h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Sorry but I just cannot buy into your idea that if changes to payroll methods saves money, you and you colleagues should get it."

Why exactly? Weekly pay is part of our collectivly agreed terms and conditions. These require agreement to be altered. Why the hell should we accept a change in our T&Cs that we dont want and benefits the business and we get nothing?

I dont know novo if you have ever worked anywhere with collective bargaining but that is how it works, you try and reach a mutually agreeable deal. If they want something in we don't like they give us something in return.

"yet here you are asking for some of it! Oh, and BTW part of the reason why you have to accept changes in working practices is that the rest of the world does....it's called staying ahead in a competitive world. "

Well by that token why ever aspir to things being better? We are in a "competetive world" so lets scrap the minimum wage, all social legislation, give up pensions and perks because they make it hard to compete.... sheesh.....

The usual compensation for moving from weekly to monthly pay is a one off cash payment and/or a soft loan arrangement to tide people over the first few months. I've never heard of an increase in salary just because of monthly pay.

And neither have I.
Novo

Parceforce (part of Royal Mail) got one.

My question is why on earth would anyone accept a negative change in their T&Cs to benefit someone else and not see any of the benefit from it

To keep their job?

Not saying its right, but it has happened before, and will happen again.

Well if they are going to try and dismiss us all then bring it on.

In truth one of the reasons people join unions is to protect their terms and conditions. There are loads of things the company could arbitrarily do that would save money. Should we accept them? They could cut our holiday entitlement, reduce our pay etc etc.

I am part of the union in a lrge part to stop them from feathering their own nests at my expense.

Hi FB

No. in 50 years of work I haven't been involved in collective bargaining, at least not as you understand it. I fought my own corner to earn as much as I could and put in (mostly) a hard days work for my pay. And I got a pension in my last full time job, as did all the staff. Furthermore it was a company of 200, and ALL the staff had pensions. Difference was we recognised where the 'enemy' were, they were outside our gates and competing for our markets, so we couldn't just shove up the price to cover any 'deals' to keep us all happy. No , they had to be paid for by being willing to tackle change, sometimes doing things you didn't as a group want to do.

Colllective bargaining in your terms should have three participants, one silent one - Your customers - and two who do all the talking.

Novo

Well hard lines for you. I am part of a union that fights for my rights and damn proud to.

Royal Mail is certainly not trying to make cuts to improve service, they are oding it to increase the profit margin, pur and simple. The current management don't care for the service, it is just an exercise in book balancing.

Let me state again part of what the CWU is fighting for is the idea that the Post Office is an essential public service, and not just another excuse to make money.

"No , they had to be paid for by being willing to tackle change, sometimes doing things you didn't as a group want to do."

What like bringing in automation even though we know it is going to cost postal workers jobs. We know that is oging to happen and we are ready to do a deal on it. But this isn't about competing this is about cutting back on what we give to posties oto up the profit.

What would be the point in a Union if we didn't fight the greedy fat cats when they tried to do this?

Why Hard Lines for me ? I am not complaining here.....

You may well be right on the attitude of your management, I have no way of knowing for sure - but we can debate your views because you make them public.

Damn fine for you if the RM is made an essential public service, that way it will become the taxpayers burden .

<< What like bringing in automation even though we know it is going to cost postal workers jobs. We know that is oging to happen and we are ready to do a deal on it. But this isn't about competing this is about cutting back on what we give to posties oto up the profit. >>

Lets get some common sense here shall we? I spent 33 years working in a plastics company which both extruded and also injection moulded plastics.Do you think we were still using the same size , speed and capacity plant when I retired? Of course not! As an example of how greater and greater automation was brought in, we made filler cords for fibre optic cables. At the start we got 3KM per hr per machine, at its height we had added elctronic measurement and speed control and were making 12KM per hr off 3 each machine.

That example apart it was a similar story across the factory , bigger, better, faster equipment. In many case the operators were not happy , but we made handling equipment to ease their work load, and as the firm prospered we put in pensions, good holidays, and generous bonuses to reward folk. Oh, and they ALL shifted from weekly pay to monthly BACS payment.

We could only achieve it by getting the right selling price and ploughing the profits back into the business.

Novo

Oh, and I forgot to mention that the original 50 or so employed grew to 180, and we still made a profit.

Novo

So - are businesses there for the benefit of the workers or vice versa?

Hi SWL

Firstly for the shareholders,( which is the business) secondly for the workeforce. But to achieve anything you have to make money in the market place.

The day to day objective has to be to make products competitively priced so that the shreholders are happy to see their stock value rise, and to get a reasonable dividend. You can only do that with a steady stable workforce who get enough in their pay and conditions to make them get out of bed every Monday.

Novo

Surely some of both, in a developed country, in this 'enlightened' age.

Well, like many small businesses, I always worked on the principle that we paid the staff as much as we could afford. Easier to do with a small business admittedly.

Hi Rod and SWL

Well in truth the company that I described was run by a team approach, led in the early years by a retd, Major from the Royal Artilliary who followed the dictum "horses first, men second, officers last" He welded it into a team where the most lowly considered their place and input as valued as the Major's.

We worked on the principle that if the smallest cog breaks, the clock stops. It was the "Major" who coined the phrase " the enemy is outside the factory door, not inside it"

Novo

I think in the modern day market economy any sensible company will treat its work force as a stakeholder and attempt to incentivise the workforce to want to accept change.

For example having an arangement where a proportion of permanant efficiency savings flow through to basic wage. Making your workforce look for ways to improve the business and processes.

A good example of this would be buying off the staff with a wage rise to move to monthly pay ...

My previous comment was more around the fact that you might accept a change of Ts&Cs for the worse if the alternative was your employer going out of business, for example.

FB

I know you are assiduosly pushing the idea that RM should pay you more or somehow buy you off to accept monthly pay, but WHY?

What is it that so entrenches the workforce against switching? I know it is a change to your T&C, but only minor. After all you would get the same pay for a weeks work, the hourly rate would remain. So what is the real reason. Is it your job to extract a pay rise to move into the 21st century? - bear in mind that once the switch is complete you will be owed a month's wages if and when you leave.

Novo

Ok Novo firstly I am monthly paid so this does not in any way affect me.

"What is it that so entrenches the workforce against switching? I know it is a change to your T&C, but only minor."

Minor to you, minor to me but not to postmen. This is something they don't want and have said so repeatedly. Their collectively negotiated and agreed contracts state that they will be paid every week.

If Royal Mail wish to alter their collectivly agreed contracts then they have to negotiate. THe CWU position is just no the members don't want it.

However what Royal Mail *could* do is to suggest to posties that monthly pay will result in significant permanant savings whioch make the business more profitable in perpetuity. Therfore we are offering to share some of this with you if you agree to give up your T&Cs.

I think the phrase is "everyones a winner".

This is IMHO how it ought to work in industries where there is a trade union.

And secondly who gets to decide if part of someone elses contract is so minor that they ought just to give it up. What about break entitlement, holiday pay, pensions etc etc.