Equalising pay, terms and conditions.. april 2025 pay rise

[Martin Walsh]

A few points.

1. Royal Mail imposed the new terms and conditions for two reasons they needed more flexibility in contracts and they required people to work Sundays. The second is that they wanted a workforce which was not subject to collective bargaining or were in a union.

2. The BRTG agreement committed Royal Mail to accept new entrants were subject to collective bargaining and were covered by agreements.

3. There are currently 21 thousand new entrants who have been employed since the 1st December 2022. The date when New entrants started.

4. Royal Mail imposed unacceptable terms and conditions which has led to high retention issues.

5. The CWU agreement with EP commits to equalising new entrants terms and conditions over an agreed period within a career path with the first step within 3 months of the transaction.

6. The reason why has to be done over an agreed period is all the following which all has cost implications have to change

A. Same hourly rate.

B. Same full time hours.

C. Paid meal reliefs.

D.London Weighting rates.( inner and outer )

E. Recurrent and Retention payments £5 to £35 per week.

F. Overtime rates

G. Shift allowances

H. Annual leave harmonisation

I. Functional Supplements.

J. Flexibility part of contract.

K. New entrants not subject to MTSF.

L. Sundays.

M. The gig economy style contract.

We are due to commence negotiations from 31st March on Pay , new entrants equalisation and all parts of the Section 5 agreement.

[postslippete]

Another viewpoint could be this. If in 2022 the CWU had reeled it in a bit and brought the disputes to an end sooner, the introduction of a new-entrant contract would not have occurred, or at least was far less likely to occur, meaning there would not be any new entrants to compete with, and so perhaps the CWU is, after all, responsible for the current situation where, as you say, PT legacy staff aren’t getting made up to FT becauze new entrants are being employed instead? There is lots of supposition…

Maybe, but you need to understand that the RM board launched a particularly hard offensive on working conditions and were unwilling to compromise on most of it at the time so the union had no choice but to strike. The last thing we want was a casualised, gig style economy without any union involvement. Imho this was an entirely deliberate strategy by the company which turned over record profits the previous year and had stockpiled a "war-chest" of £1.7 billion....

As for the Union, they undoubtedly made tactical mistakes like not announcing any strike dates after a costly second ballot (so much for win the ballot, win the dispute) but I think they became aware that they didn't have any real leverage this time round. Unlike the strikes of the past, we are a private company and it suited RM to blame posties for the USO failures whilst the managers and agency staff went out and delivered the Specials and Tracked parcels. We will never be united and reach a strong bargaining position while the company can divide and conquer like this. It is no coincidence that RM also imposed revisions and made a load of changes such as reducing callers office hours before the ink was dry on the last deal.

As we have clearly seen running the company down and mismanaging has been deliberate so that Kretinsky could buy the company on the cheap. He will know that IDS already has a strong financial position and there is a very profitable company lurking in RM once it gets rid of the shackles of the USO.

[scotchy1962]

A few points.

1. Royal Mail imposed the new terms and conditions for two reasons they needed more flexibility in contracts and they required people to work Sundays. The second is that they wanted a workforce which was not subject to collective bargaining or were in a union.

2. The BRTG agreement committed Royal Mail to accept new entrants were subject to collective bargaining and were covered by agreements.

3. There are currently 21 thousand new entrants who have been employed since the 1st December 2022. The date when New entrants started.

4. Royal Mail imposed unacceptable terms and conditions which has led to high retention issues.

5. The CWU agreement with EP commits to equalising new entrants terms and conditions over an agreed period within a career path with the first step within 3 months of the transaction.

6. The reason why has to be done over an agreed period is all the following which all has cost implications have to change

A. Same hourly rate.

B. Same full time hours.

C. Paid meal reliefs.

D.London Weighting rates.( inner and outer )

E. Recurrent and Retention payments £5 to £35 per week.

F. Overtime rates

G. Shift allowances

H. Annual leave harmonisation

I. Functional Supplements.

J. Flexibility part of contract.

K. New entrants not subject to MTSF.

L. Sundays.

M. The gig economy style contract.

We are due to commence negotiations from 31st March on Pay , new entrants equalisation and all parts of the Section 5 agreement.

It's funny Martin but i read all these points and conclude "what's in it for me" and by me i mean a member of the CWU.
Whilst i understand that getting the two-tier thing sorted is good for you { more members hopefully} to me it doesn't get me a sheckel more in my pocket.
Uplifting the new contracts shouldn't come at the expense of your members pay and conditions!

[Valentina@1]

….just get us a decent pay deal for a change,we getting close to min wage

[Smoothbackground]

Maybe, but you need to understand that the RM board launched a particularly hard offensive on working conditions and were unwilling to compromise on most of it at the time so the union had no choice but to strike. The last thing we want was a casualised, gig style economy without any union involvement. Imho this was an entirely deliberate strategy by the company which turned over record profits the previous year and had stockpiled a "war-chest" of £1.7 billion....

As for the Union, they undoubtedly made tactical mistakes like not announcing any strike dates after a costly second ballot (so much for win the ballot, win the dispute) but I think they became aware that they didn't have any real leverage this time round. Unlike the strikes of the past, we are a private company and it suited RM to blame posties for the USO failures whilst the managers and agency staff went out and delivered the Specials and Tracked parcels. We will never be united and reach a strong bargaining position while the company can divide and conquer like this. It is no coincidence that RM also imposed revisions and made a load of changes such as reducing callers office hours before the ink was dry on the last deal.

As we have clearly seen running the company down and mismanaging has been deliberate so that Kretinsky could buy the company on the cheap. He will know that IDS already has a strong financial position and there is a very profitable company lurking in RM once it gets rid of the shackles of the USO.

The union made fundamental mistakes, not just tactical ones, by seemingly forgetting how it makes its money — from members and prospective members (future employees). Scotchy’s post above demonstrates the point amply: what are they doing or getting for you legacy staff? While equalising/levelling up all sounds very nice, and I definitely wouldn’t say no — though I doubt there will be true parity, as Sunday working and flexibility, and provably other things, are here to stay — the very fact is that a large proportion of us 21,000 new entrants (Martin Walsh’s figure so might be wrong/outdated) aren’t even CWU members. Why are they doing that for us?

[Smoothbackground]

M. The gig economy style contract.

We are due to commence negotiations from 31st March on Pay , new entrants equalisation and all parts of the Section 5 agreement.

You never reply, Martin, but I’ll ask anyway. Which gig-economy-style contract are you referring to? Is it the new Angard casual contract you’re referring to?

[Woody84]

‘Career path’ meaning a year or two?

Would it not be better uplifting on performance over a period of time rather than over just a period of time? Surely that way there is less chance us new contracts get disillusioned and just pack it in.

We’ve lost a few at our DO already since I’ve been there, some have been hard working other not so much, but the hard working people have left because they’ve felt disgruntled etc. I love the job and although I’m learning every day I put in every effort to get better every day, I want to continue it for as long as my body allows me! But if I have to wait over a year for better terms/pay I’d have doubts over whether I could do it.

There has to be more of an incentive rather than “you’ll be better off in one year+”

[postslippete]

The union made fundamental mistakes, not just tactical ones, by seemingly forgetting how it makes its money — from members and prospective members (future employees). Scotchy’s post above demonstrates the point amply: what are they doing or getting for you legacy staff? While equalising/levelling up all sounds very nice, and I definitely wouldn’t say no — though I doubt there will be true parity, as Sunday working and flexibility, and provably other things, are here to stay — the very fact is that a large proportion of us 21,000 new entrants (Martin Walsh’s figure so might be wrong/outdated) aren’t even CWU members. Why are they doing that for us?

I guess by harmonising the new entrants contracts the Union is trying to prevent a national institution from turning into an unreliable uber-style gig economy company in the future?? However, many of the new staff in our office have a contract that states that their working hours are 7am till 7pm 7 days a week so that means that RM still have overall flexibility for them to work as OPGs, LAT drivers and also work Sundays.

For us legacy staff it is hardly a resounding victory and there will be further changes to working conditions for all of us once USO reform is bedded in. The only thing that annoys me about all of this is that both RM and the CWU are still claiming that the business faces a very serious financial situation but imho this has been and still is one of their own making. The reality is that the overall business is healthy and they are simply using this as an excuse to make death by a thousand cuts.

[kazardaimenu]

Well time is ticking and soon RM won’t be able to advertise new jobs as being 10% above market average but instead 3% above minimum wage! That sounds an appealing rate for clearing double mail+ daily

[Smoothbackground]

The union made fundamental mistakes, not just tactical ones, by seemingly forgetting how it makes its money — from members and prospective members (future employees). Scotchy’s post above demonstrates the point amply: what are they doing or getting for you legacy staff? While equalising/levelling up all sounds very nice, and I definitely wouldn’t say no — though I doubt there will be true parity, as Sunday working and flexibility, and provably other things, are here to stay — the very fact is that a large proportion of us 21,000 new entrants (Martin Walsh’s figure so might be wrong/outdated) aren’t even CWU members. Why are they doing that for us?

I guess by harmonising the new entrants contracts the Union is trying to prevent a national institution from turning into an unreliable uber-style gig economy company in the future?? However, many of the new staff in our office have a contract that states that their working hours are 7am till 7pm 7 days a week so that means that RM still have overall flexibility for them to work as OPGs, LAT drivers and also work Sundays.

For us legacy staff it is hardly a resounding victory and there will be further changes to working conditions for all of us once USO reform is bedded in. The only thing that annoys me about all of this is that both RM and the CWU are still claiming that the business faces a very serious financial situation but imho this has been and still is one of their own making. The reality is that the overall business is healthy and they are simply using this as an excuse to make death by a thousand cuts.

You have lots of faith in the union and its motives, i hope it isn’t misplaced. I don’t think it is as innocent as that myself though. The CWU needs the new-entrant employees to be onside, and of course to be fee-paying members, in order for it to survive beyond the medium term.

Nothing turns on it, but a clarification on the core hours of work per the new-entrant 40-hr contract — it isn’t 7am to 7pm; it is 6am to 10pm!

[norris9]

E. Recurrent and Retention payments £5 to £35 per week.

What is this?


There probably should be some sort of retention payments to encourage people to stay. The only thing I have heard you get as a reward is an extra weeks annual leave after 20 years of service! Surely Royal Mail can do better than this to encourage people to stay.

[fb1969]

E. Recurrent and Retention payments £5 to £35 per week.

What is this?


There probably should be some sort of retention payments to encourage people to stay. The only thing I have heard you get as a reward is an extra weeks annual leave after 20 years of service! Surely Royal Mail can do better than this to encourage people to stay.

Certain areas got an extra payment to offset the higher housing etc costs locally - similar to London Weighting. Where I worked it was a similar amount to the Delivery Supplement.

[hero22]

Reading through this thread am i right in thinking that new starts in the past year , some on 40 hour contracts are now going to be upgraded to equal pay conditions with the rest of us who have been here longer ?

Most of the new starts in my office are not in the union so why are the union fighting the corner of those who aren’t signed up members ? In the past the union in our place wouldn’t lift a finger for you unless you were a fee paying member.

[OikOik]

Reading through this thread am i right in thinking that new starts in the past year , some on 40 hour contracts are now going to be upgraded to equal pay conditions with the rest of us who have been here longer ?

Most of the new starts in my office are not in the union so why are the union fighting the corner of those who aren’t signed up members ? In the past the union in our place wouldn’t lift a finger for you unless you were a fee paying member.

Because they are the future, current members of the union will retire eventually or leave. So they have to get new members in the union somehow.

[Newandscared]

@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.

Yes ASDA may be a male v female issue but it still stands that we are paid equal pay for equal work. The agency workers are paid more than the new contract, less than the old contract. New contract have less pay than old contract. Old contract will eventually be all people that are older than on the new contract. It's a matter of time before the new contract people are all under a certain age and the old contract people over a certain age....then it looks quite difficult for the heirarchy to explain it away. The are also thinking about it otherwise equalising the pay wouldn't be a thing.