steve1873 wrote:
How the **** will the payrise not benefit part-timers? Engage your brain before you type please!
Because the current offer is a lump sum, the headline figure of £375 doesn't apply to part time staff.
It would be a percentage of £375.
You are right it would benefit them - but not greatly.
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.
... I did go on to say that others too will lose out - because a lump sum will be less than what would have earned if the pay rise was implemented into wages and backdated.
- posting whilst doing delivery - no need for quotation anyway...
* Just to highlight to the poster that I am passionate about the part time cause.
** A large number of part timers on 20x hours do overtime to make up the wages - some are even coarsed into it as their office is permanently short of staff.
*** Some that started years back really thought (some even assured during interview) that they will be made up but now we know that is almost a zero chance of that happening.
**** I do not agree that the CWU are pushing the part timer's cause - by the way, I have written to Terry Pullinger about certain part time issues; not even a standard reply and area not helpful...
***** Lastly, I am not on 20x hours contract!
Last edited by chrisj on 16 Sep 2017, 14:12, edited 1 time in total.
jack~jack wrote:Has anybody else found that royal mail's constant propaganda, bullying and harassment during the last few weeks. Has turned me from an easy going union member into a red hot activist for the C.W.U.?
Why the coarse language? Perhaps you should read what you highlighted in bold and then your response. I did go on to say that others too will lose out - because a lump sum will be less than what would have earned if the pay rise was implemented into wages and backdated.
Typical!
I think you quoted the wrong post.
All post by me in Green are Admin Posts. Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility. If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
chrisj wrote:... I did go on to say that others too will lose out - because a lump sum will be less than what would have earned if the pay rise was implemented into wages and backdated.
- posting whilst doing delivery - no need for quotation anyway...
* Just to highlight to the poster that I am passionate about the part time cause.
** A large number of part timers on 20x hours do overtime to make up the wages - some are even coarsed into it as their office is permanently short of staff.
*** Some that started years back really thought (some even assured during interview) that they will be made up but now we know that is almost a zero chance of that happening.
**** I do not agree that the CWU are pushing the part timer's cause - by the way, I have written to Terry Pullinger about certain part time issues; not even a standard reply and area not helpful...
***** Lastly, I am not on 20x hours contract!
How? If it was backdated then it would be pro-rata also - the percentage would apply to the hours worked. If everyone was handed the lump sum of £375 then then that would in effect mean part-time staff were scoring a larger percentage payrise than their full-time colleagues!
You have to follow my argument and the part time issue... I suppose most of the vocal posters here are full time.
It appears hard for some to understand the concept of average hours worked (up to a maximum of full time contract)... This should apply to all benefits including this pay rise lump sum.
Just like it happened when we were allocated the first tranche of shares.
FelicityRae wrote:A yes vote doesn't make you obliged to strike though. It just gives the cwu a stronger hand on negotiating.
This
All post by me in Green are Admin Posts. Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility. If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
chrisj wrote:
It appears hard for some to understand the concept of average hours worked (up to a maximum of full time contract)... This should apply to all benefits including this pay rise lump sum.
Do we now understand?
No as to why you appear to be advocating a No Vote.
Yes to why this is an important issue for you, me, and ideally everyone else.
All post by me in Green are Admin Posts. Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility. If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
I am not advocating a NO vote! I am also not advocating a YES vote.
I know which way I am leaning but this is a private ballot!
I just do not hold the current crop of Union officials in the highest regard that others do - and will not just surrender my vote potentially to people I do not trust or understand their tactics and those that might potentially lead us to ruin.
Once you give a political organisation a large mandate, you cannot then turn round and start questioning how they go about things...
Some even said a YES vote does not mean one has to go on strike - what is that all about? You are being balloted fir a strike and a snake dance; it might be bloody or fatal.
Some even said a YES vote does not mean one has to go on strike - what is that all about?
A yes vote gives the CWU a mandate to go all out to achieve it's/our aims, while a No vote means RM can laugh off any "threats" the CWU could make.
A No vote means any subsequent negotiations will be a pointless waste of time.
chrisj wrote:I am not advocating a NO vote! I am also not advocating a YES vote.
I know which way I am leaning but this is a private ballot!
I just do not hold the current crop of Union officials in the highest regard that others do - and will not just surrender my vote potentially to people I do not trust or understand their tactics and those that might potentially lead us to ruin.
Once you give a political organisation a large mandate, you cannot then turn round and start questioning how they go about things...
Some even said a YES vote does not mean one has to go on strike - what is that all about? You are being balloted fir a strike and a snake dance; it might be bloody or fatal.
Imagine if a no vote won RM would be laughing their socks off and you would all be doomed,you would all be treated so much worse than what you are now.They could do whatever they wanted and you just wouldnt be able to do a thing about it.It doesnt bear thinking about.
Some even said a YES vote does not mean one has to go on strike - what is that all about?
A yes vote gives the CWU a mandate to go all out to achieve it's/our aims, while a No vote means RM can laugh off any "threats" the CWU could make.
A No vote means any subsequent negotiations will be a pointless waste of time.
I don't know why people can't see this.
Even when we win a landslide majority in the ballot for yes, RM will still be keenly eyeing the percentages. If we only mustered 60% for example, the rate of attrition when strike actually took place could soon turn the sentiment towards ending the strike.
A union is only strong if we stick together, that's all it's ever been a collective effort. The reason the miners strike failed so horribly in the 80s was you had collieries still operating while the strikes were taking place, and no real across the board unity. I except back then it would have been a lot harder to coordinate/communicate with members without the advent of social media, but the lack of unity is what ruined it.
If you are want to compare this dispute with the miners strike you are dreaming do you really expect postal workers would to stay out for months like they did not a chance it wouldn't last 2 weeks before everyone was back at work maybe you don't remember the hardship they went through it will never happen again
All the people I've heard who either said they're voting no, or don't care, have said the same thing - the plans don't affect them (only new starters, those on legacy payments etc), so why should they care.
The point of a union is that it's united. "It doesn't affect me, so why should I bother". When you need the union, I hope they say the same thing - it's your problem, deal with it yourself.
A union only works when everyone works together. New starters might get screwed over but give it a few years and they'll be the majority of the workforce. Even before then, the company will be saying "these people are happy with their conditions, so should you", and their pay and conditions will be pushed on the rest of us.
stan_lers wrote:All the people I've heard who either said they're voting no, or don't care, have said the same thing - the plans don't affect them (only new starters, those on legacy payments etc), so why should they care.
The point of a union is that it's united. "It doesn't affect me, so why should I bother". When you need the union, I hope they say the same thing - it's your problem, deal with it yourself.
A union only works when everyone works together. New starters might get screwed over but give it a few years and they'll be the majority of the workforce. Even before then, the company will be saying "these people are happy with their conditions, so should you", and their pay and conditions will be pushed on the rest of us.
I keep seeing people making comments about unions needing to be united and how we all need to work together, I wasn't there in 2008 but I've spoken to people who were and from my understanding nobody fought for my rights, it was a matter of I don't care what happens to the new people's pensions and conditions as long as you don't touch mine.
The divide between new starters and longer serving staff happened in 2008, that's a lot of people who might not be fully behind a strike.
