ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (Updated 2021)... HERE

ANNOUNCEMENT : PLEASE BE AWARE WE ARE NOT ON FACEBOOK AT ALL!

Question for Martin Walsh

Pay talks 2022 discussion, news, LTB's RMCtv and all BUSINESS RECOVERY, TRANSFORMATION AND GROWTH AGREEMENT chat
Zicomurphy
Posts: 576
Joined: 24 Oct 2014, 06:40
Gender: Male

Re: Question for Martin Walsh

Post by Zicomurphy »

Acca Dacca wrote:
15 Dec 2022, 21:42
stevejm wrote:
15 Dec 2022, 20:22
sindba wrote:
15 Dec 2022, 18:00
I'm gobsmacked by that "1.7bn to break the strikes" claim.

Either RM are bullshitting or the Torygraph haven't bothered asking basic questions. Or both.

It can't possibly be true. It would be more cost effective to just scrap the changes and give us a big payrise.
It's 1.7 billion for modernisation, not to break the CWU ...... "Williams said, the company has built up a £1.7bn war chest to invest in the business as a war of words with the CWU continues."

The Telegraph is anti-union and pro big business so continually puts out misleading clickbait sub-titles and headlines and ignores facts when covenient - eg 9% pay offer.
It doesn’t really matter what the 1.7bn is for

The bigger issue is them saying they have it in the first place
Or had it. Probably mainly referring to the cost of the 3 superhubs. Anyone know how much they were costed at?
TopperGas
Posts: 3457
Joined: 13 Feb 2021, 22:46
Gender: Male

Re: Question for Martin Walsh

Post by TopperGas »

Zicomurphy wrote:
15 Dec 2022, 21:52
Acca Dacca wrote:
15 Dec 2022, 21:42
stevejm wrote:
15 Dec 2022, 20:22
sindba wrote:
15 Dec 2022, 18:00
I'm gobsmacked by that "1.7bn to break the strikes" claim.

Either RM are bullshitting or the Torygraph haven't bothered asking basic questions. Or both.

It can't possibly be true. It would be more cost effective to just scrap the changes and give us a big payrise.
It's 1.7 billion for modernisation, not to break the CWU ...... "Williams said, the company has built up a £1.7bn war chest to invest in the business as a war of words with the CWU continues."

The Telegraph is anti-union and pro big business so continually puts out misleading clickbait sub-titles and headlines and ignores facts when covenient - eg 9% pay offer.
It doesn’t really matter what the 1.7bn is for

The bigger issue is them saying they have it in the first place
Or had it. Probably mainly referring to the cost of the 3 superhubs. Anyone know how much they were costed at?
Surely a "war chest" is money stored away to spend one day not already spent on the super hubs? It seems odd that money has been totally hidden form investors etc as there's another post on here suggesting RM might struggle to pay back a £400m loan when it's due to be paid!! How can RM plead poverty to the Government re the USO (& its employees!) if it's nearly £2b in the bank. I thought RM couldn''t survive w/o GLS anyway!!
Zicomurphy
Posts: 576
Joined: 24 Oct 2014, 06:40
Gender: Male

Re: Question for Martin Walsh

Post by Zicomurphy »

https://www.logisticsmanager.com/royal- ... rcel-hubs/

A quick google found the above article from 2019 about a £1.8 billion investment by Royal Mail which includes the cost of the 3 superhubs. The hubs are obviously central to their plans to introduce owner drivers delivering larger parcels and some right wing idiot journalist at The Telegraph has spun this to be a “war chest” to defeat the union.