Why do people want to strike

LaggyBand · Post by **LaggyBand** » 17 Oct 2017, 01:19

Just adding to my point above, as this idea became clear in my mind after posting:

The pipeline pillar is probably the one to concede for me. If there is one that I've got to concede, in order to get RM to agree to something decent - it's that.

Next day delivery without paying a premium is where the money is. It's where big corporate sellers want a supplier of delivery. They want to keep their prices low online, given its sooo easy for people to compare across multiple sellers now online, and they also want to mark it as guaranteed for tomorrow. And they want that to still be the case at 10pm at night, when your average couple are doing what? Staring into their devices ordering sh*t.

It's where the money is. Can't blame RM for chasing it; that's the corporate structure we have now. And the only way of getting a piece of that pie without the added cost of super fast processing like for specials and so on is later starts. It would standardise next day delivery, and that's the idea for the big online sellers. And it's the big sellers with the big contracts.

So I'd take that. The other things, pension, pay, route ownership, I think those things could be sorted out to some degree (ie better pay, better pension deal, no route ownership) if the intent and cleverness were there, with an absence of greed. But the pipeline shift, I see that as unavoidable, really.

barrychuckle · Post by **barrychuckle** » 17 Oct 2017, 06:46

Moving the pipeline back and route ownership are inextricably linked. You can't have one without the other.

Post by **milly** » 17 Oct 2017, 09:04

barrychuckle wrote:Moving the pipeline back and route ownership are inextricably linked. You can't have one without the other.

How are they linked?

LaggyBand · Post by **LaggyBand** » 17 Oct 2017, 09:29

milly wrote:
barrychuckle wrote:Moving the pipeline back and route ownership are inextricably linked. You can't have one without the other.
How are they linked?

'Inextricably' is a lovely word but I'm asking the same thing. Why?

Why can't I say, "Ok RM, give me a good pension deal, a good pay deal, keep me in an employee/employer work to time setup like I am now and I'll start at midday and finish at 8pm"?

DGH · Post by **DGH** » 17 Oct 2017, 10:16

They are not inextricably linked at all. They are linked only so far as RM wish to do both.

I agree completely. Moving to essentially 9-5, even 10-6 is the most acceptable thing to compromise on.

In all honesty, we probably need to take a hit on the pensions too. Obviously one would rather not but it's very hard to see how, especially with shareholder-ownership, we're going to get a good deal on that - an 'adequate' deal must be done and that will mean people losing out (what is important then is that we all lose out equally and we do not allow RM to split the workforce by offering senior staff better deals).

But 'route ownership' has got to be an absolute red line. It's the single most dangerous proposal RM has devised and, if adopted, will see us on Parcelforce-style contracts down the line, and sooner rather than later.

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 17 Oct 2017, 16:00

I think the poster means that later starts and finishes will mean it will be harder to cover any excess on overtime. Therefore RM have decided to go all in and try to get the overtime covered for free. They are therefore pushing "Route Ownership" along with "Pipeline" changes because it will be the fulfilment of their wet dream - Variable levels of work covered by a relatively fixed cost base.

barrychuckle · Post by **barrychuckle** » 17 Oct 2017, 19:39

TrueBlueTerrier wrote:I think the poster means that later starts and finishes will mean it will be harder to cover any excess on overtime. Therefore RM have decided to go all in and try to get the overtime covered for free. They are therefore pushing "Route Ownership" along with "Pipeline" changes because it will be the fulfilment of their wet dream - Variable levels of work covered by a relatively fixed cost base.

Exactly. RM know the 3 bundle system etc. will not work so therefore to negate cut offs bring in route ownership. Also bear in mind that hundreds if not thousands of posties do the job for the hours so they can pick their kids up from school. Move the pipeline back and this will be impossible so forcing some people out of a job. Only to replaced with people on worse conditions which is exactly what RM want.

elteleltel · Post by **elteleltel** » 17 Oct 2017, 20:05

No one wants to accept 10-6 surely

parforthewalk · Post by **parforthewalk** » 17 Oct 2017, 20:23

elteleltel wrote:No one wants to accept 10-6 surely

Yes..approximately 9000 in the ballot, voted NO & are therefore happy with everything that RM were proposing

glfp · Post by **glfp** » 17 Oct 2017, 22:07

parforthewalk wrote:
elteleltel wrote:No one wants to accept 10-6 surely
Yes..approximately 9000 in the ballot, voted NO & are therefore happy with everything that RM were proposing

or have no faith in the union and feel the union has shafted them on many occasions

Whoops i'm on this forum
Best make a forum friendly comment
they are all sausage chips and beans

bmccoll · Post by **bmccoll** » 17 Oct 2017, 22:39

glfp wrote:
parforthewalk wrote:
elteleltel wrote:No one wants to accept 10-6 surely
Yes..approximately 9000 in the ballot, voted NO & are therefore happy with everything that RM were proposing

or have no faith in the union and feel the union has shafted them on many occasions

a 30 year veteran, and I can assure you that a post 2pm finish is a BIG NO NO!

Danelectro · Post by **Danelectro** » 18 Oct 2017, 06:19

LaggyBand wrote:Just adding to my point above, as this idea became clear in my mind after posting:

The pipeline pillar is probably the one to concede for me. If there is one that I've got to concede, in order to get RM to agree to something decent - it's that.

Next day delivery without paying a premium is where the money is. It's where big corporate sellers want a supplier of delivery. They want to keep their prices low online, given its sooo easy for people to compare across multiple sellers now online, and they also want to mark it as guaranteed for tomorrow. And they want that to still be the case at 10pm at night, when your average couple are doing what? Staring into their devices ordering sh*t.

It's where the money is. Can't blame RM for chasing it; that's the corporate structure we have now. And the only way of getting a piece of that pie without the added cost of super fast processing like for specials and so on is later starts. It would standardise next day delivery, and that's the idea for the big online sellers. And it's the big sellers with the big contracts.

So I'd take that. The other things, pension, pay, route ownership, I think those things could be sorted out to some degree (ie better pay, better pension deal, no route ownership) if the intent and cleverness were there, with an absence of greed. But the pipeline shift, I see that as unavoidable, really.

Used to be anything posted 1st class before 12noon was delivered by 12noon the following day.This supposed next day delivery is rearranging the deck chairs to allow one wave and doesn't get there quicker if attempted delivery at 5 and the guy who ordered it at 10 the night before is still is on his way back from work.

And what about all those people who order before 12noon now- they would get their parcel slower and especially small business who are at the end of a delivery at 6 o clock then they don't get their parcel ever.

DGH · Post by **DGH** » 18 Oct 2017, 07:06

elteleltel wrote:No one wants to accept 10-6 surely

I don't want to (I'd rather work 5.30-1.30) but it seems to me to be the least worst of the three big changes (times/pensions/route 'ownership'). Were it necessary to give ground, then timing is where I'd like to see ground given.

Post by **SpacePhoenix** » 18 Oct 2017, 07:24

Danelectro wrote:
LaggyBand wrote:Just adding to my point above, as this idea became clear in my mind after posting:

The pipeline pillar is probably the one to concede for me. If there is one that I've got to concede, in order to get RM to agree to something decent - it's that.

Next day delivery without paying a premium is where the money is. It's where big corporate sellers want a supplier of delivery. They want to keep their prices low online, given its sooo easy for people to compare across multiple sellers now online, and they also want to mark it as guaranteed for tomorrow. And they want that to still be the case at 10pm at night, when your average couple are doing what? Staring into their devices ordering sh*t.

It's where the money is. Can't blame RM for chasing it; that's the corporate structure we have now. And the only way of getting a piece of that pie without the added cost of super fast processing like for specials and so on is later starts. It would standardise next day delivery, and that's the idea for the big online sellers. And it's the big sellers with the big contracts.

So I'd take that. The other things, pension, pay, route ownership, I think those things could be sorted out to some degree (ie better pay, better pension deal, no route ownership) if the intent and cleverness were there, with an absence of greed. But the pipeline shift, I see that as unavoidable, really.
Used to be anything posted 1st class before 12noon was delivered by 12noon the following day.This supposed next day delivery is rearranging the deck chairs to allow one wave and doesn't get there quicker if attempted delivery at 5 and the guy who ordered it at 10 the night before is still is on his way back from work.

And what about all those people who order before 12noon now- they would get their parcel slower and especially small business who are at the end of a delivery at 6 o clock then they don't get their parcel ever.

One wave will never happen, some DOs wouldn't get their work till well into the afternoon and some would possibly even not be able to have any sequenced mail at all

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 18 Oct 2017, 15:32

glfp wrote:
parforthewalk wrote:
elteleltel wrote:No one wants to accept 10-6 surely
Yes..approximately 9000 in the ballot, voted NO & are therefore happy with everything that RM were proposing
or have no faith in the union and feel the union has shafted them on many occasions

Whoops i'm on this forum
Best make a forum friendly comment
they are all sausage chips and beans

Forum friendly comment, not a pre-requisite.

However, I would like to know how the Union has nationally "shafted them on many occasions" just as a matter of interest. Also voting to accept the unacceptable would seem a self-defeating exercise as not only would they suffer the consequences, they are also doing exactly the same to new starters as they claim others have done so in the past.

I accept that to some it may seem that the CWU has let posties down, but is that a sane reason to reject the Unions current position out of spite. Okay if you think Royal Mail are offering the best they can, and that the changes are acceptable to you, then that is a fair and valid position to take, and I personally have no problem with that.

Likewise, I can't accept that the 9,000 who voted to reject the CWUs position are in full agreement with Royal Mails position, that would be an unsophisticated view to take. Hopefully, everyone sat down and looked at the issues dispassionately and decided on their own who had the best case to support and then voted that way.

In my estimation, no one could support either Royal Mails or the Unions position completely 100% without question, it comes down to a balance and that's how I voted, and I hope everyone else did.