General Secretary Dave Ward and DGSP Terry Pullinger sharing their thoughts on our Four Pillars agreement

[worktotime]

Too many issues are not being addressed , bullshite Mail figures , copy & paste work plans , bullying & HARRASSMENT , job being run on overtime etc , don't be fooled by a few hundred quid in back pay , we need to protect our futures now ! Big NO vote from me

I don't think you will be the only one voting NO , especially in delivery .

by the way do you still want a loan ? if you sign it I will send you the terms and rules later on ok ,

[hans solo]

voting no

[Dorset Plodder]

From a Delivery viewpoint I believe there's still too much vagueness (as per Trolleyman's post). The main point of concern for me was the Pension Problem, and how they were going to resolve it. That's still up in the air with just wishful thinking that the Tory Government may change legislation to help us out! So that's still a concern. Although they'll re-visit it again in 12 months if it doesn't look like being brought in.

Also concerned that the reduction of 1 hour to the working week is NOT going to be handled well. Last time they just knocked 12 mnutes off the clocking off time. All that did was confuse everyone's mental arithmatic at the end of a long day when trying to work out your overtime. Seemed to be hints about perhaps knocking the whole hour off a Tuesday? I don't believe the majority of RM Managers are up to the task of thinking of innovative ways of introducing new working techniques.

There does seem a lot of trials suggested, which future wage increases and hourly reductions will depend upon. I for one have no problem with using PDA & Trimble data to actually find out how long duties are. IMO there are too many skiving bastards in this business, who have not been doing their fair share of work for years.

I realise RM want a later start time but I don't believe there's any protection to an early start even now. We've recently been running a "Trial" and the DOMs simply said to certain Duties, "You'll be starting at 0700 now instead of 0600", and as we have quite a few Rurals we could be out to 16.30 anyway despite RM saying it won't effect many Delivery Offices.

A few extra quid a week is nice ( although inflation is set to rise in the near future, so that'll eat into it already) but you've got to look at the BIG Picture and see how these changes effect your working day.....everyday.....for the rest of your working life! It wouldn't surprise me if Dave & Terry don't get as large a "Yes" vote as they did for IA. I'm sure it'll get voted through, even though most of us are unhappy about it, because most of the idiots will just be thinking about the backdated wages they'll get.

[mw7485]

And Dave Ward was an ordinary postman from south London, who worked his way up to the position he now holds. And good luck to him. So he knows what it’s like to do a delivery.

That Royal Mail was a very different beast to this one. I have no issue with where Mr Ward is now, or how he got there. Respect to him for that.

However, you only have to look at the history of our senior leadership to see the likely path we are headed down. One is an ex McKinsey partner. I'll say no more there. The other? well, look to Canada Post for her skill set and the seeds that were sown their on her watch whilst there. These are people with no true vision. They continually talk about decline and think the only way to move forward is by waving a big stick. The word opportunity is seldom uttered.

Few people in their right mind doubt that this is a rapidly changing industry which requires those who participate in it to adapt and change. I accept that - and I'm game. Sadly, short term, unjoined-up thinking rules ATM - yet the real prize is still probably 5-10 years away when just like shopping, one or two major players will dominate. I don't really have an issue with the pension or the pay rise numbers in this agreement TBH. I do however, have a big issue with attitude and approach. There are two ways of changing an organisation: collaboratively or autocratically. The latter will work to a degree but the former, whilst far harder is the way to achieve long lasting, real and effective change. This agreement is a tool for the former management style, which is antiquated, ineffective and belongs in the 1970's. It leads to confrontation and creates unnecessary barriers and a hostile and poisonous working environment that is ultimately very inefficient. This is 2017, and the vision of our senior leadership and the relationships they have with the workforce that actually generates the revenue and thus the profits must reflect that. Anything else and we'll likely sink faster than the Titanic. It is no good our leaders just talking the talk - they need to walk the walk as well, and that means engaging with the workforce properly, openly and honestly. And the union? They are the grease that can keep the machine running. Unfortunately, the grease that is this agreement is full of rocks. We are better than this agreement, and deserve better.

Stands back from soapbox.

[Yamr1]

Westham
No one knows deep down
It's coming from above from share holders
And there negotiation team that run rings about ours

So let's all work till 67 for other people's wealth
And get less so they can go more holidays and fancy cars etc

[yellowbelly]

I would like someone on this site who is more knowledgable then me to
A) post Royal Mails yearly profits.
B) post the total amount paid out to share holders via the dividend.
And C) the cost per year of running our current soon to close DB pension scheme.

Thank you.

From RM's Annual Report and Financial Statements 2016 - 2017 (which covers period Mar to Mar):

A - There are that many different categories of profit before 'this and that' in the accounts it is difficult to pin
down what you are looking for (e.g. just UK operations or including GLS, before tax, after tax, before or after 'transformation costs' blah blah blah)
but a good headline figure of 'Profit attributable to equitable holders of parent company' in an LSE announcement on behalf of RMG was 279 million.

B - 222 million

C - When you say 'running' if you are talking about how much it costs to administer the plan it says £5 million in the report (para 9)

[dvbuk55]

"This is a really good deal for the members"is repeated like a mantra by the leadership for this agreement as they have in the past with other agreements; which in time has proven to be not such a good deal. Who remembers the fabled "deal of the century" it turned out the century wasn't the current one. I'm now over 71 but only retired when I was 69 and it's my opinion if this was a good deal for the members it would be self evident and not couched in jargon that needs to be explained and certainly doesn't address many of the issues faced in deliveries. I wish you all good luck for the future.

[DB1100]

terry and dave
go do a f***ing delivery see if you cope

[yellowbelly]

.....if this was a good deal for the members it would be self evident and not couched in jargon that needs to be explained.....

Exactly!! - if it's not down in black and white, RM could drive a coach and horses through it at a later point!

[dodger71]

STOP THE BULLYING ....AND ..HARASSMENT....LEAVE ME ALONE TO GET ON WITH MY JOB....BIG NO NO VOTE FOR ME...DELIVERIES GETTING SCREWED OVER AGAIN...LOT OF JARGON THAT GUARANTEES "NOTHING "

[daveyeff]

still no reply from union as regards to augmented benefits payments being stopped for VRs and IHR. must be true then.

[hans solo]

we need to campaign against this agreement even if it means going against pec

[mr hil.]

still no reply from union as regards to augmented benefits payments being stopped for VRs and IHR. must be true then.

I have done a little reading of the MTSF and there are changes to the payments you would receive for IHR under the new proposed scheme, but this would have been true as soon as Royal Mail closed the old DB scheme.

It is very complicated but as a quick gist of it I think under the old scheme most older members would have received their enhanced pension upon IHR with the calculations based on about 75% of future contributions as though they had happened as well as recognizable service. Under the new scheme you would get 50% salary (less government benefits) for up to three years, followed by a lump sum and then your non-enhanced pension, which I think would be the new pension.

I am unclear as to whether you would receive any payment from the old scheme too at IHR but you would surely be able to get the NRA60 and NRA65 benefits after age 55.

[daveyeff]

it also says augmented payments for redundancies would cease

[stodgy88]

spoke to union rep Saturday, he checked with some big hitter ,and said that the augumented payments would continue ,except on some extra payments like schedule attendance etc,not sure if that makes sense,but that's what he told me , knowing very little about this subject propbably just fobbing me off. :