Ive just read a post on Facebook saying that dhl are trying to force their drivers to sign new contracts giving them £2000 a year pay cuts, this cant be true surely?
Here comes the start of the new trend chaps, Suttons, DHL, who next eh?
But according to most on here we don’t need Unions in the job do we.
Or is someone going to tell me DHL has a strong Union?
I somehow doubt it.
Have DHL, lost the carpet right job ?
And I bet most have just signed it too if true,
Unions are good for this sort of problem at a firm this size.
They wouldn’t work at my firm as it’s small and every problem is spoken about and resolved.
i’m on DHL…not heard of anything 
The £2k bit was an attention grabbing headline, not backed up in the story.
It’s a change in contract for some multi-drop drivers (apparently), from a “per hour” to a “per drop” pay structure. It was an in-named source at a union that came up with the pay cut claim. Spoke to someone from DHL today who’d not heard anything about it.
It might be this story.
So become self employed, work hard deliver more parcels and we’ll cut your rate. 
Earlier story, says UK Mail aquired by DHL in 2016.
It is the UK mail van driver’s - rates reduced for delivering parcels
But isn’t there a driver shortage…
Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk
So here we have a company that is seeing an upturn in business volume. That will more than likely see a requirement for capital investment. So someone has come up with the spiffing idea that rather than borrow the money from the banks, from elsewhere, or investing retained profits from the business, they are going to finance the expansion out of the pockets of those who will be required to deliver (no pun intended) the success of the expansion. Doing it that way means that the balance sheet will show healthy cash reserves, the accounts will (hopefully) show good profits made by the undertaking and most importantly allow the shareholders to benefit from an increased dividend. That last being vitally important, since it is to be to be closely followed by the motion proposed to the annual general meeting for a massive bonus shareout between the newly appointed directors and the rest of the boardroom senior management.
Nice one Fred haul up the ladder.
Or maybe this is a variation on the Carillion model of business, because no-one had foreseen that the contracts for the extra business volume were at a marginal level of profitability, that is if they even were profitable at all. Just maybe the contract was negotiated with the aim of damaging one of their competitors sufficiently to put them out of business in the near future or to make them ripe for a takeover bid; that being one of the seemingly overriding aims of modern big business practice, rather than the more basic goals of providing a superior service or product, at the correct price to maintain a manageable volume which then returns enough profit to sustain reinvestment, motivate the workforce and attract a sensible (non controlling) level of external investment.
What could possibly go wrong?
But maybe we need to return to the spiffing wheeze, because the sole consideration might have been the bonus payments to directors; which somehow seems to ring a bell about how large companies are run.
They were hauled in the office one by one on the Friday and told to sign the new contract or not turn up on Monday
If they all stayed away on the Monday then things would not change,
But as nobody ever sticks together, and the blokes leasing vans and struggling to pay their mortgages get scared, they will just ■■■■ it up,
Shame really, as the whole situation means that the big bullies get their way and the fat directors get fatter