We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Isle. There are more important things to me than money. You know nothing of me so unfortunately it's a case of your judgement of a stranger.
However having said that. I will also say my most fervent wish is for common sense to descend upon the wage negotiations. Although money interests me.
It's preferable to share a historical Company with pride while receiving a reasonable financial return on investment.
@ Redceo.
I assume that you actually want strike action. So that you can load up at the bottom after waiting patiently.
"Herr Back mysteriously stood down as CEO within a matter of weeks. Was he pushed?"
Oli, It was also height of the Covid scare and he was as usual working from Germany.
Perhaps he just decided he had enough money and life's too short for the aggro.
Mike, talking of misinformation...."in fact I believe RMG could simply abandon their commitment to the USO entirely if they so chose to".
Err.....not true.
I believe that Herr Back tried this without consulting Parliament. He mysteriously stood down as CEO within a matter of weeks. Was he pushed? If so by whom? It certainly wouldn't have been from within the CWU so it must have been pressure from within the BoD or Parliament?
Mike . The loss of the 6 day week uso obligation wouldn't cause any job losses. Already understaffed and the spare staff from day off cover would just end up working Sundays. Those not on delivery don't seem to realise what an absolute shambles it is in DO's at the moment. With morale so low, any favours posties have done for years to make sure all deliveries went out , has literally ended. Many are exhausted after being hammered all through covid pulling in extra walks. Management has also given up and the silence on conference calls is deafening. They just get screamed at for not pulling rabbits out the hat.
Mike, you are correct about the USO and it would require an Act of Parliament to release RM from this obligation, however the business is actively pursuing a seven day service in order to keep up with the competition so what would be the point? Provision of a seven day service has already been agreed with the CWU under the Pathway to Change agreement.
What hasn't been agreed is the method of staffing up for Sunday deliveries and the way this will be funded. At present, Sunday duty is paid at a premium rate and is also voluntary. RM would like to introduce mandatory Sunday working so bye bye McDonald's Dads and working single mothers. This would also have a knock on effect to staffing rotas in order to comply with the EU Working Time Directive (yes I know that we have done Brexit but it's still a standing legal mandate) which would naturally increase the workforce.
But we're still missing the point really because this dispute isn't about the Pathway to Change agreement.
Eastsidemassive - I'm not entirely sure what point you're attempting to make but RMG definitely aren't saddled with the the 6 day USO i it's current form with absolutely no option to reduce it or for that matter drop it altogether.
A reduction in the 6 day obligation would require agreement from ofcom and Parliament to implement but it's certainly doable, in fact I believe RMG could simply abandon their commitment to the USO entirely if they so chose to although it would mean losing certain tax breaks which it currently attracts.
I would not want to be the Devil's advocate here Michael .
But when Royal Mail ,Was privatised it was privatised USO ,Terms and conditions.
Warts and all
For a long time now the CWU has been more interested in looking after itself and preserving it's own lucrative income stream rather than acting in the best interests of its members and the business that employs them.
For instance the CWU are and will remain to be vehemently opposed to any potential reduction in the 6 day USO because "job losses" even though there are huge numbers of posties who would willingly accept even modest redundancy packages and I suspect any redundancy offering would be massively over subscribed.
Yet the CWU will always oppose a reduction in the USO purely because it would result in a reduction in their own subscription income from a reduced workforce even though a USO reduction would result in greater efficiency, increased profitability and a more secure future for the business and it's employees.
Redceo, I'm not entirely in agreement with your misinformation statement as both RM senior management team and the CWU are saying exactly the same thing regarding the pay offer.
The last time that there was conflict between RM management and the CWU, it was the CWU represented grades that came away with an improved offer.
We will take "a reasonable offer" if it's made, however, I haven't heard any evidence of a reasonable offer yet. What I have heard is a 45 minute video (on Workplace this evening) of six senior managers trying, unconvincingly, to persuade the workforce that we need to give back £80 in weekly allowances in return for a £60 weekly pay rise. Once that has been achieved we can have a 1.5% pay increase and if we are really, really extra good we might be eligible for a maximum 2% one off bonus payment later on in the year.
It really is laughable. Effectively we are being ask to fund our own pay increase. Perhaps if we get rid of 10% of the delivery posties we can have a 10% pay increase...lol
Redceo, you may be correct about the CWU. I love a good conspiracy theory (who doesn't, I still can't believe that Paul McCartney died in 1966...lol). Perhaps the CWU are trying to drive the SP down to previous lows in order to load up and sell on next year at a fiver a pop? Perhaps, (canny Scot that I'm sure he is) Ricky McAulay is doing the same? Perhaps they are all in it together? Now that really would be a "Team" effort.....lol
The shorters once again want the shares rock bottom cheap. The CWU will assist with their misinformation almost as though there is a hidden agenda not connected to the workforce.
Cast your minds back who benefited the last time the CWU attempted the same thing. Workers? NO!
1. Shorters Yes!
2. Investors that weren't intimidated. Yes!
Take a reasonable offer if it's made. Because strike action if it comes will play right into the hands of the same people.
Share price drops are not a threat when we're half way down. Let it drop fast and hard and as before people like me will out of necessity wait patiently and buy at the bottom
If I wasn't so cynical, I would say that the CWU is actively provoking IA for some nefarious reason?
The CWU represented grades helped to produce an operational profit of £416m over the last twelve months.
Around 50% of that operational profit would be enough for the business to offer a 5% pay deal leaving the BoD around £206m to spaff on whatever they fancy.
Simon Thompson is now concerned that RM will only make around £300m profit next year as parcel volumes drop and therefore any pay deal offered this year will also eat into next year's profits.
The market has reacted accordingly and the SP has dropped by 13.25% today. Any threat of industrial action will surely see the SP plunge but on the bright side this will provide some excellent opportunities for investment.
If I wasn't so cynical, I would say that the BoD is actively provoking IA for some nefarious reason?
Putting divis before a fair pay rise for your work force will not end well. Expect industrial action here now after Thompson's drivel today.
Oli. Oli Oli. Your being naughty.
The CWU are acting on behalf of an element of the U.K workforce which does not include GLS. Information regarding profit should be pertaining to that group.
Shareholder remuneration comes from the entire group which they own. Not just the U.K element.
The Company returned an element of profit and performed a buyback because it suited them to do so. Example less dividend in total.
To be honest, that makes the situation look even worse.
So RM made £416m profit and gave the shareholders £200m then purchased £200m of its own shares for the buyback scheme thus leaving £16m. No wonder we are in trouble.
I wonder what the EPS is for GLS?
If the CWU wish to quote these figures they should quote RM. However if they need to sell their case by quoting profits made by other workers at least break the figures down.
PP, it is true that Royal Mail Group posted an adjusted operating profit of £758m. Broken down that was £416m for the RM UK operation and £342m for GLS.
Probably an error. I wouldn't trust Pullinger to do my books. ;-)
Hi PP surely they should quote RMG not just RM?
Posties are being mis-informed by the union on Facebook. Quoting the £758m profit when in fact RM only made around £400m.