sell off your future for the fabulous price of...£80

[goinpostal]

Wow what a cash bonanza privatisation will be for employees!

It's been leaked that RM will pay a dividend in 2014 of £133 billion if it is privatised. That was also the figure given at Thursday's Brum national meeting.

It's maximum sale price if 100% is sold is £3 billion. They are selling a little more than half of it.

At that price a bloc of 10% of shares is worth £300 million.

Divided between 150,000 eligible staff. (see p. 6 of the brilliant new pageturner that plonked on your doorstep today, "Guide to the Royal Mail Employee Share offers the free shares offer and the employee priority offer")

Average employee's shares (ignoring part timers get pro rata): £2000

Average employee's payout in 2014: £88.66

minus tax: 10% for dividends = £79.80

If my math's right (anyone able to check it I'm crap at maths), that's half our christmas bonus - for selling off our whole bleedin future!!! Dont think so Moya, Donnie and Co.

[mandelsons_toenail]

Crap isn't it.

I can invest £2000 and get a return of near on 5% this year with yearly dividends paid after the agm with a savings union.

They can stick their £88

[justdeno]

Rather spend my money on ERNIE. Don't have to sell my soul for a pittance.

[cloherty1976]

Give your £88 to charity they would appreciate he money.

[RobertT]

Wow what a cash bonanza privatisation will be for employees!

It's been leaked that RM will pay a dividend in 2014 of £133 billion if it is privatised. That was also the figure given at Thursday's Brum national meeting.

It wasn't leaked, it was in the press release on 12th Setember!
And was also mentioned here: http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 38&t=55349" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; on the same day.

If my math's right (anyone able to check it I'm crap at maths), that's half our christmas bonus - for selling off our whole bleedin future!!! Dont think so Moya, Donnie and Co.

We should get dividends every year until we sell the shares, plus the actual value of the shares themselves. Personally I would prefer the same T&C's, etc rather than the shares but surely something is better than nothing?

[goinpostal]

We'll get dividend money yearly - but the £80 figure shows what a pittance this is.

And dividends will only rise with profits, which will only continue to rise, given TNT delivery competition, if our workload goes through the roof, they get rid of fulltime, cut the pension, pay stagnates etc. Otherwise profits are likely to flatline or go down - as is the value of the shares.

So yearly we will get half our xmas bonus (and only then because tax laws privilege the rich ie majority of shareholders and tax dividends more cheaply than income, which is what workers pay).

Then in three years, people might be able to sell their shares for a bit of money that is the equivalent of a months work after tax. It will be a fraction of what they've lost in terms of pay pensions workload stress, and all that.

[mandelsons_toenail]

We'll get dividend money yearly - but the £80 figure shows what a pittance this is.

And dividends will only rise with profits, which will only continue to rise, given TNT delivery competition, if our workload goes through the roof, they get rid of fulltime, cut the pension, pay stagnates etc. Otherwise profits are likely to flatline or go down - as is the value of the shares.

So yearly we will get half our xmas bonus (and only then because tax laws privilege the rich ie majority of shareholders and tax dividends more cheaply than income, which is what workers pay).

Then in three years, people might be able to sell their shares for a bit of money that is the equivalent of a months work after tax. It will be a fraction of what they've lost in terms of pay pensions workload stress, and all that.

[RobertT]

We'll get dividend money yearly - but the £80 figure shows what a pittance this is.

But in percentage terms it's actually pretty good.

And dividends will only rise with profits, which will only continue to rise, given TNT delivery competition, if our workload goes through the roof, they get rid of fulltime, cut the pension, pay stagnates etc. Otherwise profits are likely to flatline or go down - as is the value of the shares.

There's nothing to say dividends have to increase! Who's to say profits could stay the same (£400 Million ish) and the status quo continues?

So yearly we will get half our xmas bonus (and only then because tax laws privilege the rich ie majority of shareholders and tax dividends more cheaply than income, which is what workers pay).

Anyone under the 40% tax rate pays 10% on dividends, above that they pay 32.5%.

Then in three years, people might be able to sell their shares for a bit of money that is the equivalent of a months work after tax.

Not even economists in the city of London know what the shares will be worth in 3 years time!

It will be a fraction of what they've lost in terms of pay pensions workload stress, and all that.

If the worst happens, I agree we will lose a lot more than we'll gain.


The point is that nobody really knows for sure what will happen under privatisation! Out T&C's could change drastically, then again they might not. The shares could be worthless in 3-5 years time, but they could also make a nice little profit. Nobody can see into the future!

[goinpostal]

Thanks Robert.

When I made the calculation about tax on dividends I used the 10 percent figure, as stated. The point is that the law favours the rich and not the working class, that's why we get VAT tax rises under the Coalition and other tax hikes and those on higher incomes get a tax cut. Its also why our pathetically tiny dividends - little more than a days pay for a fulltimer - are taxed at half the rate of our wage. There’s other examples, if we sell our shares we don’t pay any capital gains tax under employee SIPs, another little fiddle to sweeten the privatisation pill.

You seem pretty well informed in terms of tax rates etc, but with all due respect you don't really apply that same attention to detail to privatisation just a 'who knows the future" and "what will be will be" approach.

You say the shares can make a nice little profit – can you explain where these magically will come from other than pay, pensions, increasing the part time to full time ratio? And in the context of the second big wave of competition coming at us (after 2006 opening of the postal market) with TNT starting up deliveries? What about franchising deliveries, mail centres or splitting off Parcelforce as happens in Holland? You just duck the questions of privatisation completely – as if you really didn’t care. You've got one drum to bang - how great shares are and being extremely eager to field all questions and turn all criticisms of them. Interesting.

You seem incredibly relaxed about privatisation, unlike every postman and postwoman i've met yet. What's your job under Royal Mail out of curiosity? I'm an OPG with quite a few years ahead of me in Royal Mail, good reason to worry.

[meako]

I think Goinpostal means Royal Mail will pay a dividend of £133 million and not 133 Billion in their first year.

[borders]

Thanks Robert.

When I made the calculation about tax on dividends I used the 10 percent figure, as stated. The point is that the law favours the rich and not the working class, that's why we get VAT tax rises under the Coalition and other tax hikes and those on higher incomes get a tax cut. Its also why our pathetically tiny dividends - little more than a days pay for a fulltimer - are taxed at half the rate of our wage. There’s other examples, if we sell our shares we don’t pay any capital gains tax under employee SIPs, another little fiddle to sweeten the privatisation pill.

You seem pretty well informed in terms of tax rates etc, but with all due respect you don't really apply that same attention to detail to privatisation just a 'who knows the future" and "what will be will be" approach.

You say the shares can make a nice little profit – can you explain where these magically will come from other than pay, pensions, increasing the part time to full time ratio? And in the context of the second big wave of competition coming at us (after 2006 opening of the postal market) with TNT starting up deliveries? What about franchising deliveries, mail centres or splitting off Parcelforce as happens in Holland? You just duck the questions of privatisation completely – as if you really didn’t care. You've got one drum to bang - how great shares are and being extremely eager to field all questions and turn all criticisms of them. Interesting.

You seem incredibly relaxed about privatisation, unlike every postman and postwoman i've met yet. What's your job under Royal Mail out of curiosity? I'm an OPG with quite a few years ahead of me in Royal Mail, good reason to worry.

simple , and no disrespect , there are some people on here who actually think the Capitalist system works for the working man , the working man gets by inspite of the Capitalist system not because of it . It is a possible £2000 people .... break it down , I have worked for RM for nearly 20 years that's £100 for every year or £2 a week.... maybe after everyone one has worked 20 years for one company they should get that as a long service reward anyway....
the top 1% have everything going for them , they are presently sat on £800 billion pounds that they have accumulated and refuse to reinvest because the Governments have bailed out the banks and cannot pay out on Government Bonds [ IOU's ] , they come up with Austerity Measures to make the ordinary pay for their mismanagement and greed and now they toss a few crumbs to the Posties and expect us to be grateful .... for crying out loud people.....

[UnhappyGremlin]

We'll get dividend money yearly - but the £80 figure shows what a pittance this is.

And dividends will only rise with profits, which will only continue to rise, given TNT delivery competition, if our workload goes through the roof, they get rid of fulltime, cut the pension, pay stagnates etc. Otherwise profits are likely to flatline or go down - as is the value of the shares.

So yearly we will get half our xmas bonus (and only then because tax laws privilege the rich ie majority of shareholders and tax dividends more cheaply than income, which is what workers pay).

Then in three years, people might be able to sell their shares for a bit of money that is the equivalent of a months work after tax. It will be a fraction of what they've lost in terms of pay pensions workload stress, and all that.

Try getting some of the people you work with to understand that.
One guy told me to give him evidence of it. Told him I can't, but he'll have it all in about 5 years or so after the IPO.

[goinpostal]

I know Gremlin, i think the fact that the leadership hasn't put out much in the way of convincing communications has left some people just seeing big sums of money printed on the RM propaganda we get through our door roughly twice a week now! They got some stick on it at the national reps meeting last Thursday and promised more communications.

But as for the facts, we can just start with RM"s own propaganda: £80 thereabouts next year.

Say profits stay up like that pro-shares poster was saying, at 50% profits into dividends (RM statement again) that's a £200 million dividend (ie another third) so its £120 a year, less than the christmas bonus.

If profits go up it can only come out of our jobs, workload, etc. We will get 10% of the profits earned by the company, which will come 100% from us. 90% will go to the other millionaire City-slicker shareholders.

Its not a question of giving proof, those who say otherwise (like our friend above) are the ones who need to prove that all might end up hunkydory. Why wouldn't the big investors who buy it and appoint the board run it solely for profit (even top CEOs today like Moya don't get any of the profits, just a big fat salary and bonuses) why wouldn't they press for more profit? Where are the private companies that don't care about profit and just let their workers get on with it - its like asking for proof that tigers can't be made to be vegetarian!

There's just no way that in five years our wages, pension, workload, or union strength will remain as they are. There's just no way that the company will not see franchising, a two tier workforce, all the things that will save money. Once you have a two-tier workforce, the clock is ticking on your "upper tier" wages, pensions, because why would the people on the "lower tier" strike for them, or even join the union for that matter? Royal Mail is likely to get split up too as BT was, with the profitable Parcelforce separated off and mail centres and deliveries, under pressure from TNT, hammered.

Of course nobody yet has seen anything like a hard argument from the PEC, they better pull their finger out and get something out, and get out of Wimbledon and tour the branches for a big yes vote to back it up so people know they're serious this time.

[RobertT]

When I made the calculation about tax on dividends I used the 10 percent figure, as stated. The point is that the law favours the rich and not the working class, that's why we get VAT tax rises under the Coalition and other tax hikes and those on higher incomes get a tax cut. Its also why our pathetically tiny dividends - little more than a days pay for a fulltimer - are taxed at half the rate of our wage. There’s other examples, if we sell our shares we don’t pay any capital gains tax under employee SIPs, another little fiddle to sweeten the privatisation pill.

I take your point about the Tories giving the rich a tax cut although that only really applies to a very small minority of people earning over £150,000 – not that it’s acceptable. What you say about dividend tax doesn’t make sense to me, people in the basic pay tax band pay 10% on their dividends, while those in the 40% band pay 32.5%, so proportionally more! Although general SIP rules actually allow dividends to be reinvested into more shares without paying tax, which doesn’t seem to be an option with our scheme!
The ‘no capital gains tax’ ploy is a bit of a red herring! Every person in the UK has a CGT allowance each year with the 2013-14 limit being £10,900, so the share value would have to go through the roof for us to be liable to pay CGT anyway, assuming no other CGT liabilities in the same tax year as we sell the shares.

You seem pretty well informed in terms of tax rates etc, but with all due respect you don't really apply that same attention to detail to privatisation just a 'who knows the future" and "what will be will be" approach.

You say the shares can make a nice little profit – can you explain where these magically will come from other than pay, pensions, increasing the part time to full time ratio? And in the context of the second big wave of competition coming at us (after 2006 opening of the postal market) with TNT starting up deliveries? What about franchising deliveries, mail centres or splitting off Parcelforce as happens in Holland? You just duck the questions of privatisation completely – as if you really didn’t care. You've got one drum to bang - how great shares are and being extremely eager to field all questions and turn all criticisms of them. Interesting.

You seem incredibly relaxed about privatisation, unlike every postman and postwoman i've met yet. What's your job under Royal Mail out of curiosity? I'm an OPG with quite a few years ahead of me in Royal Mail, good reason to worry.

I don’t think I’m banging any drums as I’m actually against privatisation for many of the reasons you mention and I think my past comments say that! I’m not denying that there will be a price to pay, and I do realise that it may seem that I’m ducking the question. But really I’m just trying to see some postives in it! It’s not that I don’t care but the way I see it is that if I’m going to lose one way, I want to gain in another. I think I’m just being realistic! The chances of privatisation not happening now are very slim in my opinion but I would love to be proved wrong!

On a purely financial point of view I think the shares are potentially a nice little earner, although as an investor in shares based products for many years, I also know the pitfalls. I see both the free shares and any I choose to buy myself as a long term thing of at least 5 years, with the added benefit of being able to sell my EPO shares when I choose and if the time is right. Plus the expected dividend of around 4% is pretty good, which is what long term share ownership is all about.

To answer your question, I’m an OPG in my 40’s with 20 odd years service and have experienced the up and downs of the job in those years and I’m not stupid enough to think there won’t be more downs to come. I just think that privatisation is going to happen whether we want it or not. That may seem defeatist to you, but that’s how I feel. I don’t think my opinion is any less valid than anybody else’s.

And if you think I don’t seem to care you should talk to my p&l partner who’s 58/59 and planning on retiring at 60 and all he’s interested in his whether he loses his Christmas bonus for going on strike, because he wants to maximise his earnings before he goes!!! I can understand his position however much I disagree, and it would be nice if others would understand mine too.

[UnhappyGremlin]

I know Gremlin, i think the fact that the leadership hasn't put out much in the way of convincing communications has left some people just seeing big sums of money printed on the RM propaganda we get through our door roughly twice a week now! They got some stick on it at the national reps meeting last Thursday and promised more communications.

But as for the facts, we can just start with RM"s own propaganda: £80 thereabouts next year.

Say profits stay up like that pro-shares poster was saying, at 50% profits into dividends (RM statement again) that's a £200 million dividend (ie another third) so its £120 a year, less than the christmas bonus.

If profits go up it can only come out of our jobs, workload, etc. We will get 10% of the profits earned by the company, which will come 100% from us. 90% will go to the other millionaire City-slicker shareholders.

Its not a question of giving proof, those who say otherwise (like our friend above) are the ones who need to prove that all might end up hunkydory. Why wouldn't the big investors who buy it and appoint the board run it solely for profit (even top CEOs today like Moya don't get any of the profits, just a big fat salary and bonuses) why wouldn't they press for more profit? Where are the private companies that don't care about profit and just let their workers get on with it - its like asking for proof that tigers can't be made to be vegetarian!

There's just no way that in five years our wages, pension, workload, or union strength will remain as they are. There's just no way that the company will not see franchising, a two tier workforce, all the things that will save money. Once you have a two-tier workforce, the clock is ticking on your "upper tier" wages, pensions, because why would the people on the "lower tier" strike for them, or even join the union for that matter? Royal Mail is likely to get split up too as BT was, with the profitable Parcelforce separated off and mail centres and deliveries, under pressure from TNT, hammered.

Of course nobody yet has seen anything like a hard argument from the PEC, they better pull their finger out and get something out, and get out of Wimbledon and tour the branches for a big yes vote to back it up so people know they're serious this time.

Agree totally.
Have made many of the same points to colleagues, but to no avail.
I also pointed out that, even IF our pay/T&C's etc. were to remain the same, and new staff got minimum wage etc., then we would have a real problem when we became the minority, as the newer tier would have the control when it came to voting in new pay deals in the future. RM would stack it in their favour, to do us out of whatever they wanted.
I said months ago, if privatised, the first thing to go would be Parcelforce and/or trunking/HGV work outsourced.
The union needs to put it's foot down and hammer home the message now. If it's only target is getting voting papers out, then it can look forward to a no, or at best, a very weak yes vote, which will not be good at all, and would give RM more power in the negotiations.