I have always thought that the CWU leadership have missed a trick a number of times over the years calling strike action - this time being no exception.
This time especially there seems to be a groundswell of opinion against the RM workers especially as Christmas is coming etc. This is not good as public sympathy could well be reduced.
I have always thought that a work to rule - no OT - would be the way to go. Nobody would lose any money except that earnt through overtime. There would be a far greater willingness amongst the workforce to comply to this meaning a gretaer message sent to the RM aristocracy and the government. The public would be kept onside as would most of the press also because it would prove that the RM need bodies to make the operation work properly. The idea to reduce costs by reducing the workforce is wrong - we all know this - the place only works because of all the OT, whether paid or unpaid. To work only the hours you are paid for - a requirement of the RM management by the way - would lead to backlogs of mail and a reduction in service but it would highlight the issues so lodly braodcast by the CWU that the indistry needs the jobs. To go straight for the strike is to play directly into the hands of the RM who can then label the CWU and its members as uncaring.
I have always believed that the Royal Mail - including the Post Office - is a service and not an industry. That said even a service can and should be modernized for a modern world. Unfortunatley the word profit gets dragged into it which usually means a few people make a killing whilst the rest get screwed. It should be one of the jobs of the CWU to highlight the shortcomings of any RM plans by the best means possible. A work to rule would do that ..... a straight out strike is folly IMO and cedes any moral high ground to the RM by saying the worforce and CWU do not want to modernize and wish only to disrupt the public irrespective of any claims they may make. To stay in the job doing only what you are paid to do would regain that high ground expecially when (not if) it was noticed the reason the service was failing was because there were not enough workers.
If I am wrong then please tell me why.
Is it not about morals?? I could not afford to strike a few years back but I did because it was the right thing to do all stick together. 
Everyone to there own but I think it is selfish expecting the rest of co-workers to take the lose while a strike breaker goes in and works 
