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

For another example Novo:-

Lets just say you employ a gardener. You agree with him that for a set fee of £30 every monday he will do a set list of tasks in a set way.

On day he ocmes to you and says "Actually Novo, if I stop scrubbing your steps every week and do it every month I can do the whole job in an 3 hours less thus making the whole day £15 mor profitable for me".

I amagine you would say "Go stuff yourself" or actually as it is you Novo probably more politely than that.

Now imagine if he said "How important is scrubbing the stairs to you, because if I only do it once a month instead of once a week I save a load of time and I can do the job for £20 a week instead of £30" You might be more inclined to go along with the plan. Especially if you thought that scubbing the stairs was one of the less important parts of what you were paying for.

That is where we find ourselves, Royal Mail is arbitraliy trying to change what we agreed, to save themselves a wefge and are offering us nothing in return.

Hi FB

You know I was referring to a change of date , not rate, which is pretty minor in truth. As for other 'minor changes' as you well know the Employment Laws would make that imposible without bringing about the possibility of a justifiable tribunal.

Novo

I am sorry but who are you to decide if changing pay frequency is a mjor or a minor thing?

People organise their lives in different ways and changing your pay frequency can have a *massive* impact on that. I have *always* been paid monthly and set up all my expenditure based on this so it seems normal for me. For those who have not it is a major change.

Again like I said they consider it an important perk and T&C of the job. Why the hell should they give it up in exchange for nothing.

I think there are a lot of posties who would rather give up a weeks leave than go to monthly pay.

You've got to look at where weekly wages come from though. They date back to when everyone was paid cash and it would be silly to have huge amounts of money being delivered each week. Did RM staff get a cut of the savings when they started to be paid by BACS?

The monthly wage thing happened to me when I was FOH Mgr of a theatre. One day the accountant asked if I would mind moving to a monthly payment instead of weekly. She explained it would save her time & effort. I didn't see a problem and agreed. Five minutes later I had the Union Rep banging at my door trying to get me to refuse, even though I wasn't a member. I told him to get lost (I fired him 3 months later ). As I saw it, anything that eases the workload on a colleague helps the business and if the business does well, my job is safe.

That was an example of people collectively working together to ensure the success of the business. It seems to me that with the RM, workers and management are more likely to be at each others throats.

Tell me FB, if a situation arose where the company had to spend money to meet new regulations (say), would the members be prepared to take a pay cut?

I think that's my drift SWL. FB 'seems' to be saying "If management want us to change something to improve effeciency , they bloody well have to entice us with pay first"

As you point out they would not expect a pay cut to finance a mandatory H&S Audit, or similar.

The phrase which rings in my head is " Spanish Practices" but that may be inapplicable here. I would say here that I know the shift to monthly pay would take some accomplishing, and it isn't always easy, but I just can't get my head around it as a real problem in helping to conserve jobs. The situation FB's members are in one would think they would jump at a chance for securing their position a bit.

Novo

“You've got to look at where weekly wages come from though. They date back to when everyone was paid cash and it would be silly to have huge amounts of money being delivered each week. Did RM staff get a cut of the savings when they started to be paid by BACS?”

Got to be honest I have no idea, it was before my time and all that. Like I said though in other parts of our business (such as Parcelforce) they got a big real terms pay increase to go to monthly pay. So that is the precedent

“As I saw it, anything that eases the workload on a colleague helps the business and if the business does well, my job is safe.”

So what if the same change would have had no effect on your jobs, would have put three of your colleagues out of a job and the only tangible benefit was that your boss had his/her bonus tripled? These determinations are going to be different with every set of circumstances.

“That was an example of people collectively working together to ensure the success of the business. It seems to me that with the RM, workers and management are more likely to be at each others throats.”

So surely my example that Posties go to Monthly pay and the proceeds of the permanent savings are shared between bigger profits and higher basic pay for the rank and file works in just this way? Both sides getting something they want for the collective good, everyone is happy!

“Tell me FB, if a situation arose where the company had to spend money to meet new regulations (say), would the members be prepared to take a pay cut?”

Hell no, and for my I think these are qualitatively different things. One is a determination about previously agreed terms and conditions that form part of a negotiated settlement between the employer and the workforce of * that particular company *. The other is part of the regulatory environment. Changes necessary will apply to every employer equally.

Ask me if a companies business model is unsustainable compared to the competition, would I countenance difficult choices that adversely affect members for the greater good. Hell yes (albeit reluctantly). See my many posts in this thread in regards to “automation”.

“I think that's my drift SWL. FB 'seems' to be saying "If management want us to change something to improve efficiency , they bloody well have to entice us with pay first"”

Novo are you deliberately misrepresenting what I am saying or do you just not understand? If Royal Mail want to make efficiency savings then that is fine, up to them. However if they want to do so in a way that *COMPROMISES OUR AGREED TERMS AND CONDITIONS* then they have to come to some sort of agreement with us over it. Like I said I think it is eminently reasonable for us to expect a share of the permanent savings in exchange for this.

By the way Novo how would you have thought about my fictitious gardening example? Would you have been happy to stick to the earlier deal and got less for the same money?

“As you point out they would not expect a pay cut to finance a mandatory H&S Audit, or similar.”

No and I have explained in this post the reason why I think these are two qualitatively different determinations.

Morning FB

First the gardening question. I thought the answer was to obvious to be required actually, but I would consider the necessary frequency of scrubbing the stairs - and bearing in mind the suggested new frequency , together with my age, I would either take the offer which is mutually beneficial, or negotiate a price for the gardener not to do the steps at all, and do them myself. Who benefits most then?

I understand perfectly what you are saying, you have said it often enough in different ways, so there is no need to post offensively.

Your apparent position is that if RM want to introduce savings by shifting to monthly pay , your members want a slice before accepting a change to their T&C's. Your argument would be bolstered by directly comparing with Parcel Force, who you say were given an increase when moved to monthly pay.

All that I , or any other posters have tried to say is that claiming more for no more work seems unjustifiable, especially when the benefits are understood in terms of banking atc and bill paying - as you know from experience.

Finally, the sacred TERMS & CONDITIONS can work both ways, as you and I both know, because you are a union rep and I work in employment law. Now we hear on the news that more and rolling strikes are planned. Sounds like both barrels being fired into feet because 6.9% over 2 years isn't enough? Or are we being misled here?

Novo

Yes, yes, yes. You are being misled. I have said over and over this dispute is not really about pay. It is about major change, mass redundancies and the closing of our pension scheme.

"All that I , or any other posters have tried to say is that claiming more for no more work seems unjustifiable, especially when the benefits are understood in terms of banking atc and bill paying - as you know from experience."

Well clearly you just understand these things in a different way. It seems you see it as an employers right to arbitrarily reduce and change people Term and conditions in order to make savings. I say they cant and the have to negotiate with the workforce and frankly make it worth while.

There would be clearly defined savings for the business if we all had our holiday entitlement cut by a week. Should we just accept that meekly if the employer suggested it?

What both sides need to be aware of are the mounting losses. It looks like we have deeply entrenched positions. In one trench a mangement that seems inept at introducing change. In the other trench a demoralised workforce that, in their view, have had to cope with all the changes to date with poorer rewards than their managers.

It hard to see any resolution but the longer the dispute goes on the bigger the losses, and remember we have a worsening overall econonomy as will be made obvious by Alastair Darling this afternoon, and the smaller public support.

There will be give and take on both sides but it had better be sooner rather than later.

FB

<< There would be clearly defined savings for the business if we all had our holiday entitlement cut by a week. Should we just accept that meekly if the employer suggested it? >>

Of course not, but in any event impossible because the annual holiday entitlement is governed by statute.

And I do not say that employers have the right to arbitrarily change peoples T&C's. Dammit that is part of my work, to make employers aware of the legislation, and natural justice, with which they must comply in order to treat their employees with the correct duty of care, and keep to the laws designed to protect staff.

Novo

I will accept that WA. Part of the problem we are in though is that Royal Mails opening gambit was to say:-

"This is all happening it is non negotiable, and if we dont have all of this in full then the company will go bust"

Any student of debating will see straight away that they have set up a "False Dichotomy", but also it is an awful negotiating position. To start negotiaitons like this just gives you no wiggle room whatsoever. And after our dear chairman has been on the telly so many times say "No deal, only the package in full" *ANY* thing he agrees now is going to look like a humiliating climbdown.

I think that is part of what is holding this up. For my I *never* go into any negotiation without a bit of "wiggle room".

"Of course not, but in any event impossible because the annual holiday entitlement is governed by statute."

We have more than the minimum gaurenteed by employment law, but the annual leave was just an example it could be *any* term or perk that we get that is over and on top of the minimum standards of employment.

"And I do not say that employers have the right to arbitrarily change peoples T&C's."

Then what are you saying? That we should give it up out of the kindness of our hearts to see Royal Mails profitability go up and us see none of the benefit. Sheesh....

Look obviously I want Royal Mail to be a successful company, my job and my pension depend on that. But I think there has to be balance, where hard changes are necessary and result in more profitability the benefits of the change have to be shared between increased profit and benefiting the workforce.

That we you have a workforce who has a stake in the business doing well, and in changing.

Implementing change in the public sector is a very, very difficult management task. But, I'd have thought by now that we would be learning some lessons from the Fire Service and NHS reforms. It doesn't look like it from here.

For what it is worth I think reforming the Police will be the hardest job.

Indeed.

I think "Police Reform" deserves its own "Forum Thread" in its own right mind!

Who in their right mind would start a thread like that?

Perhaps it is worth remembering that the stoneage didn't end because we ran out of stone.....

Novo

"Perhaps it is worth remembering that the stoneage didn't end because we ran out of stone....."

Yeah man. Progress means people getting treated worse and worse progressivly on the alter of "profit"....

I hear on the news that in some areas the postal workers are out again because they have been asked to start half an hour later, and as this is a change to their t&cs they are justified in walking out again. I do hear this is an unofficial walkout though.

It seems that some postal workers do not understand that with the current and planned disruption, people are increasingly finding alternatives to using RM at all. If the service is increasingly unreliable this state of affairs will get worse, so RM will lose business, so lose profits, and so everybody loses.

I just wish our mortgage completion forms hadn't been posted to us for signing just as this all started as they haven't arrived yet and even with us couriering them back to the bank we are still likely to end up falling off the end of our fixed rate and paying extra for a month. *sigh*

Good morning FB

Back on the correct thread today ( I hope ).

I regret that my reference to the stoneage caused you so much ire.

However the Today programme this morning , and various news items yesterday brought to light the very real Spanish Practice of Posties considering their work was done when their round was complete, not when they had put in the required hours. In addition it appears that if asked to return to their depot to complete the shift, this was regarded as 'extra work'. ( the term slavery was used yesterday i think? )

Care to defend the 'logic' of this position?

Novo