It might not be the same rate of pay for all straight away but a flightpath over a period of time to reach the same level of the legacy contracts.
This will be the priority because it would be for any union.
Having two people doing the same job at two different pay rates will never sit right with any decent union.
Why?
The business could move everyone to the same rate of pay tomorrow if they wanted. Making it so new contracts have to wait 3 years or more to get on to the same level of pay as legacy is just a way of metering how much of a pay rise legacy get in the mean time. It's all designed to gradually lower everyone's pay from what it should have been.
Legacy contracts will slowly fade away, but new contracts will think they've succeeded because their pay has gone up in the meantime.
It might not be the same rate of pay for all straight away but a flightpath over a period of time to reach the same level of the legacy contracts.
This will be the priority because it would be for any union.
Having two people doing the same job at two different pay rates will never sit right with any decent union.
Why?
The business could move everyone to the same rate of pay tomorrow if they wanted. Making it so new contracts have to wait 3 years or more to get on to the same level of pay as legacy is just a way of metering how much of a pay rise legacy get in the mean time. It's all designed to gradually lower everyone's pay from what it should have been.
Legacy contracts will slowly fade away, but new contracts will think they've succeeded because their pay has gone up in the meantime.
I assume it's due to finances.
It would be a huge outlay on the wage bill in the same year to give legacy contracts say a 3% pay rise and the new contracts a 10% of whatever the difference is right now.
Can be managed better over a number of years.
For those that do overtime and i appreciate that isn't everyone, your earning opportunities may increase significantly if the overtime rate increases to something around 1.25% of the hourly rate for all contracts.
70,000/100,000 hours allegedly coming out early June.
According to comments on FB on this video.
DK conference call this morning to all senior managers.
Fact or Fake news?????
Does that mean more vrs hope so count me in
I work with a lot of people who say the same but when they hear the current figures suddenly have a change of heart
That works out around 2,702 full time duties (assuming the upper 100,000 figure) being removed across the business. A very sizeable chunk of staffing in MCs is already agency/casuals, even if RM were to swap more RM staff for agency/casuals in MCs, a sizeable chunk of them 2,702 duties are likely to be walks being removed.
More likely to be the phasing in of the changes to the USO meaning less staff being required in delivery offices rather than walks being removed. I would guess a large percentage of those hours would be where offices have vacancies and been deliberately understaffed rather than VR being offered.
70,000/100,000 hours allegedly coming out early June.
According to comments on FB on this video.
DK conference call this morning to all senior managers.
Fact or Fake news?????
Does that mean more vrs hope so count me in
I work with a lot of people who say the same but when they hear the current figures suddenly have a change of heart
That works out around 2,702 full time duties (assuming the upper 100,000 figure) being removed across the business. A very sizeable chunk of staffing in MCs is already agency/casuals, even if RM were to swap more RM staff for agency/casuals in MCs, a sizeable chunk of them 2,702 duties are likely to be walks being removed.
More likely to be the phasing in of the changes to the USO meaning less staff being required in delivery offices rather than walks being removed. I would guess a large percentage of those hours would be where offices have vacancies and been deliberately understaffed rather than VR being offered.
Yeah, slow down employment to minimise potential VRs.
Any given day now with the new proposed format you will need around a three-quarters of current staff numbers in Mon-Fri, going down to half on Saturdays.
They may need slightly more than that to make it achievable when all said and done trial wise.
That's how it looks to have panned out in the first trial office.
Once they realised they had 4-5 spare staff they are scrambling to put an extra duty or 2 in. No wonder they were chosen first.
I assume it's due to finances.
It would be a huge outlay on the wage bill in the same year to give legacy contracts say a 3% pay rise and the new contracts a 10% of whatever the difference is right now.
Can be managed better over a number of years.
For those that do overtime and i appreciate that isn't everyone, your earning opportunities may increase significantly if the overtime rate increases to something around 1.25% of the hourly rate for all contracts.
It's how these deals are done in our business. The last agreement between RM and the CWU in 2023 was a 10% pay increase spread over 3 years with some of that increase being implemented in 2022. I''m sure that the CWU bureaucracy will do their best to sell it to the members.
On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world.
I assume it's due to finances.
It would be a huge outlay on the wage bill in the same year to give legacy contracts say a 3% pay rise and the new contracts a 10% of whatever the difference is right now.
Can be managed better over a number of years.
For those that do overtime and i appreciate that isn't everyone, your earning opportunities may increase significantly if the overtime rate increases to something around 1.25% of the hourly rate for all contracts.
It's how these deals are done in our business. The last agreement between RM and the CWU in 2023 was a 10% pay increase spread over 3 years with some of that increase being implemented in 2022. I''m sure that the CWU bureaucracy will do their best to sell it to the members.
Yeah I get that.
I was just alluding to why the new contracts may not uplift to ours overnight like someone posted
Yeah I get that.
I was just alluding to why the new contracts may not uplift to ours overnight like someone posted
Well, hopefully it will compensate workers for the real terms pay cut of around 14% that was imposed as part of the national agreement two years ago which has edged postal workers closer to the minimum wage.
I'm sure Martin Seidenberg will get his £300k pay rise first, if he hasn't got it already. That will allow him to take home over £3 million - twice his pay packet from the previous year. Not bad work for a business that was fined £5.6 million by Ofcom in 2023, allegedly losing money and only delivers around 7 billion letters a year.
On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world.
hope so count me in