I've been at royal mail 18 year

[tramssirhc]

And on our new re pick I'm going to be a float, while there's going to be people who have literally been here 2 seconds and temps that will get a duty.

That can't be right surely?

been there and done it, welcome to the future.

all backed by the CWU, do your bit - cancel your subs and vote NO to any agreements.

my conscience is clear

You won't be able to vote if you've cancelled your subs.

Any changes at a local level are a matter to be agreed with all employees, not just the CWU.

We've had meetings about local changes within our DO and been asked to vote on them. Non union members have been excluded.

Non members are not included in a vote organised by the CWU for it's members. Matters such as changes to working hours, break times, holiday allocation are a matter for all employees and non members should be negotiated with about any changes. Non members will need to organise that themselves and should discuss it with the employer. If there is no clear majority the status quo stays in place.

[tramssirhc]

And on our new re pick I'm going to be a float, while there's going to be people who have literally been here 2 seconds and temps that will get a duty.

That can't be right surely?

been there and done it, welcome to the future.

all backed by the CWU, do your bit - cancel your subs and vote NO to any agreements.

my conscience is clear

You won't be able to vote if you've cancelled your subs.

Any changes at a local level are a matter to be agreed with all employees, not just the CWU.

We've had meetings about local changes within our DO and been asked to vote on them. Non union members have been excluded.

The union is the official staff-side representative and, by dint of being recognised by the employer, represents all postal-grade employees. How is excluding non union members from a vote on key issues fair, or in any way democratic? How can any such vote even be representative of the workforce views? Rotten CWU.

The CWU is recognised for certain grades, it is not the 'staff-side representative. The CWU represents it's members on whatever matters are covered by the agreement between it and the employer. It has no obligation to represent or consult with non-members. However matters that change the working conditions of all employees such as shift patterns are a matter for all employees and the employer will need to discuss them with all employees. Anyone not in a recognised trade union needs to speak to their employer asking to be involved in any changes. If the Union is negotiating then the non-members should be negotiating. In many workplaces the CWU does not represent the majority of the employees nor is there a CWU representative. If changes are happening and non-members are not being involved, the non-members need to bring that to the employers attention.

[Londonsburning]

And on our new re pick I'm going to be a float, while there's going to be people who have literally been here 2 seconds and temps that will get a duty.

That can't be right surely?

been there and done it, welcome to the future.

all backed by the CWU, do your bit - cancel your subs and vote NO to any agreements.

my conscience is clear

You won't be able to vote if you've cancelled your subs.

Any changes at a local level are a matter to be agreed with all employees, not just the CWU.

We've had meetings about local changes within our DO and been asked to vote on them. Non union members have been excluded.

The union is the official staff-side representative and, by dint of being recognised by the employer, represents all postal-grade employees. How is excluding non union members from a vote on key issues fair, or in any way democratic? How can any such vote even be representative of the workforce views? Rotten CWU.

The CWU is recognised for certain grades, it is not the 'staff-side representative. The CWU represents it's members on whatever matters are covered by the agreement between it and the employer. It has no obligation to represent or consult with non-members. However matters that change the working conditions of all employees such as shift patterns are a matter for all employees and the employer will need to discuss them with all employees. Anyone not in a recognised trade union needs to speak to their employer asking to be involved in any changes. If the Union is negotiating then the non-members should be negotiating. In many workplaces the CWU does not represent the majority of the employees nor is there a CWU representative. If changes are happening and non-members are not being involved, the non-members need to bring that to the employers attention.

If you have any experience of CWU leadership above the local reps, then you know most of these individuals are only in it for themselves. Cushy numbers all round "jobs for the boys"

[Trumanity]

How do you chose on merit? The sneak who brings the boss a box of chocs in or the dpr suck ups

It goes on senioroty in our office but the office cock suckers always seem to end up being looked after even if it's been proven they're s**t at their job so it doesn't really matter.

Yeah, FUBAR

[Dingo99]

Work faster you lazy bastard posties, mail is down 70 percent so get to work or you'll be spanked.

Work faster AND you’ll get spanked would be better for some of the weirdo’s in my office

Hahaha, ooh kinky!

[Smoothbackground]

And on our new re pick I'm going to be a float, while there's going to be people who have literally been here 2 seconds and temps that will get a duty.

That can't be right surely?

been there and done it, welcome to the future.

all backed by the CWU, do your bit - cancel your subs and vote NO to any agreements.

my conscience is clear

You won't be able to vote if you've cancelled your subs.

Any changes at a local level are a matter to be agreed with all employees, not just the CWU.

We've had meetings about local changes within our DO and been asked to vote on them. Non union members have been excluded.

The union is the official staff-side representative and, by dint of being recognised by the employer, represents all postal-grade employees. How is excluding non union members from a vote on key issues fair, or in any way democratic? How can any such vote even be representative of the workforce views? Rotten CWU.

The CWU is recognised for certain grades, it is not the 'staff-side representative. The CWU represents it's members on whatever matters are covered by the agreement between it and the employer. It has no obligation to represent or consult with non-members. However matters that change the working conditions of all employees such as shift patterns are a matter for all employees and the employer will need to discuss them with all employees. Anyone not in a recognised trade union needs to speak to their employer asking to be involved in any changes. If the Union is negotiating then the non-members should be negotiating. In many workplaces the CWU does not represent the majority of the employees nor is there a CWU representative. If changes are happening and non-members are not being involved, the non-members need to bring that to the employers attention.

Semantics. The CWU collectively bargains on matters affecting all OPGs, members or not, and concludes binding variations on their behalf.

[tramssirhc]

And on our new re pick I'm going to be a float, while there's going to be people who have literally been here 2 seconds and temps that will get a duty.

That can't be right surely?

been there and done it, welcome to the future.

all backed by the CWU, do your bit - cancel your subs and vote NO to any agreements.

my conscience is clear

You won't be able to vote if you've cancelled your subs.

Any changes at a local level are a matter to be agreed with all employees, not just the CWU.

We've had meetings about local changes within our DO and been asked to vote on them. Non union members have been excluded.

The union is the official staff-side representative and, by dint of being recognised by the employer, represents all postal-grade employees. How is excluding non union members from a vote on key issues fair, or in any way democratic? How can any such vote even be representative of the workforce views? Rotten CWU.

The CWU is recognised for certain grades, it is not the 'staff-side representative. The CWU represents it's members on whatever matters are covered by the agreement between it and the employer. It has no obligation to represent or consult with non-members. However matters that change the working conditions of all employees such as shift patterns are a matter for all employees and the employer will need to discuss them with all employees. Anyone not in a recognised trade union needs to speak to their employer asking to be involved in any changes. If the Union is negotiating then the non-members should be negotiating. In many workplaces the CWU does not represent the majority of the employees nor is there a CWU representative. If changes are happening and non-members are not being involved, the non-members need to bring that to the employers attention.

Semantics. The CWU collectively bargains on matters affecting all OPGs, members or not, and concludes binding variations on their behalf.

Not if the changes materially affect the non-members. The employer has a duty to engage with all employees.

[tramssirhc]

And on our new re pick I'm going to be a float, while there's going to be people who have literally been here 2 seconds and temps that will get a duty.

That can't be right surely?

been there and done it, welcome to the future.

all backed by the CWU, do your bit - cancel your subs and vote NO to any agreements.

my conscience is clear

You won't be able to vote if you've cancelled your subs.

Any changes at a local level are a matter to be agreed with all employees, not just the CWU.

We've had meetings about local changes within our DO and been asked to vote on them. Non union members have been excluded.

The union is the official staff-side representative and, by dint of being recognised by the employer, represents all postal-grade employees. How is excluding non union members from a vote on key issues fair, or in any way democratic? How can any such vote even be representative of the workforce views? Rotten CWU.

The CWU is recognised for certain grades, it is not the 'staff-side representative. The CWU represents it's members on whatever matters are covered by the agreement between it and the employer. It has no obligation to represent or consult with non-members. However matters that change the working conditions of all employees such as shift patterns are a matter for all employees and the employer will need to discuss them with all employees. Anyone not in a recognised trade union needs to speak to their employer asking to be involved in any changes. If the Union is negotiating then the non-members should be negotiating. In many workplaces the CWU does not represent the majority of the employees nor is there a CWU representative. If changes are happening and non-members are not being involved, the non-members need to bring that to the employers attention.

If you have any experience of CWU leadership above the local reps, then you know most of these individuals are only in it for themselves. Cushy numbers all round "jobs for the boys"

I've plenty of experience dealing with trade unions and it's officials. Let's be honest CWU members are paying to a) fund the full time release mob and keep them off the bag, b) keep the full time officials in luxury and a final salary pension and c) receive tawdry offers for hp cars. It's the services model of trade unionism. It's also in the s**t because the CWU is financially broken.

[RobertT]

I've plenty of experience dealing with trade unions and it's officials. Let's be honest CWU members are paying to a) fund the full time release mob and keep them off the bag, b) keep the full time officials in luxury and a final salary pension and c) receive tawdry offers for hp cars. It's the services model of trade unionism. It's also in the s**t because the CWU is financially broken.

The CWU actually has three final salary pensions which all closed in 2018 and were replaced with an average salary scheme. At the same time, the NRA was increased from 60 to 65.

Unlike the RMPP, two of the CWU schemes are in deficit.

[Londonsburning]

No disrespect Robert, but in your honest opinion what is the new pension for members worth now, compared to the previous? I would say it is less than terrible and maybe a tad better than opting out

[RobertT]

No disrespect Robert, but in your honest opinion what is the new pension for members worth now, compared to the previous? I would say it is less than terrible and maybe a tad better than opting out

If it does what it's supposed to do, it's similar to section B of the career average scheme(2008-2018), but that's obviously not guaranteed.
There's also the option to transfer out your share of the pot for the flexibility you'd have with a DC scheme.

A £30 gross weekly contribution only costs £21.60 net, which is the extra you'll have in your pocket if you opt out. Plus you get another £66.50 from RM.

Would you rather have £21 in your pocket or nearly £100 in your pension?

[Londonsburning]

No disrespect Robert, but in your honest opinion what is the new pension for members worth now, compared to the previous? I would say it is less than terrible and maybe a tad better than opting out

If it does what it's supposed to do, it's similar to section B of the career average scheme(2008-2018), but that's obviously not guaranteed.
There's also the option to transfer out your share of the pot for the flexibility you'd have with a DC scheme.

A £30 gross weekly contribution only costs £21.60 net, which is the extra you'll have in your pocket if you opt out. Plus you get another £66.50 from RM.

Would you rather have £21 in your pocket or nearly £100 in your pension?

400 quid a month for a £30 per week contribution. I'm sure there are way better private pensions going tbh and many better workplace pensions on top of that. The RM pension is some poverty bullshit

[RobertT]

No disrespect Robert, but in your honest opinion what is the new pension for members worth now, compared to the previous? I would say it is less than terrible and maybe a tad better than opting out

If it does what it's supposed to do, it's similar to section B of the career average scheme(2008-2018), but that's obviously not guaranteed.
There's also the option to transfer out your share of the pot for the flexibility you'd have with a DC scheme.

A £30 gross weekly contribution only costs £21.60 net, which is the extra you'll have in your pocket if you opt out. Plus you get another £66.50 from RM.

Would you rather have £21 in your pocket or nearly £100 in your pension?

400 quid a month for a £30 per week contribution. I'm sure there are way better private pensions going tbh and many better workplace pensions on top of that. The RM pension is some poverty bullshit

Your money would have to more than triple to make up for the benefit of RM's contributions.
If you think you can beat that, good luck to you!

RM's offerings certainly aren't the best, but they're nowhere near the worst.

[Londonsburning]

No disrespect Robert, but in your honest opinion what is the new pension for members worth now, compared to the previous? I would say it is less than terrible and maybe a tad better than opting out

If it does what it's supposed to do, it's similar to section B of the career average scheme(2008-2018), but that's obviously not guaranteed.
There's also the option to transfer out your share of the pot for the flexibility you'd have with a DC scheme.

A £30 gross weekly contribution only costs £21.60 net, which is the extra you'll have in your pocket if you opt out. Plus you get another £66.50 from RM.

Would you rather have £21 in your pocket or nearly £100 in your pension?

400 quid a month for a £30 per week contribution. I'm sure there are way better private pensions going tbh and many better workplace pensions on top of that. The RM pension is some poverty bullshit

Your money would have to more than triple to make up for the benefit of RM's contributions.
If you think you can beat that, good luck to you!

RM's offerings certainly aren't the best, but they're nowhere near the worst.

So a paying into a private pension would be a worse idea than the current RM pension plan?

[RobertT]

No disrespect Robert, but in your honest opinion what is the new pension for members worth now, compared to the previous? I would say it is less than terrible and maybe a tad better than opting out

If it does what it's supposed to do, it's similar to section B of the career average scheme(2008-2018), but that's obviously not guaranteed.
There's also the option to transfer out your share of the pot for the flexibility you'd have with a DC scheme.

A £30 gross weekly contribution only costs £21.60 net, which is the extra you'll have in your pocket if you opt out. Plus you get another £66.50 from RM.

Would you rather have £21 in your pocket or nearly £100 in your pension?

400 quid a month for a £30 per week contribution. I'm sure there are way better private pensions going tbh and many better workplace pensions on top of that. The RM pension is some poverty bullshit

Your money would have to more than triple to make up for the benefit of RM's contributions.
If you think you can beat that, good luck to you!

RM's offerings certainly aren't the best, but they're nowhere near the worst.

So a paying into a private pension would be a worse idea than the current RM pension plan?

You don't get RM's contributions or the added benefit of salary sacrifice(PSE) with a PP, and so would be relying on investment returns to make up that money.
It's not impossible, but it's very improbable especially over the long term.

The golden rule of workplace pensions is always join and pay in whatever it takes to get the maximum employer contribution. I can't see any logical reason why that wouldn't apply to RM pensions.