Supply Chain pay negotiations

[MinisterofCucumber]

Most cash centre workers are PA grade who are only paid £325 a week basic.

Within Supply Chain, workers at Swindon Stock Centre get a £43 a week higher basic than cash centre PAs.

Cash centres used to be profit making units in POL until the political decision was made to get rid of Girobank. POL cash centres have recently been winning contracts to process other firms cash and we are starting to generate revenue again. POL should realise that cash centre staff feel undervalued.

There are signs that POL are making a real effort to change their 'command and control' culture and engage their staff although some authoritarians still remain in post.

In recent years, cash centre workers have been working harder to cope with higher volumes but pay has fallen in real terms. In October 2007 a PA's basic was £315 a week. Even taking the lower Consumer Price Index, inflation has risen by 11.26% since then. The fact that PAs get £325 a week now and not £350 shows that PAs have taken a pay cut.

PAs are working harder for less pay but the price of petrol, gas, food etc. is going up all the time.

Cash centre workers must be one of the most diverse groups in RMG. POL should be careful to avoid giving the impression that diversity equals cheap labour.

[cashman]

Well said MOC

[MinisterofCucumber]

And this time, we want to have the full final offer to vote on and not a summary.

Furious and Madman botched the 2007 Supply Chain Pay Agreement summary. POL offered for all CWU grades working their entire shift within the period defined as 'night' to have their Night Duty Allowance consolidated in to their basic pay. Furious and Madman's summary only mentioned that drivers' NDA would be consolidated.

If these jokers actually believe that you have to drive to be classed as a night worker, they should resign.

Nobody can justify supporting Madman's nomination in the next NEC election.

[MinisterofCucumber]

Another LTB that said nothing new.

There is still no deadline for ending the talks.

Last year, the members had to wait until October for a pay offer. This allowed POL to earn interest on our money and it meant that a backpay 'bonus' was created to bribe the members into accepting the deal just before Christmas.

The CWU colluded with management to bribe their members with their own money.

Why are members who work in POL treated so badly?

[MinisterofCucumber]

Now management have announced its offer:

3% this year, 2% next year and a productivity scheme worth up to £850 (not guaranteed).

I think they can do better.

Colleagueshare experience shows us not to touch productivity schemes with a bargepole.

2% for next year is unacceptable.

[MinisterofCucumber]

Why are we being offered a two year pay deal at a time that inflation is going up?

Why does a productivity scheme have to be tied in with the pay deal?

Why are Supply Chain workers being asked to subsidise the Post Office network by taking a pay cut in real terms?

Our job is to keep post offices supplied and this requires a subsidy from the British tax payer. The British public want post offices and the villages in the most desirable areas of this country have managed to stop POL from removing their post offices. However, POL has decided that Supply Chain should be self financing and our wages are being kept low to reduce the subsidy that the government has to pay to allow these village post offices to remain open.

It seems very unfair that Supply Chain workers in East London, Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow and Belfast who are on just £325 a week basic are being made to take a pay cut to pay for the village post office. Most of us could not afford to live in these villages but this is not about making the villagers pay. The Post Office is a British institution and everyone in the country should contribute towards keeping post offices open. The cost should be shared and not just fall on our shoulders.

It is wrong that cash centre workers are paid £43 a week lower than workers in Swindon Stock Centre. This pay deal must bring parity for Supply Chain PAs.

[MinisterofCucumber]

We should have had a pay rise on April 1st.

Today is July 10th and we have still not been balloted on a pay offer.

Are we going to have to wait until Christmas again, like last year, so that the deal can be made more attractive because it will include a 'bonus' of our own back pay at a time when we really need the money?

The negotiating parties need to move their overpaid arses.

[MinisterofCucumber]

Now management and Union have put out a joint statement asking everyone to email them with their comments on the pay offer released unilaterally by management.

Just hurry up and give us a vote on a decent pay offer.

I don't like the fact that I am being forced to save the difference between my old rate of pay and whatever this year's rate of pay turns out to be in POL's 0% interest rate savings account.

Stop taking the piss.

[MinisterofCucumber]

We should have had a pay rise on April 1st. It is almost 5 months on.

If we don't get an offer by September 1st, the Union should ballot us for IA.

If the offer is shite, it should still be put to the vote. If we reject it, then the Union should ballot us for IA. This will put real pressure on POL to improve their offer.

Supply Chain PAs have been underpaid for years compared to other grades in Supply Chain. Even the lowest grade in Swindon Stock Centre gets paid £43 a week more and they don't take the risks cash centre staff take. Why are Supply Chain PAs effectively subsidising the Post Office Network?

The British people want Post Offices. Those better off people who live in areas that Supply chain PAs can't afford to live in have managed to save their local Post Offices. Their Tory and Libdem MPs won't dare to admit that they want to get rid of the Network Subsidy but someone has persuaded POL to create a business plan that makes making the Network self-financing its goal. Are POL managers being paid a bonus by the tax payer for achieving something that the tax payer doesn't want?

POL workers should not be working under an authoritarian regime, being forced to do more work for less money so that wealthy people who live in the right areas can get a subsidised Post Office service for free.

Don't keep us waiting until Christmas again so that we can be bribed with our own back pay at a time of year when we need the money. We are poorly paid but we are not idiots.

[MinisterofCucumber]

Where's our money?

It's 6 months now and no deal.

Latest news is that strings will be attached. Is it fair for 250 Admin members to vote on changes that don't apply to them?

Same question for cash centres and CvIT.

Also, the full final offer should be made available to all voters. Out of courtesy, management should make their final offer available to staff who are not members of the CWU but who will be affected by the changes to give them the opportunity to respond personally.

[Lynn Simpson]

The response of the 'collective' is what counts and it is their voice that is the loudest and the one that is heard! Unity is strength!

[MinisterofCucumber]

The next day, August 20, mandatory loyalty oaths for all public officials in Germany were introduced:

"I swear: I shall be loyal and obedient to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich and people, respect the laws, and fulfill my official duties conscientiously, so help me God."
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/t ... uehrer.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unity is strength but if something is wrong, it is wrong.

Nobody should be told they have to do something because someone else who 'knows better than them' thinks it is right.

Now that management have brought changes to terms and conditions into the negotiations, is it right for some members to vote on changes that don't affect them?

The threat is that parts of Supply Chain will be outsourced. Is this really possible?


"Restrictions on issue and transfer of shares and share rights in a Post Office company etc

(1)No disposal of the Crown’s interest in a Post Office company may be made other than a disposal that—

(a)is made pursuant to a direction under subsection (2), or

(b)is authorised under subsection (3).

(2)The Secretary of State may by order—

(a)direct a Post Office company (if it is wholly owned by the Crown) to issue shares or share rights to a relevant mutual, or

(b)direct a company wholly owned by the Crown to transfer shares or share rights in a Post Office company to a relevant mutual.

(3)A disposal of the Crown’s interest in a Post Office company is authorised under this subsection if—

(a)the disposal is by way of an issue or transfer of shares or share rights in a Post Office company to a relevant mutual, and

(b)the Secretary of State has by order approved the issue or transfer.

(4)An order under subsection (2) or (3)(b) is subject to affirmative resolution procedure.

(5)No disposal of a relevant mutual’s interest in a Post Office company may be made other than a disposal to—

(a)another relevant mutual,

(b)the Secretary of State or the Treasury (or a nominee of either of them), or

(c)a company wholly owned by the Crown.

(6)Any disposal in contravention of subsection (1) or (5) has no effect.

(7)For the meaning of “Post Office company” and “relevant mutual”, see sections 6 and 7.

(8)In this section any reference to a disposal of a person’s interest in a Post Office company is to—

(a)the issue or transfer of shares in a company the effect of which is to reduce the proportion of the Post Office company owned by the person, or

(b)the issue or transfer of share rights to a person the effect of which would be, if the shares to which the share rights relate were issued or transferred to the person, to reduce the proportion of the Post Office company owned by the person.

Meaning of “Post Office company”

(1)In this Part “Post Office company” means a company that—

(a)is engaged in the provision of post offices,

(b)is or has at any time been—

(i)a subsidiary of the original holding company, or

(ii)in the same group as a company that is or (as the case may be) was at that time designated under this section, and

(c)is designated for the purposes of this subsection by order made by the Secretary of State.

(2)A company may be designated only if, immediately before it is designated, it is wholly owned by the Crown.

(3)An order under subsection (1) may not be amended or revoked.

(4)An order under section 93 that appoints a day for the commencement of section 1 (removal of restrictions on ownership of Royal Mail Holdings plc etc) may not be made unless Post Office Limited (registered number 02154540) has been designated under subsection (1)."

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201 ... /6/enacted" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lynn Simpson]

'Nobody should be told they have to do something because someone else who 'knows better than them' thinks it is right'......You seem to miss the point that actually it is the members that decide whether a pay offer is fair or just or alternatively not good enough. It is a democratic process not a dictatorship as your posting infers. Quite frankly your reference to fascism and the Nazi party is offensive!

[MinisterofCucumber]

My experience is that the structure of the Union is organised in a top-down pyramid structure in which lower levels are instructed to obey the orders of the level above them, much like an old fashioned paramilitary organisation. I believe this structure encourages authoritarianism. The experience of other posters on this site shows that I was not the only rep with an Area Rep that demanded unquestioning obedience.

You seem to be making a threat that some sort of action could be taken against me because you are offended because I have highlighted the fact that blind obedience is a feature of Naziism. The Nazis also didn't like freedom of speech. Will this fact offend you as well?

The members can only decide if a pay offer is fair if they are given all the details of management's final offer and are given time and the opportunity to debate the offer i.e. consulted. In the last few years, this has not happened and we have been given summaries of final offers that miss some details out and in one case, a mistake in the summary gave management the excuse to cut some members pay.

The members who actually work in Supply Chain should decide if the pay deal is acceptable and not be told what to do by a tiny elite whose main concern is to avoid being returned to their duties at any cost.

It's time to stop treating the members like children and to give us a full version of the final offer so that we can have an open and honest discussion about it. Don't keep us waiting until just before Christmas to release a few details of the offer so that we feel rushed into making a decision to get hold of our own back pay at a time when we are desperate for cash.

[123456]

the above post is probably the finest post i have read on here in some time.spot on minister..big thumbs up..no doubt about it you have summed up what many think..