£211m profit = £100 bribe

[Martin Walsh]

For the record Dvbuk in 2007 when Royal Mail launched the colleague share scheme stated This so called staff share scheme is flawed and the monies which have been made available with Government agreement to be paid under the heading of colleague share could and should be spent in a more beneficial way for the employees and CWU members covered by the scheme.

In addition the union under the Pay and Modernisation Agreement managed to change the dividend payments on colleague share and in a letter to Branch's stated : For the first time the union has been able to influence colleague shares. The criteria of the dividend payments in years two and three will now be subject to joint review. This is in addition to the change that has been made in year 1 £400 payment. We should continue to peruse our overall concerns around colleague share as part of the debate on how the employees will be rewarded in the future.

The reward part of the 2010 agreement actually states : As part of these Negotations Royal Mail and the CWU have reviewed the colleague share scheme . As a result the scheme has been enhanced in the following areas:

The 2010 dividend payment linked to the Business results due to be announced in June has been bought forward and the dividend will be paid on ratification of the agreement.

The final instalment of colleague share will be replaced for employees covered by this agreement by lump sum payments including additional monies bringing the total to £1000 pro rata for part time employees. These will be known as Transformation Lump sums and payment is linked to key transformation milestones.

So the union managed to secure a lot of the money which was available , however it was not the unions fault that Royal Mail revalued itself with the pension deficit.

Now the question I want to ask what would you like to have done bearing in mind there are almost 20 thousand employees and members who have joined since 2007 who have never had colleague share. Some people just love to blame someone else and you should be blaming Royal Mail and not the CWU cause you would have lost another thousand if the union had not had the foresight to bring forward the last instalment and use it for the revison lump sums.

by the way everyone lost on colleague share as every manager and postman and women recieved an equal share.

[fishtank]

by the way everyone lost on colleague share as every manager and postman and women recieved an equal share.

Moya didn't.
She walked off with over £300,000 for amongst other things financial performance boosted by over £120 million in colleagueshare money...that should have been ours.
But of course we can't blame her...instead we invite her to conference.

[dvbuk55]

For the record Dvbuk in 2007 when Royal Mail launched the colleague share scheme stated This so called staff share scheme is flawed and the monies which have been made available with Government agreement to be paid under the heading of colleague share could and should be spent in a more beneficial way for the employees and CWU members covered by the scheme.

In addition the union under the Pay and Modernisation Agreement managed to change the dividend payments on colleague share and in a letter to Branch's stated : For the first time the union has been able to influence colleague shares. The criteria of the dividend payments in years two and three will now be subject to joint review. This is in addition to the change that has been made in year 1 £400 payment. We should continue to peruse our overall concerns around colleague share as part of the debate on how the employees will be rewarded in the future.

The reward part of the 2010 agreement actually states : As part of these Negotations Royal Mail and the CWU have reviewed the colleague share scheme . As a result the scheme has been enhanced in the following areas:

The 2010 dividend payment linked to the Business results due to be announced in June has been bought forward and the dividend will be paid on ratification of the agreement.

The final instalment of colleague share will be replaced for employees covered by this agreement by lump sum payments including additional monies bringing the total to £1000 pro rata for part time employees. These will be known as Transformation Lump sums and payment is linked to key transformation milestones.

So the union managed to secure a lot of the money which was available , however it was not the unions fault that Royal Mail revalued itself with the pension deficit.

Now the question I want to ask what would you like to have done bearing in mind there are almost 20 thousand employees and members who have joined since 2007 who have never had colleague share. Some people just love to blame someone else and you should be blaming Royal Mail and not the CWU cause you would have lost another thousand if the union had not had the foresight to bring forward the last instalment and use it for the revison lump sums.

by the way everyone lost on colleague share as every manager and postman and women recieved an equal share.

I don't recall the union during the negotiations say that the colleague share scheme was a baker. In fact to the contrary as it was shown in the rewards section. Only when there was no money in the pot did the union say that they disagreed with it. Now we are at the crux again where yet another incentive scheme is being offered and with what guarantees? I just wonder how the union would have reacted if the money had been paid out, would they still have disapproved or would it have been another case of "look what we got for you"?

How vociferous were you when the colleague share was put into the rewards section of the BT2010 - I repost because I don't see an answer in your verbose post as to how flawed it was. As I have stated previously there is money in the pot for others but not for us. Perhaps we should wait for the "independent valuation" amongst other statistics that have yet to be verified. Particularly how those who left the business in 2011 received the money whilst just a few weeks later the shares were worth nothing for the remaining staff........was it a cover up prior to the announcement because it certainly seems that way and if it was who knew exactly?

[fishtank]

What exactly is it about the company's valuation that has changed in the last two years which has led to the valuation of the shares dropping from £2 a share to £0?

Still no-one on here that can answer that then?

[POSTMAN]

The 2010 dividend payment linked to the Business results due to be announced in June has been bought forward and the dividend will be paid on ratification of the agreement.

My memory is bad so i'd like to know one thing.
Would we of got the colleague share money ANYWAY,re: Business results in June,or not.

[Martin Walsh]

Postman you would have lost the £ 1000 as it was the last payment.

[fishtank]

The 2010 dividend payment linked to the Business results due to be announced in June has been bought forward and the dividend will be paid on ratification of the agreement.

My memory is bad so i'd like to know one thing.
Would we of got the colleague share money ANYWAY,re: Business results in June,or not.

Yes we would still have received the £400 dividend as the colleagueshare scheme was still on track to pay out a dividend in June 2010.
The only part of the scheme that was merged into the transformation lump sums was the final allocation of shares which were,according to Keith from the colleagueshare team likely to be around the same as the second allocation...around 300 shares.
If those had been allocated that would have given a full timer a final total of around 1000 share

The value of those would have been...
April 2010...around £1500
Sept 2010....around £2000
April 2011...£0

You could argue all day on whether getting some of it into the lump sums was good or bad,you could say that RM would have still had to pay for change anyway...that was the whole point of the strikes according to HQ wasn't it.
You could also argue that watering down the colleagueshares and reducing their potential value made it easier and less controversial to bin the whole scheme.