Vr 50 +

[Acca Dacca]

Martin can you confirm that you posted something about previous VRs being done for over 50s ( or 55s )

Whilst you’ve said this time that won’t happen, I’m fairly confident you did say it had happened in the past

[Barnacle]

Any VRs will be done as always on 2 criteria’s skills and seniority.

Clearly in the USO scenario any unit with a surplus at the time of USO deployment will potentially be resolved with an opportunity to have VR.

Seniority will be the initial criteria but skills will come into it if for example a unit has not got enough drivers left to run the unit post deployment.

So once again drivers are being shat on from a great height

No. What Martin is saying is that if a unit does not have excess staff, no VRs will be offered at all.

That's not what he said.

Second paragraph: there has to be a surplus of staff for any VRs to be offered.

Not all units will have a surplus after the pilots, most are understaffed now. So few will have the offer of VR. Be prepared for VR to not be offered.

[Barnacle]

When we goona find out VR package details?….lot of us have decisions to make!!

The new owner may not offer any. Depends if he sticks to what he agreed with the CWU prior to the sale being completed.

[claretandblue]

Any VRs will be done as always on 2 criteria’s skills and seniority.

Clearly in the USO scenario any unit with a surplus at the time of USO deployment will potentially be resolved with an opportunity to have VR.

Seniority will be the initial criteria but skills will come into it if for example a unit has not got enough drivers left to run the unit post deployment.

So once again drivers are being shat on from a great height

No. What Martin is saying is that if a unit does not have excess staff, no VRs will be offered at all.

That's not what he said.

Second paragraph: there has to be a surplus of staff for any VRs to be offered.

Not all units will have a surplus after the pilots, most are understaffed now. So few will have the offer of VR. Be prepared for VR to not be offered.

We're talking about vr, obviously there has to be an excess, but a less senior non driver is now allowed to jump the queue.

[Acca Dacca]

Any VRs will be done as always on 2 criteria’s skills and seniority.

Clearly in the USO scenario any unit with a surplus at the time of USO deployment will potentially be resolved with an opportunity to have VR.

Seniority will be the initial criteria but skills will come into it if for example a unit has not got enough drivers left to run the unit post deployment.

So once again drivers are being shat on from a great height

No. What Martin is saying is that if a unit does not have excess staff, no VRs will be offered at all.

That's not what he said.

Second paragraph: there has to be a surplus of staff for any VRs to be offered.

Not all units will have a surplus after the pilots, most are understaffed now. So few will have the offer of VR. Be prepared for VR to not be offered.

Yeah but obviously he’s talking about if there is a surplus of bodies but giving VRs on seniority would leave the unit short of the required number of drivers

Like I say though that gets messy because most senior posties who drive don’t have it in their contract

[Barnacle]

Any VRs will be done as always on 2 criteria’s skills and seniority.

Clearly in the USO scenario any unit with a surplus at the time of USO deployment will potentially be resolved with an opportunity to have VR.

Seniority will be the initial criteria but skills will come into it if for example a unit has not got enough drivers left to run the unit post deployment.

So once again drivers are being shat on from a great height

No. What Martin is saying is that if a unit does not have excess staff, no VRs will be offered at all.

That's not what he said.

Second paragraph: there has to be a surplus of staff for any VRs to be offered.

Not all units will have a surplus after the pilots, most are understaffed now. So few will have the offer of VR. Be prepared for VR to not be offered.

We're talking about vr, obviously there has to be an excess, but a less senior non driver is now allowed to jump the queue.

The queue is long but as happened last time VR was offered, barely anyone got it - not one person in my office - so it’s best to prepare for it not to be an option. Enough will just leave without it because the pilot method scrapes out any tiny enjoyment we may have had in the job.

[SMS1969]

When we goona find out VR package details?….lot of us have decisions to make!!

From what was said by Martin previously, it will be just less than a years money, if any are offered. It won’t be going higher than that. If you remember, when the dispute was on there was a question asked by RM about how many would be willing to take VR , which was I think about seven months pay. I think there was a 6k sweetener mentioned as well. Lots jumped at the opportunity, it turned out to be a hypothetical question, they were never going to offer any at that time- they were testing the waters so to speak.
So if many wanted out on seven months + 6k, you ain’t getting anywhere near the two years that was offered before, in any negotiations.

[Valentina@1]

Once spin a time we had a union

Sad times

[Barnacle]

Once spin a time we had a union

Sad times

I really don’t understand your comment? The union have made an agreement with EP Group. But they don’t own RM yet. Even when they do, no one in an office that does not have an excess of staff will be offered VR.

Plenty are going to leave anyway in the coming months so the chances of VR being on the table are slim to none.

[Acca Dacca]

The thing is I thought the purpose of the VRs were partly to replace legacy contracts with new contracts with Sunday working etc on them

So it doesn’t have to be about whether there’s a surplus or not - the business can just replace the legacy worker who got VR with a new contract employee if they are short on numbers

[claretandblue]

The thing is I thought the purpose of the VRs were partly to replace legacy contracts with new contracts with Sunday working etc on them

So it doesn’t have to be about whether there’s a surplus or not - the business can just replace the legacy worker who got VR with a new contract employee if they are short on numbers

That's illegal isn't it?

[Acca Dacca]

The thing is I thought the purpose of the VRs were partly to replace legacy contracts with new contracts with Sunday working etc on them

So it doesn’t have to be about whether there’s a surplus or not - the business can just replace the legacy worker who got VR with a new contract employee if they are short on numbers

That's illegal isn't it?

Well the last VR round a few years back they brought in new entrants pretty much right after so there is a way around it

I think it would be illegal if compulsory redundancy but think it’s different if voluntary because well it’s voluntary

[Valentina@1]

Once spin a time we had a union

Sad times

I really don’t understand your comment? The union have made an agreement with EP Group. But they don’t own RM yet. Even when they do, no one in an office that does not have an excess of staff will be offered VR.

Plenty are going to leave anyway in the coming months so the chances of VR being on the table are slim to none.

VR is not just office based,it’s done on area…ie if there’s no takers in one office,it gets bumped to next local

[scoobydo79]

The thing is I thought the purpose of the VRs were partly to replace legacy contracts with new contracts with Sunday working etc on them

So it doesn’t have to be about whether there’s a surplus or not - the business can just replace the legacy worker who got VR with a new contract employee if they are short on numbers

That's illegal isn't it?

Yes the job has to be going not the person .

[menditsa]

I'll take VR under condition £50K lump sump and 6 months supply of Viagra