Member Info for OliGarch

Dynamo, so any news when the 69% get their chance to vote on this or are the PRC just going to rubber stamp it on the members behalf?

It was my belief that a "deal" was agreed months ago? Presumably this is a new and improved deal so it will be good to see the detail?

Either way, any improvements to the deal are a nailed on guarantee to cost the business more in which case I'm not sure how that helps a business that has hung it's hat on a reduced USO only for the regulator to kick it down the road?

I would still like to know where the "68%" figure comes from as I can see nothing on the CWU website or FB/Twitter pages or indeed anything on the internet to substantiate this?

It would be good if posters who state factual information could back this up with a link rather than just coming up with "data" from seemingly nowhere.

Still, I guess that if you say it enough times it becomes true.....

I have been out and about today but it looks as though I have missed quite a bit?

I noticed that AngerSharkz last post was at 14:28 today and is still visible however all of the previous posts have been deleted? I thought that any accounts that were removed automatically had all of their posts deleted?

I realise that many of the posts were abrasive and such was the quantity that I probably missed the one that caused the most offense however with an average of 25+ posts a day it's probably for the best as it can't be healthy to do this and (I'm assuming) hold down a job as well?

"Deal to be confirmed today agreed by all parties"

Could be to do with IDS or possibly Everton FC who seem to be "interested" in signing just about every player on the market from Kylian Mbappe to Eric Djemba Djemba according to the click bait tabloids.......lol

If it's about RM and the CWU the expectation last week was that.....

"We hope to share full and finalised details next week and will be communicating as extensively as possible at that point".

Time will tell.

Ahhh, Colleague Shares......

A prime example as to why RM employees should never trust senior management.... under any circumstances....

AngerSharkz, so what would you envisage the cost savings/benefits would be to the business of a 6% pay increase (approx 260m year on year) over savings to the business for the revised terms and conditions?

AngerSharkz, I'm not saying that proposed changes won't affect thousands of staff, however the latest proposals are a much watered down version of Thompson's vision from last year.

I have just looked at my sick record on both PSP and on the green/white tractor feed print out and the last time that proposed changes to the sick leave policy would have impacted on me would have been 1989 when I had two periods of sick in the same twelve months.

The changes will not affect me for two reasons.

a) the part of the business that I work for does not fall under the remit of Ward and Furey and the head of department has recently completed a tour of all the Mail Centres where his staff work to reassure all his staff that there will be no changes to shift start and finish times, no mandatory Sunday working (although we have voluntarily worked a Sunday shift every four weeks since 1983) and no changes to pay and allowances.

b) I intend to take my full pension and retire on my predetermined retirement date later in the year.

I'm not quite sure how this constitutes sitting on the edge of the normal distribution curve but I hope that it clarifies my situation.

Also, you haven't responded to my post regarding the employees "making the changes to pay for the pay" and therefore having a zero impact on cost to the business (unless I missed it).

AngerSharkz, "sick pay reduced at your expense."

It was Thompson who highlighted the fact that 5% of the workforce were responsible for almost 50% of the sick leave. Most employees will be completely unaffected by the proposed changes to sick leave policy however as with a cross section of society there will always be a minor percentage of staff that will abuse the privelage.

AngerSharkz, "because any pay rise you’ve held the company to ransom for is being offset by the sacrifices you’re making on your terms and conditions".

So what you are inferring is that the workforce is "making the savings to pay for the pay" therefore it's not costing the business a penny, in which case I don't understand how it is unaffordable for the business?

AngerSharkz, "It wasn’t because he was ‘pleading poverty’ or hiding a pot of gold or making £758m that never was lol……it was because that’s the reality of the situation."

All very true and undeniable so why would the business offer 6% for 2023? The business could have toughed it out and refused point blank? As you have already pointed out, the business doesn't have the money so why offer to hock it into more debt?

Ispy, AngerSharkz, I posted last year that a 1% pay increase would cost RM approx £42m and this figure was taken from a quote by Simon Thompson on RM Workplace.

Incidentally, Simon Thompson did not want to offer anything other than the enforced 2% "pay rise" last year and definitely did not want to offer 6% for this year which is presumably why he was removed from final negotiations and a different set of negotiators brought in?

AngerSharkz, it is sad news however, Tufnells was a minnow in the shoal (in much the same way as CityLink) so not really surprising that firms like this will go into administration first? In theory this should strengthen the market share for Royal Mail, ParcelForce, DHL, DPD etc.....as there is now less competition?

"Was administration there down to mismanagement or is it because the industry is facing extremely tough headwinds"?

Well it probably wasn't down to the militant workforce either but a business facing strong headwinds needs to have a "plan b" in order to survive? Perhaps the management strategy didn't plan ahead? Who knows.

RT003, it's gone and hit two quid so now on course for 210p.....

Bananarama.....

MuppetBr190, your recent post to Ispy reads as below...

You haven't got a clue what's going on.....lol

RE: Terminal decline..7 Jun 2023 21:32

OT

For being in the know IsleworthSpy, what is the latest on the ballot? The CWU statements seem ambiguous and not supported by the % of the posters on the feed.

So is it action being called off and the payrise being excepted for now?

or happening as per the plan once the talks with RM bear fruit (thinking Fig leaf) ?

or being voted down once presented, regardless of the CWU votes?

What is the general feeling to the outcome?

Hahahahahaha

MaryBr190, I obviously don't have as much imagination as you do?

"The 68% are chomping to get this over."

Again, no source or link for these words of wisdom? If Ward and Furey truly believed that the deal would be voted in by 68% then don't you think that they would have put the ballot out already?

Incidentally, MuppetBr190, the only part of this deal that affects me is the potential for a 6% pay increase so I'm probably likely to be in the "68%"?

Ispy, my thinking is that the recent increase was a clever double edged move from VESA?

a) market reassurance (if the big guys are buying in quantity then it's got to be good?) and the hope that it puts the brakes on a further decline in price?

b) buying large quantities at these levels is a no brainer for a company that accumulates parts of other companies?

Just my thoughts but I wonder if it will be tougher to get enough free shares together for the next percent plus VESA are slowly edging up to the 29.9% point.

MaryBr190, here's a throwaway comment for ya...

"This will fly next week"

No, it's not my view on the IDS SP but a post taken from Wilbur Wright's FB account.......lol

MaryBr190, "so the CWU are selling out the members for expediency - great news - all done and dusted".

You are obviously ready something into the latest CWU statement that I cannot see? It's true that the CWU have "sold out the members" but "all done and dusted"? What gives you that impression? It would be great if you could put some context on this or post a link to substantiate your comment.

The problem is that more job loss means that meeting the USO becomes more unachievable?

As I posted earlier, the parameters of the game are known so it's up to the business to play the game within the parameters and to fully justify service delivery failures. Failures hidden by DOMs/COMs because they don't want to face the music or want to secure their bonuses only makes the situation worse however they always get found out in the end. We had a couple of senior managers who managed to fiddle the figures at various delivery offices and a couple of mail centres over the course of a decade and were getting annual bonuses in excess of £10k per annum. Their double entry book keeping was only discovered after they left the business and retired abroad.