VR - POLL - Who gets it at your depot....

[ProudhonPJ]

What if it's only those who successfully fall into three of the categories? (Decide for yourselves which you think these are most likely to be...).

[Kaiser_soze]

None at mine, very disappointed. It would have been nice to get some sort of acknowledgment when you sent off for it on the app and also a email informing you if you didn’t get it. Very poor Royal Mail.

Managers are suppose to inform you.

[rachsc]

It's happening and it's being done on seniority and nothing else. I've already asked my manager to clarify with HR Business Partner. It all seems very shady to me though (there's another thread here where somebody makes a good case as to why the current exercise might be illegal), and I'll be amazed if no-one challenges it. If you ring HR and try to make a query all you get is an automated message telling you that they're 'not currently taking any queries regarding the preference exercise'. As you say, lack of notifications from Royal Mail is highly unprofessional, but unsurprising. I believe it was literally a question of our office manager calling in those at top of list (7 are going in our office) at end of last week and asking them to make a decision within 24 hours. I should think contracts are being signed as we speak. People are due to leave in March.

[mags999]

Surely if its voluntary it can't be illegal if it was compulsory yes and why would people be upset at the criteria given for the vrs its about the only decent decision royal mail have made and thats a tough thing thing to say

[Mcclinton]

You also have to ask the question, surely they should not being be making people compulsory redundant further down the line when there is enough volunteers. And if that is the case would the original volunteers get the extra 6 grand in their arse pocket?

[rachsc]

No, I think there are doubts. For a start, not informing people of selection criteria when the exercise was launched is very questionable. And I would think that was probably because RM didn't actually know what criteria they were going to use until the last minute. Plus there's the question of whether these are genuine 'redundancies'. Is there a genuine business rationale for letting these particular people go. Has a proper cost/benefit analysis been carried out? Does it make any business sense to pay people off who would have retired within a few years anyway? In view of the looming compulsory redundancies (for which RM have given criteria eg in delivery - conduct, inability to drive, attendance) can you let people go, to whom none of these criteria apply, and effectively reward them for long service, then force other people out (to whom these criteria do apply) a few months later, on much less favourable terms? I don't know. Although I think I heard something today about RM guaranteeing the CWU there'd be no compulsory redundancies now until Jan 24. But again, in terms of specifics - in our office there are currently 9 vacancies and there's a revision to be implemented in January 23 entailing 30 job losses. 7 VRs have been given. How is RM proposing to get rid of the other 14 people?

[roman]

Was told by manager last Thursday it could take another 2 weeks to find out who if anybody gets v r. Like was said not very organised or valid information about criteria etc… It’s Thompson just playing games with us again.Doesn’t he realise this is a life changing decision. It’s not like putting your name in the hat for a new walk or putting your name down for docket. Come on Royal Mail get organised !!!!

[norris9]

No, I think there are doubts. For a start, not informing people of selection criteria when the exercise was launched is very questionable. And I would think that was probably because RM didn't actually know what criteria they were going to use until the last minute. Plus there's the question of whether these are genuine 'redundancies'. Is there a genuine business rationale for letting these particular people go. Has a proper cost/benefit analysis been carried out? Does it make any business sense to pay people off who would have retired within a few years anyway? In view of the looming compulsory redundancies (for which RM have given criteria eg in delivery - conduct, inability to drive, attendance) can you let people go, to whom none of these criteria apply, and effectively reward them for long service, then force other people out (to whom these criteria do apply) a few months later, on much less favourable terms? I don't know. Although I think I heard something today about RM guaranteeing the CWU there'd be no compulsory redundancies now until Jan 24. But again, in terms of specifics - in our office there are currently 9 vacancies and there's a revision to be implemented in January 23 entailing 30 job losses. 7 VRs have been given. How is RM proposing to get rid of the other 14 people?

At the beginning of the process the CWU said VR would be given to those who are cheapest to get rid of - which of course they weren't happy with...

Royal Mail obviously lied to them just to troll them or maybe used common sense as maybe legally they are supposed to give it to longest serving - I don't know.

Anyway.... no idea how this all goes - but once they sign off these VRs then I guess it's no going back for Royal Mail - they are full steam ahead with enforcing the changes.

As far as I am aware they haven't had a response from the government as to their request for a 5 day service.... that's going to determine if 4,000 people lose their jobs....how will they go....VR or CR?


Maybe all this VR stuff is a bluff, a troll.... and nobody is getting it. Has anyone had any document signed by both themselves and Royal Mail to confirm they get the VR payout?

[RobertT]

My view is that the plans for redundancies are all legal and above board. I fully expect some to get VR!

Companies often go the VR route first to let those who want to leave, do so. Usually with an enhanced pay off and using criteria that's attractive. In RM that's always been seniority as far as I know, and I have been informed that will be the case this time too.

I don't get the argument that the old timers shouldn't get it because they're close to retirement, as there is no longer a set retirement age. And retirement means different things to different people anyway.
You can retire at any age, as long as you want to and can afford it. That could be 50 or 80!

Once the VR's have been sorted, if they then decide to make more people redundant, they could still use voluntary if they chose, but legally there's nothing to say they have to, even if the first round was over subscribed.

As long as they pay out the legal minimum, they're sticking within the rules and they can make anyone redundant.

[anirtak319]

When do we get to sign on the dotted line does anyone know? sooner the better I've had enough!

[seesred]

I asked the MC manager and was told that VR would be awarded first of all on seniority, and there should be enough places to cover everyone who wants to go. The only qualification to that is that they might want to retain you if you have specific skills they need. Any redundancies after that will be compulsory. I assumed that would mean last in-first out, but I didn't ask the question.

[Sbutts8182]

Anyone taking it told they’d need a solicitor, you could get your own and pay for it yourself or use a Royal Mail approved one, that you wouldn’t have to pay for?

[roman]

Does anyone know when the deadline is for all units to be told yay or nay on v r ?

[Mcclinton]

Surely now Royal Mail have stated their will be no compulsory redundancies it has got to increase the chances of the people who’ve put in for the voluntary. Here’s hoping !

[norris9]

Surely now Royal Mail have stated their will be no compulsory redundancies it has got to increase the chances of the people who’ve put in for the voluntary. Here’s hoping !

I said in another thread that I don't think anyone will get VR. I think it's all a scare tactic to make us all think we are going to lose our jobs so we all give in and take on the set of changes they want.

I think the dispute is coming to an end gradually. RM know we aren't giving in. I feel it will be over within 2 months and in our favour.

Thompson is nowhere to be seen - not dealing with communications - so he's probably on his way out.