Full Timers Let Go AT My Office

[REDLETTER]

I will spread the word at our DO! Shameful!

But..........on a plus side, someone has bumped up the seniority list by 7 places, so a newbie might get their own walk, part time of course!
(sorry about that guys and dolls, but that's the mood I'm in tonight! )

[NWpostie]

it gets worse my friend, much worse, this is the start of it, privatisation is yet to come round and the shite will hit the fan.

[coxie]

I would be willing to strike ovet this, we had a meeting in the canteen about it about 9am and all some people were worried about was getting out the door and not being late on their round, it makes my blood boil that people think like that. The count has gone up to over 10 now, it includes a couple of part timers approaching their 4 years service. So legal it might be but its still not the jobs protection promised for accepting a shi t deal. The union sold us the deal of the ceantury by telling us it would protect jobs, now all I see is 10 people at my office having to go home and explain to their familys they are losing their jobs through doing nothing wrong and yet the managers asked me to work my day off next week, so I told them no way. The only thing is some of these people are the 1s that dont have their meal reliefs and cut the job up and we tried to tell them and maybe now they will believe us if they get lucky and keep their jobs. Whether you think it or not, every flyer is ruining the job.

[411]

So can anyone explain this four year situation? Ive been with Royal Mail for just over four years and have had 25hr 3month contracts,followed by 27.5 long term contract, then temporary change to 32.25 and now a temporary change from part time to full time.

[DGP1]

It's been more than 4 years since anyone was made up to FT in my office so that's not going to be a problem in my office, FT contracts are like hens teeth

[stokes11eg]

Can this company sink any lower? No good asking the Union to step in and try and salvage something.Thank god I've onlty a little time to go----just hope these guys pour through their original contracts, and see if everything is above board-

A little time to go stokesy? Nonsense you are far too young to be retiring

Ha!

[post_bitch]

if they are let go then who does there feckin walk?

[krussel]

if they are let go then who does there feckin walk?

Permanent absorbtion rounds i suppose

This is really bad WHERE WAS the union in all this as my rep had not heard of it

I think there is only one guy at or place who might be affected. He's now got to check his contract before he gets the letter.

[fishtank]

if they are let go then who does there feckin walk?

Well think about it....
Indoor work is shrinking so we're told so outdoor work must increase so....longer deliveries so...less deliveries.
It all makes perfect sense...to someone.

[dvbuk55]

Bit like that Pac man game - just trying to stay ahead of the gobbling beast, and not very succesful - still there'll be loads of training days and discussions for the glitterati. Makes you wonder what these chatterboxes are going to talk about when there is hundreds of them and just a couple of workers left. Probably are they going to do a 15 hour walk or a 20 hour walk.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

I suppose I question that should be asked is if RM have let 60K posties go, and we are expecting that trend to continue, do we need the same levels of representation above unit level. Or perhaps Area and Division and Regional level officers could lapse their responsibilities.

I am concerned that we have similar levels of Union Bureaucracy now than we had before we lost 60,000 posties. Yes we do need some high level reps, especially if they are committed and proactive, as Dingo and Lovejoy appear to be (that's my opinion anyway), but do we need all of them.

[fishtank]

I suppose I question that should be asked is if RM have let 60K posties go, and we are expecting that trend to continue, do we need the same levels of representation above unit level. Or perhaps Area and Division and Regional level officers could lapse their responsibilities.

I am concerned that we have similar levels of Union Bureaucracy now than we had before we lost 60,000 posties. Yes we do need some high level reps, especially if they are committed and proactive, as Dingo and Lovejoy appear to be (that's my opinion anyway), but do we need all of them.

Your not the only one with these concerns TBT...Tony Kearns who is probably the only voice of sanity at the top table agrees with you.

MEMBERSHIP
In 2009 we had 11,000 new members and 30,000 leavers. For the first time we have less than 200,000 working members with a figure of 196,800 in April 2010. The impact of the Royal Mail 2010 agreement is still to come and will reduce the figure significantly further.
We are losing full time members in recognised companies and where we do replace leaving members often the new recruits are part time or in non-recognised companies or both. We effectively have to recruit twice as many joiners than leavers for our income to stand still.
Realistically this is not going to happen. Even if the overdue initiative to have dedicated Postal Organisers results in every non member in Royal Mail Group joining the union this will only off set the head count reduction planned by the business.


ACTION TO BE TAKEN
We have to face facts we have a union designed for 300,000 members but we actually have 200,000 members. We have no option but to plan and budget accordingly.
We have certain items of expenditure prescribed by rule. Some items of expenditure are conference policy and other items of expenditure we do because we have always done them.
At a time when income is being drastically reduced can we have ring fenced areas of expenditure while other areas suffer disproportionate cuts? If we do; have we ring fenced the right areas. Or do we need to look at the organisation as a whole from top to bottom and re-define our priorities?

The answer to that is an obvious YES....in my humble opinion.

[dvbuk55]

Although no longer a member, I still have an interest in all things. Now looking at the concerns of TK he obviously has the survival of the CWU at heart BUT is a concern enough even in his position let alone an ordinary member "getting involved".

I strongly suspect that the new agreement between RM and the CWU will look to utilise the Area and Div Reps in a role that will sell change to the membership and it might just be that one of the two roles will disappear.

[P739]

Been 9 years part time in my offiice which is a bit much i say in anyones book..

[MickR]

In relation to job security and the union's talk of job security, I always believed such talk was naive in the extreme! A perfect example is a div rep who told everyone at a meeting I attended that the agreement guaranteed no compulsory redundancies, then later at a meeting involving members of the PEC/NEC I asked the question and was told rather brusquely that no agreement ever gave such a guarantee and this one certainly didn't, the same div rep was at this meeting and was conspicuous by his silence. Then at a later members meeting the same div rep acknowledged the truth regarding no compulsory redundancies point, but then went on to add that in his view there would be no compulsory redundancies, in the face of this latest revalation, it would seem to be the height of naivete. I know the 2 things are different, but I think one is not that far removed from the other.

It is absolutely correct to codemn the likes of Ward and co, they absolutely sold the notion of job security by putting D2D into workload, it is quite clear that RM never saw it that way and as far as they were concerned it always meant more money at less cost, and the members who do the work are just as expendable as they ever were.

I have always believed that Ward, Hayes, Gibson et all, should hang their heads in shame and should do the honourable thing and take a long walk off a short pier, but faced with this latest turn of events will they now do the right thing? I very much doubt it!