3 year pay deal

Grumpyoldmailman · Post by **Grumpyoldmailman** » 08 Feb 2020, 13:44

charlatans wrote:This is getting confusing for me. Here are some thoughts. I'm being confused by royal mail using a different approach( more videos). Last time they didn't say that much in the run up to the ballot, trying not to rock the boat.This time they are using quite a high gear for the b/s.
This i assume is because last time they got reamed and had to go to court. So change the PR strategy and put out stuff continuously.e.

They realise what a good job the union did last time putting videos out all the time so they are giving it a go this time around, nice little earner for the actors I should think.

oypostie · Post by **oypostie** » 08 Feb 2020, 14:42

So they can afford a pay deal but not a cut to the working week. Can't be offering much, if any, of a pay rise as the shorter working week was being funded by full timers foregoing pay rises (hourly rate rose for full and part timers as the working week reduced but actual pay only rose for part timers)

leolion855 · Post by **leolion855** » 08 Feb 2020, 16:04

Does this mean that the business is getting worried now?

I believe this is what normally happens in these situations,then the union folds agrees the pay deal and lets rm get on with whatever? Lets hope they dont this time.

clashcityrocker · Post by **clashcityrocker** » 08 Feb 2020, 16:33

oypostie wrote: Can't be offering much, if any, of a pay rise as the shorter working week was being funded by full timers foregoing pay rises

The SWW was supposed to be funded by efficiency savings.
The efficiency savings didn't materialise so neither did the SWW.

Post by **Sugar** » 08 Feb 2020, 16:55

Can't afford to cut the working week down by an hour as previously agreed but can afford to pay managers £1000 bonus at Christmas and 2 pay increases for not going on strike. Then pay for all this media to be produced and no doubt using actors.

Got their priorities the wrong way around.

Oh and its now "our business" going by the latest video.

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 08 Feb 2020, 16:56

clashcityrocker wrote:
oypostie wrote: Can't be offering much, if any, of a pay rise as the shorter working week was being funded by full timers foregoing pay rises
The SWW was supposed to be funded by efficiency savings.
The efficiency savings didn't materialise so neither did the SWW.

But £6 million pounds did for Rico this is a cost to the company at our expense remember he is never over here tax dodger extraordinaire!

Post by **Sugar** » 08 Feb 2020, 17:10

clashcityrocker wrote:
oypostie wrote: Can't be offering much, if any, of a pay rise as the shorter working week was being funded by full timers foregoing pay rises
The SWW was supposed to be funded by efficiency savings.
The efficiency savings didn't materialise so neither did the SWW.

The efficiency savings would/could have been there if management had stopped ghosting overtime with their favourites and made everyone work to time like they were supposed to do instead of allowing hours and hours to just walk out of the doors each day when people finished before time.

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 08 Feb 2020, 17:24

You would not believe the pay packages at RM it's not just wages but health care free and transport ie free car and others the whole system is a top down dictatorship of power and greed whilst those at the bottom are bullied to hit targets those at the top lounge around in swimming pools in Switzerland.

Post by **rogersh** » 08 Feb 2020, 17:57

The expression "lowest common denominator" is used to describe (usually in a disapproving manner) a rule, proposal, opinion, or media that is deliberately simplified so as to appeal to the largest possible number of people.

Post by **britwrit** » 08 Feb 2020, 18:27

"We maxed out the corporate credit card. So time to be a team player, kids."

Seriously, though, They should learn how to communicate better. Broadcasting far and wide about how our equipment is ancient and that we're far behind our competitors isn't the way to go. All it does is scare off the big accounts. There are two audiences here - the workforce and the outside world. Differentiate.

Don't feed into the narrative that the lazy hacks will reach for whenever they have five minutes to write an article.

Grumpyoldmailman · Post by **Grumpyoldmailman** » 08 Feb 2020, 18:42

clashcityrocker wrote:
oypostie wrote: Can't be offering much, if any, of a pay rise as the shorter working week was being funded by full timers foregoing pay rises
The SWW was supposed to be funded by efficiency savings.
The efficiency savings didn't materialise so neither did the SWW.

From the company’s accounts productivity is up 1.5% for this year and 1% for last year, don’t believe what they are telling you.

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 08 Feb 2020, 19:03

Grumpyoldmailman wrote:
clashcityrocker wrote:
oypostie wrote: Can't be offering much, if any, of a pay rise as the shorter working week was being funded by full timers foregoing pay rises
The SWW was supposed to be funded by efficiency savings.
The efficiency savings didn't materialise so neither did the SWW.
From the company’s accounts productivity is up 1.5% for this year and 1% for last year, don’t believe what they are telling you.

So why are we paying the board of RM more than 1.5% and find £6 Million for the CEO? They are screwing us all so f**k them!

clashcityrocker · Post by **clashcityrocker** » 08 Feb 2020, 19:53

Grumpyoldmailman wrote:
From the company’s accounts productivity is up 1.5% for this year and 1% for last year, don’t believe what they are telling you.

Against a target of?

Post by **aiden01** » 08 Feb 2020, 20:03

Grumpyoldmailman wrote:
clashcityrocker wrote:
oypostie wrote: Can't be offering much, if any, of a pay rise as the shorter working week was being funded by full timers foregoing pay rises
The SWW was supposed to be funded by efficiency savings.
The efficiency savings didn't materialise so neither did the SWW.
From the company’s accounts productivity is up 1.5% for this year and 1% for last year, don’t believe what they are telling you.

So why dont the cwu publish what the efficency savings were to clarify everything. then we can make our own minds up who is telling lies.

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 08 Feb 2020, 20:14

aiden01 wrote:
Grumpyoldmailman wrote:
clashcityrocker wrote:
oypostie wrote: Can't be offering much, if any, of a pay rise as the shorter working week was being funded by full timers foregoing pay rises
The SWW was supposed to be funded by efficiency savings.
The efficiency savings didn't materialise so neither did the SWW.
From the company’s accounts productivity is up 1.5% for this year and 1% for last year, don’t believe what they are telling you.
So why dont the cwu publish what the efficency savings were to clarify everything. then we can make our own minds up who is telling lies.

Productivity is cancelled out by the greed and avarice by the CEO £6 million?