Union agrees yet another extension

[fishtank]

I like how some many people on this forum always reckon they can do better, well put up,stand this year wherever you are for unit to area positions. Or put a motion to your AGM and action it or stand in the next national elections!
Incredible that people complain about reps yet don't stand!
Everyone has the chance, everyone has the opportunity to change the system so why don't you?
Democracy at work!
Internet heroes everyone!
Rant over!.

Nothing sums up the issues more than this tired old post even if it wasn't the way you meant it pcb.
According to you members have only two options.
Put up with poor representation or try to stand themselves,Is that really the best we can offer members? Is it any wonder the membership are increasingly apathetic.

[Ahebban]

In days past the battle lines were much more clearly defined, not so now. Negotiations between CWU and Royal Mail are much more complex than ever before. Too many variables in BT2010 left open the door for interpretation on both sides and led to conflict/submission within DOs. Whilst there is merit in keeping the negotiating channels open through extensions, if it allows the negotiating process to stagnate (having gone into talks with a very strong hand initially) the CWU leadership will face justifiable criticism. Members don't want another BT2010, or any extension of it. BT2010 is still very fresh in members' minds as they are still governed by its processes.The CWU demands were simple and straighforward and members are expecting a simple and straightforward agreement as a result. The longer the delays the greater the mistrust.

There is debate to be had on whether CWU leadership is too close to Royal Mail management - not so much through choice but through the increasingly complex way Royal Mail is managed. DOMs eat, sleep and breathe spreadsheets - the only thing not governed by a spreadsheet is the coffee intake of DOMs! Our DSM is very proud of the fact that he has a spreadsheet to cover virtually every circumstance likely to occur in the DOs he is responsible for. Man management skills are at there lowest point in the 12 years I have been at Royal Mail. Have Royal Mail and CWU, unwittingly or otherwise, created this situation? So much so that the decision-making now has to be made at the highest levels given the nature of how the various problems are discussed and resolved? If Royal Mail is not prepared to trust its DOMs to 'manage' then you have to cascade that responsibility down from higher up. In doing so, the wording has to be deliberately vague in its content to account for umpteen permutations and interpretations.

The structure already exists within Royal Mail to test the validity of contested clauses etc with agreements. There is nothing wrong with the current IR Framework. There is nothing wrong with the current Attendance Procedure Agreement. There is nothing wrong in reaching a simple and straightforward agreement. It is not so much the 'spirit' but the 'will' to ensure that agreements are honoured where the crux of the problem lies. Evermore complex agreements to cover every eventuality are self-defeating in themselves as they take away the responsibility from the Unit Rep/DOM to resolve matters. Equally, are they designed to be self-perpetuating in the sense of keeping those involved involved, excluding all outsiders for fear they might lose their grip on their positions?

[thelastpostie]

If I'm correct the union hasn't had a review of it's structure Royal Mail introduced 'Business Development' in 1992 nearly 22 years ago. So this would be an opportune moment to look at our structure to see whether it's still fit for purpose. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

[midegarelu]

In days past the battle lines were much more clearly defined, not so now. Negotiations between CWU and Royal Mail are much more complex than ever before. Too many variables in BT2010 left open the door for interpretation on both sides and led to conflict/submission within DOs. Whilst there is merit in keeping the negotiating channels open through extensions, if it allows the negotiating process to stagnate (having gone into talks with a very strong hand initially) the CWU leadership will face justifiable criticism. Members don't want another BT2010, or any extension of it. BT2010 is still very fresh in members' minds as they are still governed by its processes.The CWU demands were simple and straighforward and members are expecting a simple and straightforward agreement as a result. The longer the delays the greater the mistrust.

There is debate to be had on whether CWU leadership is too close to Royal Mail management - not so much through choice but through the increasingly complex way Royal Mail is managed. DOMs eat, sleep and breathe spreadsheets - the only thing not governed by a spreadsheet is the coffee intake of DOMs! Our DSM is very proud of the fact that he has a spreadsheet to cover virtually every circumstance likely to occur in the DOs he is responsible for. Man management skills are at there lowest point in the 12 years I have been at Royal Mail. Have Royal Mail and CWU, unwittingly or otherwise, created this situation? So much so that the decision-making now has to be made at the highest levels given the nature of how the various problems are discussed and resolved? If Royal Mail is not prepared to trust its DOMs to 'manage' then you have to cascade that responsibility down from higher up. In doing so, the wording has to be deliberately vague in its content to account for umpteen permutations and interpretations.

The structure already exists within Royal Mail to test the validity of contested clauses etc with agreements. There is nothing wrong with the current IR Framework. There is nothing wrong with the current Attendance Procedure Agreement. There is nothing wrong in reaching a simple and straightforward agreement. It is not so much the 'spirit' but the 'will' to ensure that agreements are honoured where the crux of the problem lies. Evermore complex agreements to cover every eventuality are self-defeating in themselves as they take away the responsibility from the Unit Rep/DOM to resolve matters. Equally, are they designed to be self-perpetuating in the sense of keeping those involved involved, excluding all outsiders for fear they might lose their grip on their positions?

Exactly. This post has put the words into my long held thoughts about RM and the CWU.
Thank you.

[chrisj]

Anyways, on the issue of fixed terms: I thought the original suggestion by dvbuk was for a maximum of 2 terms and then a break and then the same individual can come back for another 2 terms and so on. So if a term is 5yrs then someone can be in office for 10years and if 2yr then they can be for 4 years and so on depending on the post.

Nowhere was it mentioned that people (good reps) are going to be barred from standing but it will be nice if they did not turn into career Unionists by being in post perpetually. This will be especially important for Union folks on full-time release - after all they are still employees of RM and they should return to the shop floor from time to time...

Otherwise we shall have career Unionists just like we have career politicians; and what happens is that they get more and more remote from the grass-roots and eventually out of touch. Even though they still go into some offices and they are briefed, it is not the same as being on the coalface.

It is obvious that dingo must have been a good local rep, then area rep and so on but the days when he was a local rep is so much different to nowadays and he is too stubborn or otherwise to accept that the situation is very much different in some parts of the country even with the best will from local reps, area reps... and members.

For him to continue to put most of the blame for workload, B&H issues at the doorstep of local reps shows that there is something missing...

Perhaps just like in our national politics, we should have the occasional cabinet re-shuffle whereby some divisional reps are posted outside their original jurisdiction - we should able able to spread the very good top top Reps around; so that they can share good practices and so on.

Local reps do not have to be subject to fixed terms in office as the members vote for them directly and just like our local MPs compared to Prime Ministers, they do stay around for a while and eventually get voted out or they retire the post.

The issue now is how do we get the best out of whatever agreement is reached and how do we ensure that the spirit of the agreement is adhered to?

[dvbuk55]

I'm glad that a debate has been opened about the serious shortfalls within the CWU much of it falling on deaf ears of course. Although this is only a small forum in comparison to the wider membership hopefully, in time, people in senior positions will realise that action must be taken or there will be a price to pay.

[fishtank]

So much so that the decision-making now has to be made at the highest levels given the nature of how the various problems are discussed and resolved? If Royal Mail is not prepared to trust its DOMs to 'manage' then you have to cascade that responsibility down from higher up.

It's a very good point Ahebban,The business has changed its management structure removing a great deal of the responsibility and power from local management but the union has failed to re-adjust its position to counter this.

Local reps are more and more having to deal with the DSM and the Regional Director directly over what were in the past local issues and it's far from a fair fight.The union is crying out for a far more professional branch structure and highly motivated,highly trained reps with relevant on the ground experience.It's time to move away from the image of a cliquish social club where the in-crowd talk about war stories from 20 years ago.

[dvbuk55]

Yes it does get a bit tiresome hearing the old phraseology, "where would we be without the union", "we wouldn't have had this that and t'other" but what is REALLY important is where we're at now in relation to having the correct structure and the professionalism to deal with RM in 2013.

Everyone must know that the new RM management structure is a daily conference call where the minutiae for the daily running of the DO is discussed whereas the rep gets an LTB 3 days after it's announced in the WTL. In a great many instances the union go direct to the workforce thereby bypassing the rep who is left with his dick in his hand. One of the first things the union must insist on is an equal opportunity for the rep to discuss matters in open forum at the WTL.
When our sub rep tried to interject he was told it wasn't a union meeting more or less saying that there was no input from the CWU. That is a lesson the CWU have yet to learn, that full inclusion and discussion on decisions is a myth and they need to ensure that it happens or the union will be side lined even more than it is now.

[Martin Walsh]

Fish the problem is that now we are partly privatised things are never going to change and the DOMs ability to reach an agreement without the authority of the directors who are responsible for the purse strings is never going to change.

The reality is that the director is now the one who is responsible for overspends and targets not being achieved. Therefore this is why the delivery offices are micro managed and why the centre rolls out all the new tools etc.

The last time we changed our structure was in 1992 under the heading Torwards 2000 and meant that we amalgamated Branch"s on a post code basis. This was done in tandem was the introduction of the IR Framework and the roles of unit reps , area reps and divisional reps.

The frustrating thing for most local reps now is that they can not do local deals , this is the same for a number of area reps as more issues are now raised to director level.

Now any new structure won't change the above as Royal Mail will not allow DOMs to control their own budgets.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

But what changes would you suggest as although its a worn out phrase its meaning it still Valid.

"Failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be."

[dvbuk55]

The CWU hasn't been privatised but you make a good point about the management structure having been raised a level which could lead someone to suspect there may be scope for change with a redundant array of full time reps, perhaps change the responsibilities increase the geographical area but decrease the area of responsibility..................just a passing thought.

[fishtank]

The frustrating thing for most local reps now is that they can not do local deals , this is the same for a number of area reps as more issues are now raised to director level.

Now any new structure won't change the above as Royal Mail will not allow DOMs to control their own budgets.

We can't look to change RM's structure,we have to look to adapt our structure to it.
If they are operating a top down centralised configuration we can't hope to deal with that using a bottom up federalist system.

It means our local reps are being matched against their most experienced managers and completely cuts the branch structure out of the equation.If you couple that with the fact that some area and even divisional reps are far too "hands off" as it is the whole system is a recipe for weak offices and disengaged members.

If local reps are left to deal with Sector Managers and Directors the obvious question will at some point occur to those reps...just what is the point in having area reps,divisional reps and the vast majority of the branch and divisional structure?
There's no point in buying a dog if you have to bark yourself.

[dvbuk55]

The frustrating thing for most local reps now is that they can not do local deals , this is the same for a number of area reps as more issues are now raised to director level.

Now any new structure won't change the above as Royal Mail will not allow DOMs to control their own budgets.

We can't look to change RM's structure,we have to look to adapt our structure to it.
If they are operating a top down centralised configuration we can't hope to deal with that using a bottom up federalist system.

It means our local reps are being matched against their most experienced managers and completely cuts the branch structure out of the equation.If you couple that with the fact that some area and even divisional reps are far too "hands off" as it is the whole system is a recipe for weak offices and disengaged members.

If local reps are left to deal with Sector Managers and Directors the obvious question will at some point occur to those reps...just what is the point in having area reps,divisional reps and the vast majority of the branch and divisional structure?
There's no point in buying a dog if you have to bark yourself.

Tell me we don't pay these people to perceive a strategy to deal with the 21st century business model using a 19th century union model because that would certainly explain the lack of success in recent years.

[pcb]

The problem the union has is one of having always to bargin over positions not interests. The state of negotiations outcomes always comes down to who blinks first. We know that we are mutually dependant upon each other in the long run. Without RM we would have no jobs, without the workforce (represented by the CWU) no labour. In the main, negotiations always come down to who wins when a mutually agreed objective would be preferable.
Whilst RM and CWU have in the past worked on the basis of positions we are now in a different sphere of business.
We are a privatised company and are only responsible to our shareholders. Fact.
For us to have a sustainable future we will have to look at different ways of working. Technological advances will become a daily occurrence making our jobs more "efficient" the use of barcodes, drop centres, packet sorting machines. The union has a obligation to ensure we the workers have the tools and receive the rewards due us when we deliver. No pun intended.
People from the floor like myself would be hard pressed to represent at national level without first gaining knowledge and experience.

[drb]

If local reps are left to deal with Sector Managers and Directors the obvious question will at some point occur to those reps...just what is the point in having area reps,divisional reps and the vast majority of the branch and divisional structure?

Surprise Surprise..I agree! However the time and effort it takes to learn and cross examine may be a bit of an issue. It would be down to the dedicated. Perhaps those on this forum who take the time to point out the national officers inadequacies may help?

Just on a slight slant on collective bargaining with senior managers. In my experience the higher you negotiate..the stupider they are! They have not a clue!