Paul Routledge article

[superpost]

If it was just about pay I'd probably agree with him, unfortunately as we all know it isn't. i think Paul along with everybody else in this country would rather see a mail system of mums in cars delivering after the school run for a couple of pence an item ( and putting parcels in recycling bins when theres no answer, my bin was collected before I could get the parcel),than have a professional company with professional people doing the job

[sadlersbitch]

I sent him this-
Thank you for your support in the past paul, you have been a rare beacon of light in the british press. However in your column in the mirror on friday sept 28 you say we should accept the 6.7% and go back to work. Paul, do you realy think if it was just about pay we would not have bitten Royal Mail`s hand of for 6.7%? sadly its not that simple. to get the 6.7% we have to agree to cuts in our pension(as reported in the Mirror) also to "total flexibility" which would mean we wouldn`t know what we were doing day to day, also we have to agree to our union being sidelined and possibly ignored, we have a management team who see no place for a union in such a buisness as Royal Mail.The deal also contains changes to our employment all of which would erode the service, and impact on jobs.The truth is this "deal" has more strings than a puppet factory.
As for the 6.7% the original offer was 2.5% the extra money has come from the ESOS (employee share of savings scheme) which under this agreement will be axed. so next year where does the extra money come from? the answer is it doesn`t so next year we face a pay cut
I understand your sentiment in what you were saying paul but unfortunately we have to deal in facts even if they are unpallatable

[donut]

WELL SAID SADLERSBITCH .... SPOT ON

[John_McC]

I sent a reply as follows:
Dear Sir/madam,
If the dispute between Royal Mail and us its workforce were just about pay then i could have some sympathy with Paul Routledge's postion in his article ''Call an end to this strike..post-haste ''.
Paul has been very fair to us postal workers and i commend him for it. However this dispute is not just about pay. It is about the very fundamental terms and conditions under which we work. When i joined Royal Mail in 1981 i was forced to take up a company pension. That pension promised me certain benefits in return for contributions and service. Royal Mail also paid contributions into my pension untill they took a pension holiday. This holiday deprived the fund of finance for many years and had indirectly contributed to Royal Mail, according to reports, seeking to raise my retirement age to 65, increase my contributions and change it from a final salary scheme to a career average earning scheme. They also have said that we are 25% overpaid and it is obvious that by using flexible working that the aim is to reduce our pay, in the long term, by that amount. In fact Royal Mail employees, according to National Statistics , basic pay of £324.92 (2007 rates) falls well behind that of 'Median earnings of full-time male employees [being] £487 per week in April 2006; [and] for women the median [being] £387. (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285). But even with this huge disparity i am of the opinion that most Royal Mail employees would accept the pay offer of 6.7% provided it was not linked with dracoian changes to our pensions or our terms and conditions. Space does not permit me to list all Royal Mail's demands, but they are not the demand of a reasonable employer.
So unless Royal Mail seeks to withdraw from its confrontation and moderate its demands, its workers have little choice but to strike in order to protect this public service. Finally in ending perhaps the public could consider what they have got out of competition being introduced to the market place, one delivery, later deliverys, massive increases in the price of a stamp, reduced collections, less post-office counters. The list of the negative benefits of competion seem endless, so to the general public and the employee there appears every reason to fight further liberalisation.

Good reply stephen500. Particularly your comments re what competition has done to the service.

Here Here :cfo :lfo