn't grow or compete without new investment and strategy.

Predictably the strategy is to erode away the terms and conditions of the Workers in order to maximise profits for their friends in the city once again.

We've countered on the pensions by saying Okay you cant afford the employer contributions moving forward, just maintain the current contribution level for all and well match it.

Can actually see now all they wanted to do was reduce their NI liability by stealing from our pension pot whilst it was in Surplus.

As others have stated above to compare us to Hermes and Yodel is an absolute joke! I don't see the USO applying to them or anything near the same level of Mail Integrity.

Knock back the DSA for a while and see how long our Competitors would flourish . Oh we cant the regulator forces to do it under the USO.

number one · Post by **number one** » 30 Apr 2017, 12:15

With our network we should be able to wipe the floor with the competition regarding pricing and service. If it is truly a privatised company why can't we reduce our price to such a level the public wouldn't want to use anybody else? Give it a week and the competition will fold. True to form though with us being Royal Mail we have to fight our battles with both arms tied behind our backs due to the mafia sorry I meant ofcon com ofcom

Post by **Brandy** » 30 Apr 2017, 15:51

UNION JACK wrote:This statement makes me feel sick that this is what the company thinks of us and how they want to treat us after all the hard work we put in day in day out,going home exhausted after walking for 5 hours in heat ,rain,wind,and the cold.I will see you all on the gate because i'd rather not work at all than work under those conditions. Its time to make a stand against these big companies making huge profits at the detriment to the workers,i shall not let them kill me while moyra and her cronies live in a lavish lifestyle.
Just remember guys and girls managers and Royal Mail have a lot more to lose than us so called workshy posties.

Well said,I got out as I just couldnt take anymore ,You stand up for your rights posties,I know what its like to walk in your shoes and I did it for a lot of years.

Post by **Lounge Lizard** » 30 Apr 2017, 18:52

Acca Dacca wrote:Making us feel guilty of taking a wage

And not many of us properly appreciate how fortunate we are to wear a smart uniform and drive a flashy red liveried van.

mr hil. · Post by **mr hil.** » 02 May 2017, 17:35

The bit I did not like is " a shorter working week or pay rise would have to be self funding"

So any pay rise would be paid for by reducing other benefits, so not a pay rise at all just an accountants trick of fiddling the figures to appear to pay us more per hour but removing any other payments which would probably mean taking home less for the majority of workers.

The new pension proposal gives an increase of £100 per year in their example. Hardly much of an improvement considering some stand to lose about £3,000 per year

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 02 May 2017, 17:41

mr hil. wrote:The bit I did not like is " a shorter working week or pay rise would have to be self funding"

So any pay rise would be paid for by reducing other benefits, so not a pay rise at all just an accountants trick of fiddling the figures to appear to pay us more per hour but removing any other payments which would probably mean taking home less for the majority of workers.

The new pension proposal gives an increase of £100 per year in their example. Hardly much of an improvement considering some stand to lose about £3,000 per year

wouldn't worry about that. they won't get it in.

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 02 May 2017, 17:50

daveyeff wrote:
mr hil. wrote:The bit I did not like is " a shorter working week or pay rise would have to be self funding"

So any pay rise would be paid for by reducing other benefits, so not a pay rise at all just an accountants trick of fiddling the figures to appear to pay us more per hour but removing any other payments which would probably mean taking home less for the majority of workers.

The new pension proposal gives an increase of £100 per year in their example. Hardly much of an improvement considering some stand to lose about £3,000 per year
wouldn't worry about that. they won't get it in.

Don't see the parasites of above self funding it's more like us paying for the workshy and feckless above and those below worked to death.

Post by **POSTMAN** » 03 May 2017, 13:04

How delivery companies are screwing over the welfare system...
http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 40&t=79649" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tone123 · Post by **tone123** » 08 May 2017, 13:30

As someone just about to start working for Royal Mail, I can't believe that this is the standard of business communication being put out. It's genuinely on a level with the kind of work I had to mark when teaching 15 year old kids. It reads as if it's been put together by someone in marketing rather than anyone wanting to put over a clear message.
I just love the way it opens with "This is not a race to the bottom" before going on to make comparison with competitors in a way that clearly suggests that they'd like the same poor conditions for Royal Mail employees. The whole thing is riddled with language that shows they want to take everything but give nothing in return.

I haven't even started yet and I dislike them already.

"Ownership of a delivery route given back to the postman or woman". I reckon that if you put that together with some of the other stated aims it means that you'd be responsible for the round in it's entirety i.e. it becomes piece work, you are responsible for completing the task no matter what and how long it takes. No overtime if you can't do it in the companies specified time. This is what's behind holding up the likes of Yodel as a working model - you get paid on completion of a task regardless of what it takes to do it.

Maybe I'm just too cynical.