Monthly Pay

vickymck · Post by **vickymck** » 31 Jan 2017, 16:47

I heard recently that we could be made an offer to go to monthly pay. The possible payout being £1000 pro rata.

Why would this need to be pro rata as the cost of payslips, bank charges etc are exactly the same for LTFT or FT.

Anybody else heard this.

rubberbond · Post by **rubberbond** » 31 Jan 2017, 16:49

They can't get payments right on a weekly basis and luckily we only have to wait a week for corrective action, but waiting 2 months? No,thanks.

vickymck · Post by **vickymck** » 31 Jan 2017, 16:54

I think it will happen as they want to save as much money as possible and the majority will say yes for a "bribe"

redneck · Post by **redneck** » 31 Jan 2017, 17:06

I've been in work under varous employers for over 35 years and weekly pay is so much better for budgeting, sorting out errors quickly etc. DON'T TAKE THE BRIBE, you will be worse off!

Jefferson Starfish · Post by **Jefferson Starfish** » 31 Jan 2017, 17:09

vickymck wrote:I heard recently that we could be made an offer to go to monthly pay. The possible payout being £1000 pro rata.

Why would this need to be pro rata as the cost of payslips, bank charges etc are exactly the same for LTFT or FT.

Anybody else heard this.

So a £750 bribe to accept the pension changes that will reduce our pensions by thousands and a £1,000 bribe to accept 1 payslip a month instead of 4. Doesn't really add up.

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 31 Jan 2017, 17:15

vickymck wrote:I heard recently that we could be made an offer to go to monthly pay. The possible payout being £1000 pro rata.

Why would this need to be pro rata as the cost of payslips, bank charges etc are exactly the same for LTFT or FT.

Anybody else heard this.

Royal Mail did mention in pay negotiations for either the 2007 or 2010 deal.

However, everything else is rumour, so treat it as such. No figure has been given, so there is no certainty if it's going to be pro-rata or not. In fact, we may get nothing - POL staff who are being forced on to monthly pay this year are not getting an incentive to accept it.

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 19&t=78300" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In fact that LTB link above is probably where the £1000 pro-rata came from, but is as said for POL staff, and it was a proposal by the CWU, not an offer from the Board. (has someone mistaken RM for the PO yet again

)

Darwinsdad · Post by **Darwinsdad** » 31 Jan 2017, 19:27

vickymck wrote:I heard recently that we could be made an offer to go to monthly pay. The possible payout being £1000 pro rata.

Why would this need to be pro rata as the cost of payslips, bank charges etc are exactly the same for LTFT or FT.

Anybody else heard this.

Why should any payoff/bribe/sweetener in this situation be pro-rata? The pro-rata stuff at the minute makes some kind of sense, but this is just bonkers. Is it because there'll be more ink used on the payslip of a postie who is F/T as opposed to the P/T postie?

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 31 Jan 2017, 19:50

Darwinsdad wrote:
vickymck wrote:I heard recently that we could be made an offer to go to monthly pay. The possible payout being £1000 pro rata.

Why would this need to be pro rata as the cost of payslips, bank charges etc are exactly the same for LTFT or FT.

Anybody else heard this.
Why should any payoff/bribe/sweetener in this situation be pro-rata? The pro-rata stuff at the minute makes some kind of sense, but this is just bonkers. Is it because there'll be more ink used on the payslip of a postie who is F/T as opposed to the P/T postie?

Its bonkers that people say its bonkers as though its been agreed. It hasn't been proposed, there is no incentive, we haven't been balloted on any action about it. Not only is it speculation, its speculation and complaining on something that isn't even happening, yet.

Oh BTW, the reason if it ever happens that it may be pro-rata (hopefully based on hours worked to 39) is that FTs are paid more over the same period, therefore the cost/aggravation of going to monthly pay is greater. But last of all if PT did get it in full the same as FTs, then that may be classed as discriminatory because based on contracted hours PT would be paid more per hour than FT, and that is against the law. For instance if a 1 hour contact got £1000, and a £25 hour got the same - one is paid £1000 per hour - the other £40.

Post by **woody38** » 31 Jan 2017, 20:07

It will happen, surprised is has'nt happened before, we are the only people who work for a big multi national company to be paid weekly, people laugh at more when I tell them we are still paid weekly. I would be happy to get a £1'000 up front but can't see how RM could afford it, it would cost millions, but if it does go ahead good, everybody I associate with who is paid monthly say they would never go back to weekly, so there must be some good points to it.

datasaint · Post by **datasaint** » 31 Jan 2017, 20:51

Monthly pay would result in DOMs trying to input 30 days worth of OT into PSP the day before it closes, it'd be chaos. It wouldn't be manageable from the POV of an employee doing OT to have to wait 4 weeks to get paid for OT, especially now PTers are effectively FTers now in all but name.

Martin Walsh · Post by **Martin Walsh** » 01 Feb 2017, 20:19

The saving Royal Mail will make from monthly pay is very small hence why they have not persued it for a few years.

A number of years ago when every area had a wages department which entered all the pay, Royal Mail wanted to move too monthly pay. However now we have a much small wages department based in Sheffield and that PSP it is no longer a real priority for Royal Mail as they know it is one which has been opposed by postal workers over decades.

Post by **Lincox** » 01 Feb 2017, 22:48

If monthly pay did arrive the likelihood is that a £1000 would be a loan, not a bribe. The loan would then be collected over a 12 month period. It would mean that people would not have to go 4 to 5 weeks without any pay at the start. Have seen this happen in several companies who have moved to monthly pay.