Can we afford a No vote?

[dvbuk55]

And standing on the picket line with the Tories in charge is going to get you exactly what? Deliveries always with the rhetoric! Modernisation will happen get use to it! If you believe that D2D was going to just stay as it is dream on! Instead of losing it in the future it will be in your basic. And just explain to me which function brought in the WFA 2000? Deliveries because your basic went up! How quickly you forget!

Wow yes a mere 10 years ago when a litre of petrol cost 80p and yesterday it cost me 1.19p a princely increase of 50%. Now with the most generous of statistics we haven't had anything like a cost of living increase in the intervening years but enough of all our yesterdays lets concentrate on the here and now.

This deal has done nothing to fully address the problems we face nor to reach agreement on all the main issues of work load, revision tools and yes - reward, which despite what some would have us believe is not a dirty word.

What it has done is to firmly place the CWU as another tier of management to ensure the wishes of Royal Mail are carried out because they will be on a new and sound financial footing. That is the here and now!

Now to tomorrow as you say when the Tories come to power or not and we have the CWU who is now a fully paid up member of Team Royal Mail and Privatisation comes along - what then? Oh yes the duplicity of this agreement will certainly come to bite you in the ass.

[headscrewedon]

If a NO vote is presented to the CWU/RM management team, what stops them from listening to the voice of their workforce, and sends them back to the negotiating table to thrash out something more palatable?

Hmmm, let's see.
The ballot delivers a NO vote.
CWU ask RM to re-enter talks.
'Are you having a laugh ?' says RM 'we just spent 4 months talking, we struck a deal'
CWU leadership dither. Local walkouts begin again. Eventually, after some have lost several days pay already, our beloved leaders run a ballot for renewed strike action.

Q1. Can we be certain that an overwhelming Yes vote to more strikes would be achieved ?
Q2. Can we be confident such strikes would be well supported ? People lost up to 18 days pay before last year's interim agreement halted the strikes. How much more money are we going to expect them to be prepared to lose ?
Q3. If we are going to insist the CWU top brass must not call off the strikes until a full and better deal is offered, just how many times are we going to have to go out this time ? If it took 4 months of talking / haggling to get to the deal that we're voting on now.... I myself have no faith that any more money can be squeezed out of RM. And every extra strike day we have in any fresh wave of strikes is just more money lost

[opgpat]

Who wants more money out of RM? I think you'll find most people will object to uncapped d2d workload, uncapped delivery times, later Sats, end of payments for new work comming into RM from new d2d contracts, unfair distribution of (some) d2d money via new suppliment, unachievable top 10% performance targets, cwu getting into financial bed with RM.

[studmuffin]

If a NO vote is presented to the CWU/RM management team, what stops them from listening to the voice of their workforce, and sends them back to the negotiating table to thrash out something more palatable?

Hmmm, let's see.
The ballot delivers a NO vote.
CWU ask RM to re-enter talks.
'Are you having a laugh ?' says RM 'we just spent 4 months talking, we struck a deal'
CWU leadership dither. Local walkouts begin again. Eventually, after some have lost several days pay already, our beloved leaders run a ballot for renewed strike action.

Q1. Can we be certain that an overwhelming Yes vote to more strikes would be achieved ?
Q2. Can we be confident such strikes would be well supported ? People lost up to 18 days pay before last year's interim agreement halted the strikes. How much more money are we going to expect them to be prepared to lose ?
Q3. If we are going to insist the CWU top brass must not call off the strikes until a full and better deal is offered, just how many times are we going to have to go out this time ? If it took 4 months of talking / haggling to get to the deal that we're voting on now.... I myself have no faith that any more money can be squeezed out of RM. And every extra strike day we have in any fresh wave of strikes is just more money lost

My thoughts exactly, believe me YOU DO NOT WANT THIS SCENIRO

[headscrewedon]

Who wants more money out of RM? I think you'll find most people will object to uncapped d2d workload, uncapped delivery times, later Sats, end of payments for new work comming into RM from new d2d contracts, unfair distribution of (some) d2d money via new suppliment, unachievable top 10% performance targets, cwu getting into financial bed with RM.

I do understand people objecting to later Saturdays, but I've always objected to some of my colleagues undermining the job by coming in early / skipping meal reliefs / using private cars etc, just to finish ahead of their proper finish time. People are saying this deal amounts to a pay cut, and are encouraging a No vote on that basis. If they want the deal re-negotiated so they don't lose out, then they are asking for more money than is currently on offer, aren't they ?

If everyone did the job properly, RM would have to put hours back in to most DO's. I've been working right to my time and cutting off fairly regularly. How will uncapped d2ds affect me ? If there's more of them, the workload will be too great and not achievable in my paid hours unless RM make my walk smaller. Either way, I still won't be working a single minute beyond my paid hours. The only difference will be the amount of mail I can't deliver in my paid hours will be bigger. But that is no concern of mine - that's the DIM's problem once my hours are up.

If everyone does the job properly, our individual performance levels would all be broadly similar, so I'd be in the top 10% anyway

[pcb]

headscewedon: Stop winding people up LOL!

[feduppostie]

If everyone did their job properly RM would be fecked!

[headscrewedon]

If everyone did their job properly RM would be fecked!

But because of the ones that don't, WE'RE fecked

[Big Daz]

I object to those who once told me to not carve my delivery up and get done early as managers would put more work on take rounds out etc are now the biggest carve up merchants in the office.


It makes me

[headscrewedon]

The PEC's Pete Keenleyside voted against this agreement. Even so, he states that
Lifting the cap and putting D2D in workload should lead to an increase in walks and jobs, as this would have to be taken into account in revisions.

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 5&p=255247" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[opgpat]

Agreement is a paycut for most because the d2d and esa money is being divided up unfairly and given to those who don't do d2d or come in early. I think most would be happy keeping the current money we get as it is shared out now so no new money is necessary - that's if the new supplement represents all current d2d and esa monies? The agreement is unfair on so many levels and the CWU are supposed to be behind fairness for all

[Lincox]

Headscrewedon you say that you are not willing to support action for a better deeal, because you cannot be certain that any future industrial action will be supported either by the membership, or the CWU heirarchy.
What we can be certain of is that this deal not only places us in an inferior financial position than we are currently in, but also provides no protection against health and safety issues, bullying and harrasment, and if we are working to the top 10% of productive workers, that means 90% are working below the top 10% of performers and are therefore in a situation where RM can and will restart their tactics of using any excuse to sack people.

Im my opinion any one who is willing to support such a deal because they do not think a better deal is achievable is a defeatist and any fight to overturn this proposterous agreement must be worth the effort. After all, the worst situation we can be in, is that RM will bring it in with ex action. Let them do it. You can take a horse to water, but you can,t make it drink it. Lets have a bit of Winston Churchill attitude. We can fight them in the DOs and the SOs and in the towns, cities and countryside. We will not be trod on by RM or CWU.

[opgpat]

d2d is already in workload! The change proposed is d2d programmed into Pegasus and then walks redesigned with new settings. HOWEVER there is NO compulsion for DOMs to redesign walks in the agreement, so they can keep them as they are and extend outside time. This infact is what will happen. You will get more time outside, trudging up and down with heavier bags. If you think new delivery jobs will be created you are in cookoo land.

[MinisterofCucumber]

Im my opinion any one who is willing to support such a deal because they do not think a better deal is achievable is a defeatist and any fight to overturn this proposterous agreement must be worth the effort.

You have chosen the most apt word to describe this agreement.

It is preposterous.

[dvbuk55]

The PEC's Pete Keenleyside voted against this agreement. Even so, he states that
Lifting the cap and putting D2D in workload should lead to an increase in walks and jobs, as this would have to be taken into account in revisions.

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 5&p=255247" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Look at the words in this statement and tell me that here is a cast iron agreement on offer - I'll highlight my point just to make it more obvious;

Lifting the cap and putting D2D in workload should lead to an increase in walks and jobs, as this would have to be taken into account in revisions.

Should is not a word that guarantees it will and would have to be - WHY it doesn't say it has to be in the agreement and the words are the words and what the agreement will be implemented on - NOT shoulds and woulds and maybes.