Or even level up the ones who have stuck it out from the start and make the new contract a probation rate for now.
This is actually a very good idea. It would definitely improve new starter retention if they knew they would be made up after a few months.
In my opinion that’s how it should be and how I thought it worked when I came into the company 8 months ago.
Equalisation after a period of time seems fair, possibly even attached to performance (as long as it’s fair) so if you pass a 12 month probation then you get equalisation, if you need an extra 6 months then so be it etc… obviously this would most likely lead to managers finding any small issue to extend probations and it would need to be kept an eye on by the union.
If they really had any intention of equalising contracts, they would have ceased employing people on the new style contract. The CWU should be arguing to halt recruitment on that contract, otherwise equalisation chit chat will go nowhere.
[/quote]
All sensible and meaningful ideas indeed. At the very least, some kind of future commitment / acknowledgement along these lines would have made a big difference IMO.
We are currently in wishy washy no mans land scratching our heads wondering how will levelling up work? The 3 years… will this mean 3 years service per employee to achieve full harmonisation or will it be for e.g from 2029 everyone including new starters will be on the same contract?
There has been a wealth of sensible and good ideas on this forum in the run up to negotiations that could have been put forward.
Or even level up the ones who have stuck it out from the start and make the new contract a probation rate for now.
This is actually a very good idea. It would definitely improve new starter retention if they knew they would be made up after a few months.
In my opinion that’s how it should be and how I thought it worked when I came into the company 8 months ago.
Equalisation after a period of time seems fair, possibly even attached to performance (as long as it’s fair) so if you pass a 12 month probation then you get equalisation, if you need an extra 6 months then so be it etc… obviously this would most likely lead to managers finding any small issue to extend probations and it would need to be kept an eye on by the union.
If they really had any intention of equalising contracts, they would have ceased employing people on the new style contract. The CWU should be arguing to halt recruitment on that contract, otherwise equalisation chit chat will go nowhere.
All sensible and meaningful ideas indeed. At the very least, some kind of future commitment / acknowledgement along these lines would have made a big difference IMO.
We are currently in wishy washy no mans land scratching our heads wondering how will levelling up work? The 3 years… will this mean 3 years service per employee to achieve full harmonisation or will it be for e.g from 2029 everyone including new starters will be on the same contract?
There has been a wealth of sensible and good ideas on this forum in the run up to negotiations that could have been put forward.
[/quote]
The glaring obvious problem is CWU officials don't give a flying f**k about the very people they represent.
I think Martin has forgotten who he works for, the last time I looked it's the members who pay his wages.lf the members are not happy with this 3 year pay deals then scrap year 2 and 3 and negotiate a 1 year deal like most other companies do each year,then they won't feel they are being railroaded.
I read on this sight that posters did not want a pay deal linked change.
This deal is unconditional .
It is above inflation in the first year which has not been a common event since privatisation or indeed during the 1990s public pay freezes or limits were put in by the Government.
In years 2 and 3 it matches inflation. CPI is forecasted to be 2.6% in 2026 and 2.2% in 2027. However it has reopener clause if inflation is above 3%.
This is a company which is not very profitable and will not make the savings under USO reform which they originally wanted or forecasted.
I have a question for those who are supporting a rejection of a pay deal. Do you really think EP and Royal Mail are going to find an extra few hundred million to fund an improved pay rise without the pressure of strike action ?
Equally do you really think if there was an improvement it would not be linked to further change even to supporting ODM which the CWU are not ?
The pay offer is reasonable in all the circumstances and it now allows us to concentrate on equalisation of new entrants pay, terms and conditions which will also add costs to the overall wage bill.
I know some of you don’t look at these things and just think a company should just pay you higher regardless of the impact it has on the companies finances. Companies do not tend to survive if they adopt that strategy.
You’re supposed to be the head representative for postal workers who pay into the CWU. Yet every time I hear you speak or read what you write you sound like a Royal Mail manager or even worse the CEO. Your pay deal is very average at best, over the three years it pretty much just has us treading water. I know it will ultimately be a yes vote because the CWU give all sorts of scare stories to back us into a corner but I’ll still be voting no for my own sanity and self respect. Your deal is crap.
Or even level up the ones who have stuck it out from the start and make the new contract a probation rate for now.
This is actually a very good idea. It would definitely improve new starter retention if they knew they would be made up after a few months.
In my opinion that’s how it should be and how I thought it worked when I came into the company 8 months ago.
Equalisation after a period of time seems fair, possibly even attached to performance (as long as it’s fair) so if you pass a 12 month probation then you get equalisation, if you need an extra 6 months then so be it etc… obviously this would most likely lead to managers finding any small issue to extend probations and it would need to be kept an eye on by the union.
If they really had any intention of equalising contracts, they would have ceased employing people on the new style contract. The CWU should be arguing to halt recruitment on that contract, otherwise equalisation chit chat will go nowhere.
All sensible and meaningful ideas indeed. At the very least, some kind of future commitment / acknowledgement along these lines would have made a big difference IMO.
We are currently in wishy washy no mans land scratching our heads wondering how will levelling up work? The 3 years… will this mean 3 years service per employee to achieve full harmonisation or will it be for e.g from 2029 everyone including new starters will be on the same contract?
There has been a wealth of sensible and good ideas on this forum in the run up to negotiations that could have been put forward.
The glaring obvious problem is CWU officials don't give a flying f**k about the very people they represent.
[/quote]
I think Martin has forgotten who he works for, the last time I looked it's the members who pay his wages.lf the members are not happy with this 3 year pay deals then scrap year 2 and 3 and negotiate a 1 year deal like most other companies do each year,then they won't feel they are being railroaded.
I read on this sight that posters did not want a pay deal linked change.
This deal is unconditional .
It is above inflation in the first year which has not been a common event since privatisation or indeed during the 1990s public pay freezes or limits were put in by the Government.
In years 2 and 3 it matches inflation. CPI is forecasted to be 2.6% in 2026 and 2.2% in 2027. However it has reopener clause if inflation is above 3%.
This is a company which is not very profitable and will not make the savings under USO reform which they originally wanted or forecasted.
I have a question for those who are supporting a rejection of a pay deal. Do you really think EP and Royal Mail are going to find an extra few hundred million to fund an improved pay rise without the pressure of strike action ?
Equally do you really think if there was an improvement it would not be linked to further change even to supporting ODM which the CWU are not ?
The pay offer is reasonable in all the circumstances and it now allows us to concentrate on equalisation of new entrants pay, terms and conditions which will also add costs to the overall wage bill.
I know some of you don’t look at these things and just think a company should just pay you higher regardless of the impact it has on the companies finances. Companies do not tend to survive if they adopt that strategy.
You’re supposed to be the head representative for postal workers who pay into the CWU. Yet every time I hear you speak or read what you write you sound like a Royal Mail manager or even worse the CEO. Your pay deal is very average at best, over the three years it pretty much just has us treading water. I know it will ultimately be a yes vote because the CWU give all sorts of scare stories to back us into a corner but I’ll still be voting no for my own sanity and self respect. Your deal is crap.
I read on this sight that posters did not want a pay deal linked change.
This deal is unconditional .
It is above inflation in the first year which has not been a common event since privatisation or indeed during the 1990s public pay freezes or limits were put in by the Government.
In years 2 and 3 it matches inflation. CPI is forecasted to be 2.6% in 2026 and 2.2% in 2027. However it has reopener clause if inflation is above 3%.
This is a company which is not very profitable and will not make the savings under USO reform which they originally wanted or forecasted.
I have a question for those who are supporting a rejection of a pay deal. Do you really think EP and Royal Mail are going to find an extra few hundred million to fund an improved pay rise without the pressure of strike action ?
Equally do you really think if there was an improvement it would not be linked to further change even to supporting ODM which the CWU are not ?
The pay offer is reasonable in all the circumstances and it now allows us to concentrate on equalisation of new entrants pay, terms and conditions which will also add costs to the overall wage bill.
I know some of you don’t look at these things and just think a company should just pay you higher regardless of the impact it has on the companies finances. Companies do not tend to survive if they adopt that strategy.
You’re supposed to be the head representative for postal workers who pay into the CWU. Yet every time I hear you speak or read what you write you sound like a Royal Mail manager or even worse the CEO. Your pay deal is very average at best, over the three years it pretty much just has us treading water. I know it will ultimately be a yes vote because the CWU give all sorts of scare stories to back us into a corner but I’ll still be voting no for my own sanity and self respect. Your deal is crap.
I hate to say it but this has some truth to it Martin
Youve got the tone all wrong
The pay deal not being linked to change is disingenuous when the change is coming anyway in one form or another. The biggest change to our job since the scrapping of 2nd delivery you said.
A lot of us in my office would like to know what exactly our working day will look like and what our workload will be in year 2 and 3 to understand whether the, lets be honest meagre, pay increase is fair or not.
Right now, none of us do. We are voting on a pay deal for a time where we have absolutely no idea what our job is going to be like at that time.
A 1 year pay deal makes sense to me until we know that at least.
If you tolerate this, then your paid break will be next
I hate to say it but this has some truth to it Martin
Youve got the tone all wrong
The pay deal not being linked to change is disingenuous when the change is coming anyway in one form or another. The biggest change to our job since the scrapping of 2nd delivery you said.
A lot of us in my office would like to know what exactly our working day will look like and what our workload will be in year 2 and 3 to understand whether the, lets be honest meagre, pay increase is fair or not.
Right now, none of us do. We are voting on a pay deal for a time where we have absolutely no idea what our job is going to be like at that time.
A 1 year pay deal makes sense to me until we know that at least.
You've hit the nail on the head there without being disrespectful or insulting.
What's the point of Civica Election Services sending me a letter about how they're not sending a ballot when they could have sent the ballot?
It takes seconds to cast your vote. Less time than licking an envelope and remembering to post it back. If you can post on this forum you should have no problem.
What's the point of Civica Election Services sending me a letter about how they're not sending a ballot when they could have sent the ballot?
It takes seconds to cast your vote. Less time than licking an envelope and remembering to post it back. If you can post on this forum you should have no problem.
I read on this sight that posters did not want a pay deal linked change.
This deal is unconditional .
It is above inflation in the first year which has not been a common event since privatisation or indeed during the 1990s public pay freezes or limits were put in by the Government.
In years 2 and 3 it matches inflation. CPI is forecasted to be 2.6% in 2026 and 2.2% in 2027. However it has reopener clause if inflation is above 3%.
This is a company which is not very profitable and will not make the savings under USO reform which they originally wanted or forecasted.
I have a question for those who are supporting a rejection of a pay deal. Do you really think EP and Royal Mail are going to find an extra few hundred million to fund an improved pay rise without the pressure of strike action ?
Equally do you really think if there was an improvement it would not be linked to further change even to supporting ODM which the CWU are not ?
The pay offer is reasonable in all the circumstances and it now allows us to concentrate on equalisation of new entrants pay, terms and conditions which will also add costs to the overall wage bill.
I know some of you don’t look at these things and just think a company should just pay you higher regardless of the impact it has on the companies finances. Companies do not tend to survive if they adopt that strategy.
You’re supposed to be the head representative for postal workers who pay into the CWU. Yet every time I hear you speak or read what you write you sound like a Royal Mail manager or even worse the CEO. Your pay deal is very average at best, over the three years it pretty much just has us treading water. I know it will ultimately be a yes vote because the CWU give all sorts of scare stories to back us into a corner but I’ll still be voting no for my own sanity and self respect. Your deal is crap.
I hate to say it but this has some truth to it Martin
Youve got the tone all wrong
The pay deal not being linked to change is disingenuous when the change is coming anyway in one form or another. The biggest change to our job since the scrapping of 2nd delivery you said.
A lot of us in my office would like to know what exactly our working day will look like and what our workload will be in year 2 and 3 to understand whether the, lets be honest meagre, pay increase is fair or not.
Right now, none of us do. We are voting on a pay deal for a time where we have absolutely no idea what our job is going to be like at that time.
A 1 year pay deal makes sense to me until we know that at least.
I've voted no exactly for that reason they saying it's not linked to change etc while actually bringing it in,the cwu come across tired and sick of fighting it out Ile strike if it's a no vote I just see it as an extra day off albeit without pay.
I get the sales pitch but there is no such thing as a "no strings pay rise" in RM. This so-called "unconditional offer" isn't really an exception because of the structural reforms that are already being rolled out and if it costs the business £220 million for a pay rise in year one; they will want to recoup that back with millions saved from changes to the USO. The maths is quite simple: same amount of work - less staff = increased workloads
Once again, I'm not convinced that the CWU will resolve what they said was one of their red lines when we were on the picket lines. Equalising all those inferior contracts sometime on the never-never depending on whether the company makes a big fat profit or not appears to be worlds away.
Like I keep saying, IDS isn't broke. It has billions sitting in cash reserves and retained earnings that gives it plenty of financial headroom so for the CWU to come and say that they cannot afford £183 million to equalise all those new entrants is a bit like saying "they didn't earn much this month" while knowing that they still have millions in the bank. There are many reasons why RM might not have earned much that month - for example, they might have spent it all on some shiny new parcel lockers or lent some of it to their younger sibling, GLS.
RM are still hiring more new entrants on worse terms while talks continue is proof that the company is still infatuated with the gig-economy model, and it's easy to see why. From their perspective it's low maintenance, bargain basement labour that keeps costs down. By the time any full equalisation is eventually done and dusted many of today's new entrants will have already left and RM will have hired more staff on worse terms in the meantime. This hiring model is essentially a carousel that never stops.
I'll be voting no. I think the company can afford to offer more and there are better ways to push them than going straight to an all-out strike. Our biggest leverage right now is that RM needs our agreement to roll out the ODM, so I would start with that.
On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world.
I get the sales pitch but there is no such thing as a "no strings pay rise" in RM. This so-called "unconditional offer" isn't really an exception because of the structural reforms that are already being rolled out and if it costs the business £220 million for a pay rise in year one; they will want to recoup that back with millions saved from changes to the USO. The maths is quite simple: same amount of work - less staff = increased workloads
Once again, I'm not convinced that the CWU will resolve what they said was one of their red lines when we were on the picket lines. Equalising all those inferior contracts sometime on the never-never depending on whether the company makes a big fat profit or not appears to be worlds away.
Like I keep saying, IDS isn't broke. It has billions sitting in cash reserves and retained earnings that gives it plenty of financial headroom so for the CWU to come and say that they cannot afford £183 million to equalise all those new entrants is a bit like saying "they didn't earn much this month" while knowing that they still have millions in the bank. There are many reasons why RM might not have earned much that month - for example, they might have spent it all on some shiny new parcel lockers or lent some of it to their younger sibling, GLS.
RM are still hiring more new entrants on worse terms while talks continue is proof that the company is still infatuated with the gig-economy model, and it's easy to see why. From their perspective it's low maintenance, bargain basement labour that keeps costs down. By the time any full equalisation is eventually done and dusted many of today's new entrants will have already left and RM will have hired more staff on worse terms in the meantime. This hiring model is essentially a carousel that never stops.
I'll be voting no. I think the company can afford to offer more and there are better ways to push them than going straight to an all-out strike. Our biggest leverage right now is that RM needs our agreement to roll out the ODM, so I would start with that.
’You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new.’
