Made to come in 40 minutes early to cover unpaid break

[tramssirhc]

Simple thing to do is look for a new job, if the argument is there's none around paying anything better then that justifies RM are paying new starters the correct salary?

Perhaps it also means legacy workers are now over paid but reducing an employees salary is virtually impossible without making them redundant.

I personally think that RM are waiting for the number of "Legacy" staff to drop below a certain number then all "Legacy" will be forced onto the newer contracts. RM will know roughly how much each employment tribunal will cost and they'll likely have a figure in mind of what their willing to pay for lost tribunals.

Why do you bother with such scaremongering, even without a union a UK company would struggle to impose a new, inferior, contract on tens of thousands of employees, Witham union they'll have no chance.

What they could well do is offer to buy out the Delivery Supplement etc and so standisise the contracts. We're still losing legacy staff on virtual a weekly basis so it won't be long before they are in the minority, although once they are they'll be nothing for new contracts to be "angry" about it as they will be in the majority!!

They wouldn't struggle to impose new contracts. Anyone who didn't agree to them would leave and go to an employment tribunal. Even if someone wins their tribunal, they won't get their job back. It's just down to how much money overall RM are willing to pay out for employment tribunals that they lose.

Precedence demonstrates that what happens is workers are offered a standardised contract with a incentive to accept it. Where workers choose not to accept that offer they continue to be engaged on their existing terms and conditions. There is no attempt to force workers out or mass tribunal claims. It becomes a process of natural attrition. Workers on the existing t's and c's reduce over time to a point where the cost of that contract is insignificant to the employer.

[postslippete]

It's noticeable that RM are recruiting more staff on the new 37 hour contracts that don't have paid breaks and work Sundays thus increasing the proportion of staff on the new contracts. I think it's unlikely RM will resort to fire and rehire. Didn't Tesco's lose trying to do this? There are risks with IA as well as reputational damage and the last thing any company wants is uncertainty when they are competing with other parcel couriers for business.

It's more plausible that VR, retirements and natural attrition will continue. If RM wanted to standardise contracts then the more likely route would be voluntary buy-outs or for changes to be negotiated though our infamous CWU.

[TopperGas]

It's noticeable that RM are recruiting more staff on the new 37 hour contracts that don't have paid breaks and work Sundays thus increasing the proportion of staff on the new contracts. I think it's unlikely RM will resort to fire and rehire. Didn't Tesco's lose trying to do this? There are risks with IA as well as reputational damage and the last thing any company wants is uncertainty when they are competing with other parcel couriers for business.

It's more plausible that VR, retirements and natural attrition will continue. If RM wanted to standardise contracts then the more likely route would be voluntary buy-outs or for changes to be negotiated though our infamous CWU.

I believe "fire and rehire" was banned recently for UK based companies.

[postslippete]

I believe "fire and rehire" was banned recently for UK based companies.

Not until next year I think. The Employment Rights Act 2025 will make fire and rehire automatically unfair from Jan 2027. However, there is a limited exception where employers who are in severe financial difficulty have no reasonable alternative. So that won't apply to us.

Natural attrition, VR and negotiated changes will be the order of the day

[tramssirhc]

I believe "fire and rehire" was banned recently for UK based companies.

Not until next year I think. The Employment Rights Act 2025 will make fire and rehire automatically unfair from Jan 2027. However, there is a limited exception where employers who are in severe financial difficulty have no reasonable alternative. So that won't apply to us.

Natural attrition, VR and negotiated changes will be the order of the day

Or maybe it will. Martin Walsh says theres severe financial difficulty.

[tramssirhc]

It's noticeable that RM are recruiting more staff on the new 37 hour contracts that don't have paid breaks and work Sundays thus increasing the proportion of staff on the new contracts. I think it's unlikely RM will resort to fire and rehire. Didn't Tesco's lose trying to do this? There are risks with IA as well as reputational damage and the last thing any company wants is uncertainty when they are competing with other parcel couriers for business.

It's more plausible that VR, retirements and natural attrition will continue. If RM wanted to standardise contracts then the more likely route would be voluntary buy-outs or for changes to be negotiated though our infamous CWU.

I believe "fire and rehire" was banned recently for UK based companies.

There's no ban. The law allows employees to claim redress if the process of their dismissal is unfair. Proving that, getting to tribunal and winning is not easy. Workers will have to find alternative employment and then anything they earn between being dismissed and winning will be deducted from their award. That's not a ban and it ain't justice.

[TopperGas]

There soon will be a ban according to Google once the Employment Rights Act 2025 is made law later this year/early next year.

[postslippete]

Or maybe it will. Martin Walsh says theres severe financial difficulty.

We all appreciate Martin's input but IDS isn't a business on the brink of collapse if they made overall adjusted operating profits of £222 million 2025/26. They recently told parliament that the group had liquidity of many hundreds of millions of pounds including a £925 million revolving credit facility.

And in RM's case, if the USO reforms are expected to generate enough savings to finance a £500 million 5 year investment programme, where exactly are the forecasted losses coming from? The frontline might still be a huge cost on RM's balance sheets, but is it really the explanation for the company not performing financially when it has already spent years attacking that cost base?

Because when revenues have increased year on year, regardless of falling letter volumes, where exactly is the money going is the question that I would like to know.

[tramssirhc]

Or maybe it will. Martin Walsh says theres severe financial difficulty.

We all appreciate Martin's input but IDS isn't a business on the brink of collapse if they made overall adjusted operating profits of £222 million 2025/26. They recently told parliament that the group had liquidity of many hundreds of millions of pounds including a £925 million revolving credit facility.

And in RM's case, if the USO reforms are expected to generate enough savings to finance a £500 million 5 year investment programme, where exactly are the forecasted losses coming from? The frontline might still be a huge cost on RM's balance sheets, but is it really the explanation for the company not performing financially when it has already spent years attacking that cost base?

Because when revenues have increased year on year, regardless of falling letter volumes, where exactly is the money going is the question that I would like to know.

Have a look at the post asking what £2.76 can get you.

[postslippete]

Have a look at the post asking what £2.76 can get you.

Well you wouldn't expect the £114m of acquisition interest nor the £85m of takeover advisers' fees to be included with the operational cost of a postie delivering a parcel or letter. Falling bottom-line profit isn't determined solely by how much posties cost but only Martin Walsh can tell us if he brought these costs up when he calculated the cost per item figure.

What I'm interested to know is what proportion of RM's underlying operating costs actually relates to frontline labour and how its changed over the last 5–10 years.

Especially after we have had imposed revisions, lapsing, reduced staffing or "rightsizing" as Chairman Keith Williams called it, the new contracts, reduced overtime etc etc has impacted the business.

[TopperGas]

Have a look at the post asking what £2.76 can get you.

Well you wouldn't expect the £114m of acquisition interest nor the £85m of takeover advisers' fees to be included with the operational cost of a postie delivering a parcel or letter. Falling bottom-line profit isn't determined solely by how much posties cost but only Martin Walsh can tell us if he brought these costs up when he calculated the cost per item figure.

What I'm interested to know is what proportion of RM's underlying operating costs actually relates to frontline labour and how its changed over the last 5–10 years.

Especially after we have had imposed revisions, lapsing, reduced staffing or "rightsizing" as Chairman Keith Williams called it, the new contracts, reduced overtime etc etc has impacted the business.

DK suggested on Workplace employees cost RM £6B p.a., operating costs £2B but parcels only generate £5B, it's intention that eventually parcel income matched that of the employee and operating costs. I think he said letters generates £3B?? How the £6B was calculated wasn't broken down between frontline and management etc.

[postslippete]

DK suggested on Workplace employees cost RM £6B p.a., How the £6B was calculated wasn't broken down between frontline and management etc.

This isn't unusual for a labour intensive business and according to the annual figures for the last 5 years RM usually spend around £5-6 billion on people costs. 5 years ago RM was spending around £5.58 billion on people; today it's about £5.94 billion despite wage inflation and increased employer costs.

Whether they can successfully streamline the frontline and still maintain a healthy profit and a decent QoS is another debate though.