colleague shares

[dvbuk55]

Highest valuation £1.52 per share

I don't like to correct you tbt but the highest value was £2.00 last september which resulted in a payout of over £1400 to leavers at the time.

No always correct me when I am wrong its the best way

Yes, I think your right as well.

Oh oh................I can hear the cane swishing already

[RTP]

has anybody else heard ,that there is going to be anouncement on Monday about colleague shares.?????

[dvbuk55]

has anybody else heard ,that there is going to be anouncement on Monday about colleague shares.?????

Yes I've heard they're just confirmiing they are worthless

[seeker019]

So were's the anouncement?????

[dvbuk55]

So were's the anouncement?????

Here's the announcement:


Your shares are worth FA.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

So were's the anouncement?????

Here's the announcement:


Your shares are worth FA.

Oh bugger someone we know buggered that up as well.

[Martin Walsh]

This cant be right as loads on here said that the union was conning everyone by changing colleague share payments to lump sum payments as colleague share payments were guaranteed and the CWU were conning members with lump sum money they were assured of getting without any problems. Is this not the case ? How many members would have now agreed for this money to be guaranteed on the revisons rather than the value of the company ?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Well for me neither - IMHO the CWU accepting lump sums of any form was a mistake even if members do vote for them.

A lump sum is transitory and is usually tied to something either outside the control of the member (Colleagueshares) or it becomes sweetener to introduce worse T&Cs (Lump sum revisions). Rarely, if ever will a business pay a lump sum and not expect something extra in return.

I think Lump sums should be taken out of any revision activity when linked to national agreements in the future, all they do is entice the financially challenged to accept whatever is put in front of them, rather than to accept a fair and balanced workload. Some may say, if its not fair and balanced then don't accept it, but when there is money involved people see the £££££s and put pressure on their rep to get the cash ASAP, and Managers come up with asinine slogans such as "Dash for the Cash" is it any wonder bad deals are accepted.

[crezz]

the truth is tho that royal mail would of pushed these changes through regardless if we accepted it or not, so the only positive i can think of is that we did get some dollar from them, and thats it, the rest is really terriable, as ive previously said, im a fit lad in early 20's and im glad to get home after work, let alone the gents that are easily twice my age, ive quite often taken there last loop to do ontop of mine as they looked exhausted

[dvbuk55]

This cant be right as loads on here said that the union was conning everyone by changing colleague share payments to lump sum payments as colleague share payments were guaranteed and the CWU were conning members with lump sum money they were assured of getting without any problems. Is this not the case ? How many members would have now agreed for this money to be guaranteed on the revisons rather than the value of the company ?

I believe both were shown in the rewards section of the agreement and in a year I have had precisely £200 pro rata less tax and insurance, despite having park and loop, D&M Revision and two CSS machines and unachievable work loads.......you say the members voted for it.....what they actually voted for was the professed only deal on the table and what a good deal it was, in fact the deal of the century I believe one pundit called it..................now I ask myself this - if the ordinary members had been privy to the negotiations prior to the circus of selling it..................would that have been the deal of choice? Any right thinking member would say NO.

[suz67]

Well for me neither - IMHO the CWU accepting lump sums of any form was a mistake even if members do vote for them.

A lump sum is transitory and is usually tied to something either outside the control of the member (Colleagueshares) or it becomes sweetener to introduce worse T&Cs (Lump sum revisions). Rarely, if ever will a business pay a lump sum and not expect something extra in return.

I think Lump sums should be taken out of any revision activity when linked to national agreements in the future, all they do is entice the financially challenged to accept whatever is put in front of them, rather than to accept a fair and balanced workload. Some may say, if its not fair and balanced then don't accept it, but when there is money involved people see the £££££s and put pressure on their rep to get the cash ASAP, and Managers come up with asinine slogans such as "Dash for the Cash" is it any wonder bad deals are accepted.

absolutely spot on,for gods sake cwu get back to the good old days and fight for a fair yearly pay rise,the cwu have caused more damage to our t&c's over the last 10 years by always agreeing to payments as long as rm getting something in return,usually,like now,they always move the goalposts so they get what they want,and we are left with the s**t end of the stick.

[belle smith]

This cant be right as loads on here said that the union was conning everyone by changing colleague share payments to lump sum payments as colleague share payments were guaranteed and the CWU were conning members with lump sum money they were assured of getting without any problems. Is this not the case ?

It certainly is the case dingo, i've certainly have said as much.
I did't say conning i did say bribe, you might as well add doing our emploters PR work, i defanetly said that!
I don't remmember anyone one saying guarenteed, i do recall people saying money that was alresdy ours.

How many members would have now agreed for this money to be guaranteed on the revisons rather than the value of the company ?

NOT ME!

How many members would happily pay their bribe money back for a 3hr30min max delivery span, plus pegasus and IWT either having manageable performance standards or being binned.

I seem to remember thats what we went out on strike for NOT to gaurentee colleague share money.

[buster01]

suz is right. when is OUR union gonna stop falling for these false promises and dangled carrots. a decent yearly pay rise isnt a lot to ask for, tell rm to stick their unreachable bonuses and scams up their a*ses

[WARDY]

Conned Over Lies Leaving Everyone Annoyed Getting Useless Expectations Shite Has Again Ruined Everyones Sanity Thats what colleague shares stand for

[chunk]

the truth is tho that royal mail would of pushed these changes through regardless if we accepted it or not, so the only positive i can think of is that we did get some dollar from them, and thats it, the rest is really terriable, as ive previously said, im a fit lad in early 20's and im glad to get home after work, let alone the gents that are easily twice my age, ive quite often taken there last loop to do ontop of mine as they looked exhausted

I think your wrong .i appreciate that there are posties with money troubles and credit card bills to pay.
£200 once = longer round forever! its a no brainer.
if a proposed change is bad ..vote against it.
state the reasons your voting against it .9 times out of 10 they will come back to the table
with a slightly amended proposal. .

Even if rm "push it through" you wont have your dom saying you lot voted for this.
and if if a guy cant complete his round because of the new changes the dom is not on the solid ground of saying
you and your union passed this all off.
I think in the future a lot more of us will be in that confrontational legal /industrial tribunal type scenario,
and rm's pushing stuff through will count against them whereas endorsed changes wont.