RM FIRST REVIEW TOMORROW

[Ernie Shoe]

"Why doesn't the workforce act as one and with one voice (the union?) by refusing simply to carry out specific management orders that don't make sense in terms of service standards and feasibility for the job. Then the management would have to put the whole work force onto a conduct code, and face the possibility of having to sack 100% of its workers. "

Because as was seen with the strikes - not everyone sticks together.

[smokerjim]

That would not work either, because the Union wouldn't follow it ( after all, if it is some part of the job that has been agreed, it would put the union in the position of breaking an agreement ), if the Union wouldn't follow it, a lot of posties wouldn't follow it ( cos they wouldn't have union backing ) and RM could just pick off the posties that do.....and they would - next year our unit of about 170 odd staff has to find 400 hrs of savings thats 10 FT JOBS!!!! Even if there is something the union does follow, there will be offices that will be weak, and in them the majority won't follow, becuase it's an extra pain in the arse, it's different to the routine, cos they'll get hassle from managers, etc, etc - the union has this problem now with "doing the job properly"......and all those rules are designed with RM to make our work easier to bear, and people still avoid doing it that way!

Hypothetically assume there is something the union takes a stand on, and hypothetically assume there is massive support for it across the country, you also have to take into account RM might class anything that happens as unoffcial industrial action......so even though you have done a days work, you don't get paid, because you have not done the complete job ( and unofficial as you have not held a legal ballot for it ), - if you get the ballot, people might vote against it, or not at all on the basis of "Well, it's not going to do much, we're still going to be working and RM are going to be laughing their arse off that we're doing the job, and they can get the managers to cover the last bit - it'll be a waste of time!"

Hypothetically assume that the union and the workforce pull together and do something like you're suggesting......remember RM have a money no object propaganda machine, and this country has lazy journalists that like to be spoon-fed stories employed by press barons that are more capatalist than socialist in their politics, and a union that has a tiny budget - for anything but especially for communicating to the public what goes on....you only have to have had your eyes open and looking at the media during the recent national strikes to see that.

Hypothetically assume that you do get a mass media outlet to pick up the story and run with it as a massive campaign, you will them see a white rabbit, with a fob watch, complaining "I'm late! I'm late!", and you will follow him down the rabbit hole to a magical kingdom with strange and interesting people and creatures......hang on, that's Alice in Wonderland isn't it? My mistake

[97gaz]

[

[peejay14]

Just out of interest, would you prefer taking industrial action while remaining at work, to taking industrial action away from work ?

While you point out the drawbacks of the former, I think that it would be fair of you to compare them to the drawbacks of the latter. I think that the former would put more pressure onto the RM management, because they would have to dismantle the IA by disciplining posties in droves - a major headache for them, and going down that road would give the management a difficult story to spin. Whereas, going on strike sells its own story, and the management then have their hands comparatively free to mount a straightforward war of words with the union. Plus, being deprived of work weakens the postie's resolve (as opposed to a struggle based on the office floor, where I think that posties would try harder for longer to keep up the fight.)

Seeing strike action through to a conclusion against an equally determined stance from the management (who are supported by the press, since their readers, our customers, have lost their postal service) has its own serious ramifications. By going on strike, you are already prepared to put your job and livelihood on the (picket) line as it is. By taking IA while at work, though the management may well find cause to still suspend pay anyway as you point out, in doing so the management would soon find that their actions came under the scrutiny of the media, as the postie's story would not simply be one of pickets and placards, but a public interest story of people standing up for what they think is right. Balance working for your rights (and for nothing, at least temporarily, until that tactic of the management failed under intense pressure from an ever sympathetic general public and customer base - you are confident of their support, aren't you, even for the strike?), against striking with no pay - through the customer's eyes. And a long drawn-out strike would devastate the business and land us with a reputation that would look far worse than if we had kept up the service as best we could while opposing the plans of the management.

Both these methods of IA are difficult and present their own challenges, but I would be more willing to consider taking action within the office supported by at least the vast majority of posties with the solid backing of the union. Standing out in the cold and hoping for good news is less of an option for me than working towards our goal would be.

C'mon ACAS !

[krussel]

I am confused

Striking at work ?

Would that not be refusing to obey instruction of a manager? if so you would face suspension, on your own They would do it one at a time and would you trust everyone to back you up refuse with you. If everyone refused to undertake a certain part of the job (ie; absortion) then this would be classed as "work to rule" which is another form of ind action and would therefore be classed as official action.

I ve always supported work to rule as it does get some of the point across without bringing the service to a complete stop. However in the past we have found that people all to quickly give in and start to work normally. The weaker ones become "bought out" with offers of overtime and all to quickly the action is broken down completely.

I wish there was another way i really do but the short, sharp single day strike actions do seem the most effective in producing results. Far worse was the "all out" and staying out strikes of days gone as quite often the dispute would be settled long before the agreement to return to work to handle the backlog.

[norbert]

I am confused

Striking at work ?

Would that not be refusing to obey instruction of a manager? if so you would face suspension, on your own They would do it one at a time and would you trust everyone to back you up refuse with you. If everyone refused to undertake a certain part of the job (ie; absortion) then this would be classed as "work to rule" which is another form of ind action and would therefore be classed as official action.

I ve always supported work to rule as it does get some of the point across without bringing the service to a complete stop. However in the past we have found that people all to quickly give in and start to work normally. The weaker ones become "bought out" with offers of overtime and all to quickly the action is broken down completely.

I wish there was another way i really do but the short, sharp single day strike actions do seem the most effective in producing results. Far worse was the "all out" and staying out strikes of days gone as quite often the dispute would be settled long before the agreement to return to work to handle the backlog.

RM are well known for deliberately suspending people to force unofficial strikes , then starving people back to work and putting the staff on worse T&C's . Oldest 50's spiv trick in the book .

One Op's Director made a career of it .

They tried that on in London and deliberately targeted Watford in 2007 i.e . putting a 5 month pregnant MC worker on delivery with no training . It backfired on RM as the BBC used the story .

In 2003 , with UIA RM's policy was to trip the CWU up on UIA , and try and find " proof " that the CWU were in actuality condoning UIA with a view to legal action and sequestrating their assets .

Sorry Peejay but RM are not quite what they're cracked up to be .

[peejay14]

Striking at work ?

Well you may already have been striking while not at work, what's the difference ?

Would that not be refusing to obey instruction of a manager?

Yep, those instructions that you could not manage.

if so you would face suspension, on your own

Not on own.

They would do it one at a time and would you trust everyone to back you up.

There's already support for the general strike, just use that and let the union earn their crust to keep us all together.

If everyone refused to undertake a certain part of the job (ie; absortion) then this would be classed as "work to rule" which is another form of ind action and would therefore be classed as official action.

Different I think. The management would have to discipline everyone at once, such that there wouldn't be a walk-out, there would be a mass-suspension. Would they do that? Yet we wouldn't have to refuse instructions, e.g. absorption, we would attempt new ways of working but ultimately decide upon feasibility.

I ve always supported work to rule as it does get some of the point across without bringing the service to a complete stop. However in the past we have found that people all to quickly give in and start to work normally. The weaker ones become "bought out" with offers of overtime and all to quickly the action is broken down completely.

I wouldn't call it 'work to rule', because the rules would be fluid. Both the work force and the management would have a chance to work together constructively, and ultimately develop a proper working relationship and respect that at the moment is sorely lacking.

I wish there was another way. I really do but the short, sharp single day strike actions do seem the most effective in producing results. Far worse was the "all out" and staying out strikes of days gone as quite often the dispute would be settled long before the agreement to return to work to handle the backlog.

Don't be sad, stay positive and strive for the optimum result. I see a mood of pessimism amongst members who are disappointed about the outcome of the strikes. I don't agree that going on strike helps anyone, it is defeatist, and 1-day strikes are damaging in their own way. In one respect, 1-day strikes are less effective, and a half-measure, they produce a stop-start pattern that can wear down both the intended target and those making the 'effort'.

I say work at the problem, don't turn your back on it.

C'mon ACAS !

[krussel]

Striking at work ?

Well you may already have been striking while not at work, what's the difference ?

Would that not be refusing to obey instruction of a manager?

Yep, those instructions that you could not manage.

if so you would face suspension, on your own

Not on own.

They would do it one at a time and would you trust everyone to back you up.

There's already support for the general strike, just use that and let the union earn their crust to keep us all together.

If everyone refused to undertake a certain part of the job (ie; absortion) then this would be classed as "work to rule" which is another form of ind action and would therefore be classed as official action.

Different I think. The management would have to discipline everyone at once, such that there wouldn't be a walk-out, there would be a mass-suspension. Would they do that? Yet we wouldn't have to refuse instructions, e.g. absorption, we would attempt new ways of working but ultimately decide upon feasibility.

I ve always supported work to rule as it does get some of the point across without bringing the service to a complete stop. However in the past we have found that people all to quickly give in and start to work normally. The weaker ones become "bought out" with offers of overtime and all to quickly the action is broken down completely.

I wouldn't call it 'work to rule', because the rules would be fluid. Both the work force and the management would have a chance to work together constructively, and ultimately develop a proper working relationship and respect that at the moment is sorely lacking.

I wish there was another way. I really do but the short, sharp single day strike actions do seem the most effective in producing results. Far worse was the "all out" and staying out strikes of days gone as quite often the dispute would be settled long before the agreement to return to work to handle the backlog.

Don't be sad, stay positive and strive for the optimum result. I see a mood of pessimism amongst members who are disappointed about the outcome of the strikes. I don't agree that going on strike helps anyone, it is defeatist, and 1-day strikes are damaging in their own way. In one respect, 1-day strikes are less effective, and a half-measure, they produce a stop-start pattern that can wear down both the intended target and those making the 'effort'.

I say work at the problem, don't turn your back on it.

C'mon ACAS !

Some interesting points. We did try something like this back in 2000 when working practices were changed in our office without any agreement. Our rep refused and promptly got warned and then suspended. We all walked off the floor and went and sat in the canteen for about 2 hours. It was pretty weird looking back but we did get the decision reversed and our rep reinstated.

However things are very different now with RM management being far more organised and better prepared. Although I can see where your coming from I am afraid I could not see it work in the real world of modern RM as we would be all to quickly singled out and broken.

[Exrep]

Strikes do help as it gives the work force a voice as most of the time the work forces voices are never heard.

Strikes dont help anyone PLEASE thats somethink over these last months ive heard in WTL .

Strikes are the only thing R/M understand DIRECT ACTION

POWER TO THE WORKERS

[krussel]

I do think the strikes have had some good effect. Take absorbing for example. We were given a letter explaining that if you refused you would be given two warning letters then your pay stopped.
We were also told if we did not have the available duty time we had to be flexible and work extra possibly taking the time back another day (if your lucky). You also had to take the extra work out with you on your delivery and do it first.

Since the strikes absorbing has become easier. Now you can leave it in the frame and see how much time you have left once you have finished the delivery. Mon, Tue I have time Wed’s onwards is hit or miss and as long as I tell my dom before I go out its not a problem and I can leave the work.

[BELIAL]

Strikes me that PJ is probably a wet behind the ears graduate recruit trying to make sense of the difference between what the recruitment blurb promised and the shitstorm of bullying exploitation and poisoned industrial relations he finds himself sinking in. Ain't life a bitch, get told you are the new breed and pure gold dust but everyone you meet thinks you are s**t on their shoes

[peejay14]

We were given a letter explaining that if you refused you would be given two warning letters then your pay stopped.

That's interesting, there must be some background prompting that letter that you haven't elaborated on. We received no such letter, and I would resent one if I received it. I would call THAT bullying. But since I have no such letter, and don't know the background to your office's letter (were some posties refusing to do the absorption?), I will suspend my judgement. Put in the wording that you have paraphrased above, I would find such a letter offensive, and not in the style of my own DOM, who I think is doing rather well by our office at the moment, and our office's recent 100% walkouts were not so much an act of protest against him, rather we were just falling in line with the union's orders.

C'mon ACAS !

[axeman]

It's not down to your dom he's told what he has to do by his area man at the conference call just because you belive them others don't and for good reasons
It is about time you woke up and started to live in the real world that is royal fail and it's mandate to bully and harass posties out of jobs to save money

[POSTMAN]

That's interesting, there must be some background prompting that letter that you haven't elaborated on. We received no such letter, and I would resent one if I received it. I would call THAT bullying. But since I have no such letter, and don't know the background to your office's letter (were some posties refusing to do the absorption?), I will suspend my judgement. Put in the wording that you have paraphrased above, I would find such a letter offensive, and not in the style of my own DOM, who I think is doing rather well by our office at the moment, and our office's recent 100% walkouts were not so much an act of protest against him, rather we were just falling in line with the union's orders.

C'mon ACAS !

See here pee....

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 15&t=17658" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[krussel]

Thanks POSTMAN.

Yes you need to read the whole thread and you will see where we are all coming from and why so many people became angry.

Our dom read out a statement informing us very clearly of what was going to happen to any who refused.
He also said any who claimed not to have time to absorb would be prep tested and may be given a warning if found slow.

He asked if anyone wanted a copy to see him after the WTL. I got a copy as did a few others. I took mine home to show my better half the sort of crap we have to put up with and she could not believe the strengh of it. I then threw it in the bin.

Trouble is all this was done at around 8am a full hour before the partimers come in so i doubt you would have witnessed it.