KYE DUDD

[Billy Ray]

Thought your election address was excellent you got my vote.

[Martin Walsh]

Idivduals do not change anything. There are 17 voting members of the postal executive plus the officers who cannot vote but provide the reports and recommendations. Personally I vote for Idivduals not on what they say in 300 words but what they have done to peruse the things they promise.

[davidwilshire]

Pointless election then really eh Dingo - will probably have a return of under 10%.

[Himaggen]

@dingo
I agree that the candidates should have a proven record of kept promises, beliefs and achievements. Unfortunately unless we've actually had contact with these individuals before we are voting based on the information with which we are provided.

If individuals do not change anything, are you suggesting that these candidates are campaigning for a position where they have no choice but to toe the line and vote like lemmings. (If not why bring it up as part of this discussion).

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Idivduals do not change anything. There are 17 voting members of the postal executive plus the officers who cannot vote but provide the reports and recommendations. Personally I vote for Idivduals not on what they say in 300 words but what they have done to peruse the things they promise.

Surley not on just that dingo. If so thats a strange way of voting if I may say without offending. With such an approach you are never going to get new blood in, or ever get a change of ethos. Voting just for what they have done is just a way of keeping the people in position there.

Me personally I weigh everything up. Their address, their history, how active they are, how much they reach out to ordinary members, what their politics are, and yes although minor I get a picture of them from what they post on Facebook and Twitter. I want a well rounded individual that shows promise, rather than rely on what past glories they have, no matter how effective they were.

[fishtank]

Your average member has not the slightest clue what individual candidates have done for the union in general or their own specific membership.
It would be wonderful if the union was open and honest about how particular members of the NEC and PEC vote on issues and who is responsible for what policy,who argues for what and who the hawks and doves are but that isn't going to happen so..
Either the members vote based on how the candidate comes across in his/her address,they vote for the same old faces for no other reason than they are the same old faces,they vote for people from their own area...or they don't vote at all.

Out of the four reasons the first one,although a bit shallow is surely the best of a bad bunch.

[General Mannerheim]

Well having one guy who is in my sector standing I really should have voted for him(no chance)..... but after reading all the candidates `vote for me` there was only one who didn't sound like a sycophant to the usual change is coming blah blah,isn't Royal Mail great blah blah and we must all pull together blah blah, that I'm sick of hearing.

[dvbuk55]

Idivduals do not change anything. There are 17 voting members of the postal executive plus the officers who cannot vote but provide the reports and recommendations. Personally I vote for Idivduals not on what they say in 300 words but what they have done to peruse the things they promise.

So much for getting involved!!!!! It's get involved and get sidelined and ignored - and you wonder why people don't get involved........that's why.

[Martin Walsh]

Dave , My own view is that we should have not had an election when Noel Left. Not just down to financial reasons but because I think the role of PEC has to be redefined. The PEC and NEC are there to hold the officers to account. However nowadays on industrial matters the PEC are often involved in the Negotations themselves so are not likely to hold the officers to account. In fact I am leaning towards Field Officals having a vote on certain matters based on the Branch's who they covers views.

[fishtank]

In fact I am leaning towards Field Officals having a vote on certain matters based on the Branch's who they covers views.

To justify that you would have to be sure that the branch views reflected the views of the members they represented and not the views of the branch officials themselves..
With the kind of turnout at branch AGM's we have i think you are in danger of the tail wagging the dog.
We need to resolve the issue of membership engagement before we start tinkering with the decision making process.

[dvbuk55]

Reading these posts it appears that the PEC both negotiate and decide the outcome without any recourse to the membership at all. How difficult would it be to contact local reps with what is on the table and what they would like to see. It seems that the negotiations and decision making are too remote from those of us who actually do the work. If anybody suggests it's the members who decide - I'd point out the last vote when there had to be a roadshow to get a positive decision.

[drb]

How about..and this may cause some debate! Every member of the PEC would be an area rep from every branch in the country (representing different parts of the country? The NEC itself,well I do not see the need myself. Divisional? Not sure!

[Martin Walsh]

Fish I don't agree that you have to do one before the other. I think the whole of what we do needs reviewing from the size of Branch's , the way they organise and the way a local unit operates. In addition in my view the Field Officals should ensure that Branch's organise in the right way.

Now Branch AGMs have always been hit and miss , we all know that this Was the case prior to 1992 and the bigger postcode Branch's have only added to the fact that only a small percentage of the total membership of a Branch attends an AGM often in a different town or city.

Add to this the declining membership levels who participate in NEC elections then we do need a shape up. I don't believe that the members don't care or are not interested in issues as most know it will effect them in the long run.

The PEC were taken to Henley on Thames last week and given a full presentation on the current finances from the business , the state of play in terms of Business Transformation , Royal Mail's vision for the fuutre , plus a report on new services and products it wants to lauch. In addition there was a guest speaker who has a very good knowledge of the Postal Indsutry word wide and he said Le Post invested prior to selling off, as did the Dutch model , however in the Uk we liberalised and lost 50% of the more profitable mail and now have no money to invest. Of course it is all doom and gloom and of course we will all treat it as Royal Mail's attempt to try and reduce what's n offer in the replacement to colleague share , the 2013 pay rise and the phase 3 talks but those in the Negotations will have a tough fight on their hands.

Should be an intresting few months and Royal Mail are claiming they are not getting enough savings from delivery revisons and the word upper decile is firmly back on their agenda !!!

[Himaggen]

Royal Mail are claiming they are not getting enough savings from delivery revisons

dingo, could you please try to explain to me what savings were expected in a delivery revision so that we can understand where the failures lie.

Same/Similar number of staff members, a yard full of new vehicles, new delivery equipment, and an acknowledged increase in delivery spans against …what?

[clashcityrocker]

Same/Similar number of staff members, a yard full of new vehicles, new delivery equipment, and an acknowledged increase in delivery spans against …what?

I vaguely remember them talking about 1 in 7 jobs going with the introduction of park and loop. Even if this was realistic given that a lot of offices were carrying a lot of vacancies, all they did was lose the vacancies.
The "model week" should have allowed for a reduction in the headcount but the problems with "flexing up", especially with a demotivated workforce, has meant the model week has had to be rethought and hasn't given any savings.
RCS/AWD and all that crap has had to be put right before revisions have gone in - often highlighting the shambles the poorly trained managers have been hiding.
Against very little savings they have had to fund vehicles,trolleys, yard improvements, new frames etc.

No wonder dingo says the "upper decile" is back on their agenda.
There haven't been enough savings on the outdoor revisions - so they will screw the indoors.
They will produce bogus office EPs, make those offices the benchmark for whole areas and try and claw some savings back.