@martin Walsh I 've been with royal mail 2 years in July. I just want.
The same hourly wage as the other person I'm working with. Doing the exact same job.
Opportunity to get full time hours which I have been doing for.a while but never offered.
Not having to wait another year to equalise my terms when I've been hanging on for so long hoping they get better.
Fairness in the office with ot offered. Some people are getting deals being paid 4 hours for 1.5 hours work cause "there fast" and already on full time hours when we're struggling to up our hours on 27,30 contracts.
Doesn't seem a lot to ask for me and 19,000 others.
If by April there's no sign of this happening me and alot of others will be gone, including out the union. Can't afford to wait it out much longer.
You took the job knowing the new contract deal surely?
If you get leveled up it will be a nice bonus but you cannot really "demand it"
@martin Walsh I 've been with royal mail 2 years in July. I just want.
The same hourly wage as the other person I'm working with. Doing the exact same job.
Opportunity to get full time hours which I have been doing for.a while but never offered.
Not having to wait another year to equalise my terms when I've been hanging on for so long hoping they get better.
Fairness in the office with ot offered. Some people are getting deals being paid 4 hours for 1.5 hours work cause "there fast" and already on full time hours when we're struggling to up our hours on 27,30 contracts.
Doesn't seem a lot to ask for me and 19,000 others.
If by April there's no sign of this happening me and alot of others will be gone, including out the union. Can't afford to wait it out much longer.
I would also expect that Sunday working is one of the items/areas of difference — something that I doubt can/will be removed, especially as Sunday ops look to be a big area of growth for the company and something that’s here to stay.
But i am hoping that Martin Walsh will, as requested, list the 14 points of difference between the two contracts, rather than just asserting there are 14 differences but with no further detail. Martin, can you please enlighten us?
Whilst we're waiting perhaps we could start to compile our own list, the aspects I can think of are :
Negatives
1. Lower rate of pay
2. No delivery supplement
3. No paid breaks
4. Monthly pay
5. Month's notice when leaving
6. Sunday working as part of contract
Positives
1. Overtime paid at 1.25 over 40 hours
2. 40 hour contracts can be offered
Can anyone think of the others ?
I’m currently on 32hrs unpaid breaks, I’ve asked if I can be put on full time hours but not allowed even though there’s space, receiving just over £1400 a month, overtime has been scrapped
The money has been invested in the parcel side of the business it's the letter delivery which has been set adrift to sink slowly
I fully expect the parcel side of RM to thrive in the very near future
Already is, we get more parcels than mail now
6.6 billion letters last year, and in 2023 (the last year I can find packet volume listed in the financial reports) packets were 1.4 billion. No matter how much the service is collapsing under the strain of endless Tracked, there is no way parcels have increased six-fold.
@martin Walsh I 've been with royal mail 2 years in July. I just want.
The same hourly wage as the other person I'm working with. Doing the exact same job.
Opportunity to get full time hours which I have been doing for.a while but never offered.
Not having to wait another year to equalise my terms when I've been hanging on for so long hoping they get better.
Fairness in the office with ot offered. Some people are getting deals being paid 4 hours for 1.5 hours work cause "there fast" and already on full time hours when we're struggling to up our hours on 27,30 contracts.
Doesn't seem a lot to ask for me and 19,000 others.
If by April there's no sign of this happening me and alot of others will be gone, including out the union. Can't afford to wait it out much longer.
You took the job knowing the new contract deal surely?
If you get leveled up it will be a nice bonus but you cannot really "demand it"
Actually we all can demand equal pay, some organisations are currently in a bit of trouble for paying different rates for the same job and they have been told to remedy the situation....see the ongoing ASDA claim. Also the EQA says there must be equal pay for equal tasks with few exceptions so it would be reasonable to at least demand what their reasoning is. Demanding though doesn't mean they will give it so the ultimate demand is voting with feet and the constant recruitment costs a lot of money. https://indeedflex.co.uk/blog/how-much- ... sting-you/
I’m not accepting new contracted workers , who were brought in on full time contracts ( 35-40 hours ), having their pay and terms equal with mine when I’ve been in the business nearly 20 years, still part time and the only reason I’ve never been given a full time contract is because they brought in new entrants on lesser terms. New entrants who could then have equal terms with me whilst having a full time contract and me and others remain on a sub 30 part time contract despite working over a decade longer.
Every part timer in a similar situation should be onto it
Legacy part timers who wants a permanent full time contract should be offered one before equalisation
If you tolerate this, then your paid break will be next
@martin Walsh I 've been with royal mail 2 years in July. I just want.
The same hourly wage as the other person I'm working with. Doing the exact same job.
Opportunity to get full time hours which I have been doing for.a while but never offered.
Not having to wait another year to equalise my terms when I've been hanging on for so long hoping they get better.
Fairness in the office with ot offered. Some people are getting deals being paid 4 hours for 1.5 hours work cause "there fast" and already on full time hours when we're struggling to up our hours on 27,30 contracts.
Doesn't seem a lot to ask for me and 19,000 others.
If by April there's no sign of this happening me and alot of others will be gone, including out the union. Can't afford to wait it out much longer.
You took the job knowing the new contract deal surely?
If you get leveled up it will be a nice bonus but you cannot really "demand it"
Actually we all can demand equal pay, some organisations are currently in a bit of trouble for paying different rates for the same job and they have been told to remedy the situation....see the ongoing ASDA claim. Also the EQA says there must be equal pay for equal tasks with few exceptions so it would be reasonable to at least demand what their reasoning is. Demanding though doesn't mean they will give it so the ultimate demand is voting with feet and the constant recruitment costs a lot of money. https://indeedflex.co.uk/blog/how-much- ... sting-you/
The Asda dispute is male v female workers, which is totally different to the situation at RM.
I’m not accepting new contracted workers , who were brought in on full time contracts ( 35-40 hours ), having their pay and terms equal with mine when I’ve been in the business nearly 20 years, still part time and the only reason I’ve never been given a full time contract is because they brought in new entrants on lesser terms. New entrants who could then have equal terms with me whilst having a full time contract and me and others remain on a sub 30 part time contract despite working over a decade longer.
Every part timer in a similar situation should be onto it
Legacy part timers who wants a permanent full time contract should be offered one before equalisation
You would have to have a full repick if they are having their terms enhanced and have jumped ahead of the queue getting FT.
I’m not accepting new contracted workers , who were brought in on full time contracts ( 35-40 hours ), having their pay and terms equal with mine when I’ve been in the business nearly 20 years, still part time and the only reason I’ve never been given a full time contract is because they brought in new entrants on lesser terms. New entrants who could then have equal terms with me whilst having a full time contract and me and others remain on a sub 30 part time contract despite working over a decade longer.
Every part timer in a similar situation should be onto it
Legacy part timers who wants a permanent full time contract should be offered one before equalisation
New-entrant contracts have only been a thing for two and a half years. It isn’t the fault of those new entrants that you weren’t made up to FT during the preceding 17.5 years. With respect, might it be something to do with your work performance during those years? Not casting aspersions — merely pointing out there could be a million and one reasons you are still on a PT contract, many of which have nothing to do with new entranrs.
While I see - and sympathise with - what you are saying, it is also trite to say that the legacy staff setup, for whatever reason, doesn’t provide the flexibility and adaptability the business is requiring these days. The business is therefore employing a more flexible workforce, ie, new entrants. It isn’t the new entrants’ fault that that is the case…
I’m not accepting new contracted workers , who were brought in on full time contracts ( 35-40 hours ), having their pay and terms equal with mine when I’ve been in the business nearly 20 years, still part time and the only reason I’ve never been given a full time contract is because they brought in new entrants on lesser terms. New entrants who could then have equal terms with me whilst having a full time contract and me and others remain on a sub 30 part time contract despite working over a decade longer.
Every part timer in a similar situation should be onto it
Legacy part timers who wants a permanent full time contract should be offered one before equalisation
New-entrant contracts have only been a thing for two and a half years. It isn’t the fault of those new entrants that you weren’t made up to FT during the preceding 17.5 years. With respect, might it be something to do with your work performance during those years? Not casting aspersions — merely pointing out there could be a million and one reasons you are still on a PT contract, many of which have nothing to do with new entranrs.
While I see - and sympathise with - what you are saying, it is also trite to say that the legacy staff setup, for whatever reason, doesn’t provide the flexibility and adaptability the business is requiring these days. The business is therefore employing a more flexible workforce, ie, new entrants. It isn’t the new entrants’ fault that that is the case…
But you think that everything fought for and earned over the last 2 or 3 decades should be dished out to those new entrants who not only took the job knowing those Ts@Cs but have contributed directly to the creation of a two and three-tier workforce and weakening of collective bargaining?
It isn’t the old entrants’ fault that a load of people signed up to inferior conditions, inferior wages and accelerated the pace of the race to the bottom.
I’m not accepting new contracted workers , who were brought in on full time contracts ( 35-40 hours ), having their pay and terms equal with mine when I’ve been in the business nearly 20 years, still part time and the only reason I’ve never been given a full time contract is because they brought in new entrants on lesser terms. New entrants who could then have equal terms with me whilst having a full time contract and me and others remain on a sub 30 part time contract despite working over a decade longer.
Every part timer in a similar situation should be onto it
Legacy part timers who wants a permanent full time contract should be offered one before equalisation
New-entrant contracts have only been a thing for two and a half years. It isn’t the fault of those new entrants that you weren’t made up to FT during the preceding 17.5 years. With respect, might it be something to do with your work performance during those years? Not casting aspersions — merely pointing out there could be a million and one reasons you are still on a PT contract, many of which have nothing to do with new entranrs.
While I see - and sympathise with - what you are saying, it is also trite to say that the legacy staff setup, for whatever reason, doesn’t provide the flexibility and adaptability the business is requiring these days. The business is therefore employing a more flexible workforce, ie, new entrants. It isn’t the new entrants’ fault that that is the case…
Its not the fault of the new entrants. I never said it was. It would be stupid to as you just took a job. I said the process of bringing in new entrants on lesser terms is the problem and it is. The business that decided to change the terms of new contracts is where my blame lies.
My office brought in several new entrants on the lesser terms on full time hours rather than make up the legacy PTers that were already there.
That is directly the causation of why we never got a full time contract.
Last edited by Acca Dacca on 11 Mar 2025, 16:44, edited 2 times in total.
If you tolerate this, then your paid break will be next
I’m not accepting new contracted workers , who were brought in on full time contracts ( 35-40 hours ), having their pay and terms equal with mine when I’ve been in the business nearly 20 years, still part time and the only reason I’ve never been given a full time contract is because they brought in new entrants on lesser terms. New entrants who could then have equal terms with me whilst having a full time contract and me and others remain on a sub 30 part time contract despite working over a decade longer.
Every part timer in a similar situation should be onto it
Legacy part timers who wants a permanent full time contract should be offered one before equalisation
New-entrant contracts have only been a thing for two and a half years. It isn’t the fault of those new entrants that you weren’t made up to FT during the preceding 17.5 years. With respect, might it be something to do with your work performance during those years? Not casting aspersions — merely pointing out there could be a million and one reasons you are still on a PT contract, many of which have nothing to do with new entranrs.
While I see - and sympathise with - what you are saying, it is also trite to say that the legacy staff setup, for whatever reason, doesn’t provide the flexibility and adaptability the business is requiring these days. The business is therefore employing a more flexible workforce, ie, new entrants. It isn’t the new entrants’ fault that that is the case…
But you think that everything fought for and earned over the last 2 or 3 decades should be dished out to those new entrants who not only took the job knowing those Ts@Cs but have contributed directly to the creation of a two and three-tier workforce and weakening of collective bargaining?
It isn’t the old entrants’ fault that a load of people signed up to inferior conditions, inferior wages and accelerated the pace of the race to the bottom.
I am a new entrant myself so speak from this side of the table. We did nothing except apply for advertised jobs. Your union, the CWU, is responsible for the two-tier situation we all find ourselves in. Had the CWU done its job right, you would not now be putting up with us lowlife new entrants. Did you expect us all to leave the minute we found out we were, in the view of legacy staff, stepping on their toes? PS: You and Acca rightly identify the irreconcilable conflicts of interest the CWU finds itself in.
But you think that everything fought for and earned over the last 2 or 3 decades should be dished out to those new entrants
What exactly do you think we have "fought for and earned over the last 2 or 3 decades"?
Everything that the company had to be challenged on or debated with to grant.
Every time the company, who like others should know the financial year ends in the first week of April but has to continue negotiations on their staff pay rise until June, July and August.
Stuff like that. You will note that over the piece, you or I do not work for some great philanthropic organisation who only have our best interests at heart. Successive leadership groups of this company have been very much in favour of keeping as much of the pie to themselves, and latterly shareholders, as they can possibly get away with.