WHETHER YOU'RE VOTING YES OR NO LETS BLOODY WAKE UP!!!!!

[shelanda]

Why do you do longs and shorts, we dont we still work 8 hours a day across the week, thats why we take mailsort ona saturday now becuase they say we are not SDD compliant

We don't do longs and shorts OR sat mailsort!

[UNION JACK]

Never wanted to be a union rep mate ,thats what i pay my subs for, for these monkeys to help us out .If there not up to the job they should get out .Half of them only do it to get out of doing some real work.

[arsenalbob]

dear mr lovejoy i thought you said a few weeks ago you were retiring from this site! our area rep was in our office this morning and i said to him that people on here claim to know how the vote is going. he answered very matter of factly that as of tuesday just gone 'no' was almost 10% ahead but by yesterday there was a 20% swing with 'yes' 10% ahead. i said is it common knowledge then? he just said aha! and drove off. if it's true still time to swing back i suppose.

[Carnoustie]

But where does it say we'll be entering local pay bargaining? Come on surely there are enough points to use for the no campaign that there's no need to make them up!?

I think the point Belial and k979aaa are getting it as this: if we agree a deal that sees different offices having different working practices, working arrangements, attendance times etc, all negotiated without reference to the national union, it weakens the very structure of the union and thus it's strength. And it could well be the thin end of the wedge. If the only aspect of the job that is the same in all offices is pay, it's then very easy to envisage RM arguing that offices that perform well should have 'their people' (to paraphrase Allan Leighton) paid more than those at the lesser-performing ones, i.e. local pay bargaining.

There's already a taste of things to come in the Pay And Modernisation Agreement. If it's accepted, only offices that sign-up to flexible working arrangements - negotiated locally - will get the additional 1.5% pay increase in April 2008. People at offices that don't sign up by then will only get it as and when they do. So localised rates of pay will already have started.

What happens to people in those offices if they still haven't got satisfactory flexible working arrangements in place when the next pay round starts in 2009, little over a year away now ?

Lets say the CWU agree a pay deal of 3% in April 2009....

Posties who've had the extra 1.5% in their office then be on £347.61 + 3%, i.e. £358.04/week

Those who haven't agreed flexible working would lag behind at £342.47 + 3%, i.e. £352.74/week

Or would RM say the offices that haven't complied with flexible working would get no increase ???
What chance have those offices got of the "gainers" voting No to such a deal and then going out on strike to defend the "losers" if we've shown in November 2007 that we'll vote for a deal that BUILDS IN higher pay rates for the Yes Sir, No Sir offices ???

In my opinion, this deal is a stepping-stone to a much weaker union and localised, performance-related-pay in the future.

That's one of the concerns that made me vote NO

[L Tommo]

dear mr lovejoy i thought you said a few weeks ago you were retiring from this site! our area rep was in our office this morning and i said to him that people on here claim to know how the vote is going. he answered very matter of factly that as of tuesday just gone 'no' was almost 10% ahead but by yesterday there was a 20% swing with 'yes' 10% ahead. i said is it common knowledge then? he just said aha! and drove off. if it's true still time to swing back i suppose.

I would love to swing for these two mugs :cfo :lfo


OUT

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Never wanted to be a union rep mate ,thats what i pay my subs for, for these monkeys to help us out .If there not up to the job they should get out .Half of them only do it to get out of doing some real work.

I'll bet you are not you're unit reps favourite member.

If you are not willing to help him, in what is an unpaid voluntary position, or willing to back him up and treat them with the respect you only ask for yourself then perhaps this explains your politics vis a vie BNP. I must admit I could never see the connection as most Unions tend to be socialist and BNP is more nationalist. But hey I wait to be educated.

[BELIAL]

But where does it say we'll be entering local pay bargaining? Come on surely there are enough points to use for the no campaign that there's no need to make them up!?

I think the point Belial and k979aaa are getting it as this: if we agree a deal that sees different offices having different working practices, working arrangements, attendance times etc, all negotiated without reference to the national union, it weakens the very structure of the union and thus it's strength. And it could well be the thin end of the wedge. If the only aspect of the job that is the same in all offices is pay, it's then very easy to envisage RM arguing that offices that perform well should have 'their people' (to paraphrase Allan Leighton) paid more than those at the lesser-performing ones, i.e. local pay bargaining.

There's already a taste of things to come in the Pay And Modernisation Agreement. If it's accepted, only offices that sign-up to flexible working arrangements - negotiated locally - will get the additional 1.5% pay increase in April 2008. People at offices that don't sign up by then will only get it as and when they do. So localised rates of pay will already have started.

What happens to people in those offices if they still haven't got satisfactory flexible working arrangements in place when the next pay round starts in 2009, little over a year away now ?

Lets say the CWU agree a pay deal of 3% in April 2009....

Posties who've had the extra 1.5% in their office then be on £347.61 + 3%, i.e. £358.04/week

Those who haven't agreed flexible working would lag behind at £342.47 + 3%, i.e. £352.74/week

Or would RM say the offices that haven't complied with flexible working would get no increase ???
What chance have those offices got of the "gainers" voting No to such a deal and then going out on strike to defend the "losers" if we've shown in November 2007 that we'll vote for a deal that BUILDS IN higher pay rates for the Yes Sir, No Sir offices ???

In my opinion, this deal is a stepping-stone to a much weaker union and localised, performance-related-pay in the future.

That's one of the concerns that made me vote NO

Can only speak for my self ,but yes that is precisely the point. However the implications of this agreement extend much further.
The question we should all be asking is ,do we believe RM see this agreement as an end in itself, their final destination or is it merely an enabler ,paving the way for far greater attacks in the future. I think the answer is obvious and that once the principal of national collective bargaining has been surrendered on these issues we will be powerless to resist in all practical sense.
Not wishing to make things up just trying to draw a reasonably logical projection of possible RM strategy if they are succesfull in implementing their commercial vision.
Take just one aspect, the USO , they can't get rid of it ,it is vital for the operation of commerce indeed the whole economy but they can try to alter it's operation to get it done on the cheap.
The USO is an expensive commercial contradiction, essential and yet no business commited to profitable trading would touch it with a bargepole. Answer introduce the principal of variable pricing, first pricing in proportion next regional pricing, works better already. But it get's even better, from a business point of view you are still left with a huge operating cost differential between high and low density areas, how can you control these costs to improve profits. Don't worry the solution is simple and dead easy to implement now you've got regional negotiations, just pay posties for each item they deliver.

I can hear ADAM now "I just want our people to be paid for the mail they deliver"

[UNION JACK]

My unit rep is brilliant always fighting our cause i'll have nothing said about him, its the local union leaders who i have the trouble with advising us to vote yes,as you can see the union is splitting already and the Royal Mail have got exactly what they want.Only a few weeks to go before the mass exodus from the union, if it is a yes the end is near.What really pisses me off is all the money we've lost striking and sticking by our union for a better future and it will all be gone and lost.Now i know how the Germans felt after the war.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

My unit rep is brilliant always fighting our cause i'll have nothing said about him, its the local union leaders who i have the trouble with advising us to vote yes,as you can see the union is splitting already and the Royal Mail have got exactly what they want.Only a few weeks to go before the mass exodus from the union, if it is a yes the end is near.What really pisses me off is all the money we've lost striking and sticking by our union for a better future and it will all be gone and lost.Now i know how the Germans felt after the war.

Excellent - its the local reps who we will need to rely whichever way the vote goes.