NO TO SRTIKE!

[stokes11eg]

Strikes don't work any more--at least not in the way intended! That is not to say you roll over and die. Sadly, the CWU have over the years, lost trust with the vast majority of their members.

[dvbuk55]

Well despite all things I wouldn't necessarily discount a YES vote BUT the CWU absolutely MUST make sure that all sections of the membership are included in any negotiations. My main concern is that once the London issue is settled, whatever the outcome, then the real issues will die a death and nothing will change. If the CWU is determined to uphold this agreement then the issue surrounding compulsory redundancy is certainly a double edged sword, which no longer exists if they walk away from the agreement in entirety and re-negotiate the terms of the last agreement.

[enzio]

at a union meeting recently i asked if we could bring a work to rule in to our office so that we could make the planning tame come back and fix the park and loop fiasco that has happend in our office now a work to rule means no overtime no coming in early just work your hours no more no less. and you know what most of the postman said was well i need to get done befor 2 or i need to get done early on a saturday so what chance have you of geting a yes vote if the wont even just do the job right

[George door to dawes]

Well we did vote it in George, but exactly how democratic would you call the process to get a yes vote? Tell me George would you say the situation has improved since the 2009 IA or has it got worse? Would you say that nationally the defence of the workforce conditions has been consistent. Are we being told the extent of RMs involvement in the London situation and the terms being offered. Under the agreement there was NO agreement for no compulsory redundancies.

The union campaigned to get us to vote yes to an agreement they believed in. Democratic yes. But certainly a poor deal! Iam not saying we have gotten things easy but look around at the nurses and police having their jobs threatened. Iam not even saying that the cuts in our public services are right but we are not alone is the point iam trying to make. Royal mail staff are not being singled out we are suffering like everyone else! Now on the compulsory redundancies isnt the whole reason the cwu is balloting for the strike is the 2010 agreement states that there will be no compulsory redundancies. RM is going against that agreement so the CWU have the right to strike.

Now exactly how are the reasons for a national vote to be put to the entire membership...................the threat of later delivery times, yep we have those, the threat of later Saturdays, yep we have those, the threat of unachievable workloads, yep we have those, HCTs, yep we have those, park and loop, yep we have those, mechanisation, yep we have that, part time work, yep we have that, redundancies........give us the chance and each and every delivery office would vote YES.

Sorry what was the point you were trying to make with this bit? (an honest question not an insult! ) Were you saying you wanted to vote for strike on the issues listed? apart from 'unachievable workloads' and 'part time work' wernt those all included in the 2010 agreement? We cant vote to strike on p&l for instance as revisions were part of the deal we agreed to. part time work has nothing really to do with us as its an operational decision by RM to decide the types of workers they hire. as a p/t casual i suffer from this strategy but its there decision to make. 'unachievable workloads'.... Now i totally agree with this statement. But defining it and making it a concrete issue to debate with Royal Mail would be a difficult one. The workloads varies so much day to day and from different offices there doesnt seem to be a stable figure to debate. In my opinion this issue seems to be more labour allocation and poor management planning etc that causes the unachievable workloads. Should we strike on the basis RM linos / DOMs are usless and should be replaced? I would vote yes on that one!

at a union meeting recently i asked if we could bring a work to rule in to our office so that we could make the planning tame come back and fix the park and loop fiasco that has happend in our office now a work to rule means no overtime no coming in early just work your hours no more no less. and you know what most of the postman said was well i need to get done befor 2 or i need to get done early on a saturday so what chance have you of geting a yes vote if the wont even just do the job right

I think this would be the same in my DO. Most of us seem to be working together but theres quite a lot of posties who would use their own cars run around and do extra OT to line their own pockets. Its one thing to be cooerced by management because maybe your a nice person and want to help the company out. Or maybe your not quite assertive enough to say no. But there a large proportion that just dont giving a sh** about anyone else.

[dvbuk55]

The union campaigned to get us to vote yes to an agreement they believed in. Democratic yes. But certainly a poor deal! Iam not saying we have gotten things easy but look around at the nurses and police having their jobs threatened. Iam not even saying that the cuts in our public services are right but we are not alone is the point iam trying to make. Royal mail staff are not being singled out we are suffering like everyone else! Now on the compulsory redundancies isnt the whole reason the cwu is balloting for the strike is the 2010 agreement states that there will be no compulsory redundancies. RM is going against that agreement so the CWU have the right to strike.

Sorry what was the point you were trying to make with this bit? (an honest question not an insult! ) Were you saying you wanted to vote for strike on the issues listed? apart from 'unachievable workloads' and 'part time work' wernt those all included in the 2010 agreement? We cant vote to strike on p&l for instance as revisions were part of the deal we agreed to. part time work has nothing really to do with us as its an operational decision by RM to decide the types of workers they hire. as a p/t casual i suffer from this strategy but its there decision to make. 'unachievable workloads'.... Now i totally agree with this statement. But defining it and making it a concrete issue to debate with Royal Mail would be a difficult one. The workloads varies so much day to day and from different offices there doesnt seem to be a stable figure to debate. In my opinion this issue seems to be more labour allocation and poor management planning etc that causes the unachievable workloads. Should we strike on the basis RM linos / DOMs are usless and should be replaced? I would vote yes on that one! .

Sorry George but you are wrong, the agreement states that compulsory redundancies will try to be avoided NOT that there will not be any..........people may say that is what the agreement said but the truth is very different. The second part was a little tongue in cheek George, the reasons being stated in the letter to London posties was pointing out the threats to working conditions, which has already visited us - the one threat that hasn't is VRs which would be only too welcome believe me, the queue would be out of the door.

Dare the CWU call a national ballot when the outcome is far from secure?

[fishtank]

Dare the CWU call a national ballot when the outcome is far from secure?

No..but rather than blame HQ for this lack of courage and engagement with the entire membership and perhaps take a look at their own divisive,parochial stance...the same old faces will lay the blame at the feet of the rest of the country and so the cycle continues....only i think sadly that this time the wheels are going to fall off.

[arty_morty]

I was talking to a bloke in my office about the potential strike. He said that last time even though they voted to strike half the office came in anyway. This (if it happens) will be my first experience of industrial action in my 30 years in the workplace.

[krussel]

Although i think that striking has become very dated and now hated by joe public i would have to say that i wouls still vote YES to strike

We simply cannot show any form of weakness this close to being privitised. Otherwise we may as well just roll back and let the buggers stomp all over us

[Cut Off King]

The funny thing is that the CWU wants us to go out on strike to DEFEND THE BT2010 and 99% of those who want to strike are doing so BECAUSE of the BT2010 T & C's

[stokes11eg]

Although i think that striking has become very dated and now hated by joe public i would have to say that i wouls still vote YES to strike

We simply cannot show any form of weakness this close to being privitised. Otherwise we may as well just roll back and let the buggers stomp all over us

Krussel they have already, with the conivance of the Union, did just that! If there was to be a national strike--well that would be a different kettle of fish.
A strike for the CWU will NOT stop the closures, bullying or erosion of working conditions!

[dvbuk55]

The funny thing is that the CWU wants us to go out on strike to DEFEND THE BT2010 and 99% of those who want to strike are doing so BECAUSE of the BT2010 T & C's

Quite a telling statement there cut off, which points out the discrepancy between the aspirations of the CWU leadership and the shop floor membership.

[krussel]

Although i think that striking has become very dated and now hated by joe public i would have to say that i wouls still vote YES to strike

We simply cannot show any form of weakness this close to being privitised. Otherwise we may as well just roll back and let the buggers stomp all over us

Krussel they have already, with the conivance of the Union, did just that! If there was to be a national strike--well that would be a different kettle of fish.
A strike for the CWU will NOT stop the closures, bullying or erosion of working conditions!

Stokesy i know your right

But if they start the closures in London without any fight at all it will spread up the country when they to join delivery offices to make those "super offices" which they love to go on about. I actually think they would lose a ballot after last time but i could not sit back and do nothing when people are losing their jobs

[madmartin]

A no vote would just mean royal mail can do anything they want, even worse than what they have done now. At least with the union invovlment (a yes vote) we have some say on our future, the problem is the people who are doing the negotiation on our behalfs. I just have no confidence in them at all, I feel they are completely out of touch with the reality of what it's like to be a postman doing all different aspects of the job.
I've know for many years that Royal Mail dont have a clue what it's like to do the job but I always thought the union had a good idea but after this last agreement I dont think that's so. I know the CWU will say they've made agreements to protect job security etc but what about the working conditions of the people who work there? Posties going out on delivery for 5 hours or more, increased weight despite the claim mail volume is dropping off bullying still going on. I would like to know the last time any of the negotiating team spend any lenght of time in a delivery office or a mail centre, I think it would be a good idea if they spent a week or maybe 2 in various delivery offices and mail centres so they got a recent first hand feel of what it's like to do the job.

[stokes11eg]

Although i think that striking has become very dated and now hated by joe public i would have to say that i wouls still vote YES to strike

We simply cannot show any form of weakness this close to being privitised. Otherwise we may as well just roll back and let the buggers stomp all over us

Krussel they have already, with the conivance of the Union, did just that! If there was to be a national strike--well that would be a different kettle of fish.
A strike for the CWU will NOT stop the closures, bullying or erosion of working conditions!

Stokesy i know your right

But if they start the closures in London without any fight at all it will spread up the country when they to join delivery offices to make those "super offices" which they love to go on about. I actually think they would lose a ballot after last time but i could not sit back and do nothing when people are losing their jobs

Nobody is saying do nothing--there are more ways to skin a cat as they say--as you so rightly point out if they get a no vote the death knell sounds for sure for the CWU---
they should be looking for other forms of action--

[Lounge Lizard]

A no vote would just mean royal mail can do anything they want, even worse than what they have done now. At least with the union invovlment (a yes vote) we have some say on our future, the problem is the people who are doing the negotiation on our behalfs. I just have no confidence in them at all, I feel they are completely out of touch with the reality of what it's like to be a postman doing all different aspects of the job.
I've know for many years that Royal Mail dont have a clue what it's like to do the job but I always thought the union had a good idea but after this last agreement I dont think that's so. I know the CWU will say they've made agreements to protect job security etc but what about the working conditions of the people who work there? Posties going out on delivery for 5 hours or more, increased weight despite the claim mail volume is dropping off bullying still going on. I would like to know the last time any of the negotiating team spend any lenght of time in a delivery office or a mail centre, I think it would be a good idea if they spent a week or maybe 2 in various delivery offices and mail centres so they got a recent first hand feel of what it's like to do the job.

"At least with the union invovlment (a yes vote) we have some say on our future" - but if there's a 'yes' vote for that reason, negotiations break down, the CWU calls us out on strike, then there's little actual support for industrial action because everyone remembers what happened last time, then surely we are no better than if there had been a 'no' vote.