not on facebook
ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (UPDATED APR 2019)... HERE

ANNOUNCEMENT : NEW CORONAVIRUS FORUM... HERE



I'm voting no

16 Sep 2017, 09:42

steve1873 wrote:How the **** will the payrise not benefit part-timers? Engage your brain before you type please! :arrrghhh

Because the current offer is a lump sum, the headline figure of £375 doesn't apply to part time staff.
It would be a percentage of £375.
You are right it would benefit them - but not greatly.

I'm voting no

16 Sep 2017, 10:26

... I did go on to say that others too will lose out - because a lump sum will be less than what would have earned if the pay rise was implemented into wages and backdated.

- posting whilst doing delivery - no need for quotation anyway...

* Just to highlight to the poster that I am passionate about the part time cause.

** A large number of part timers on 20x hours do overtime to make up the wages - some are even coarsed into it as their office is permanently short of staff.

*** Some that started years back really thought (some even assured during interview) that they will be made up but now we know that is almost a zero chance of that happening.

**** I do not agree that the CWU are pushing the part timer's cause - by the way, I have written to Terry Pullinger about certain part time issues; not even a standard reply and area not helpful...

***** Lastly, I am not on 20x hours contract!
Last edited by chrisj on 16 Sep 2017, 14:12, edited 1 time in total.

I'm voting no

16 Sep 2017, 12:02

chrisj wrote:
jack~jack wrote:Has anybody else found that royal mail's constant propaganda, bullying and harassment during the last few weeks. Has turned me from an easy going union member into a red hot activist for the C.W.U.?


Why the coarse language? Perhaps you should read what you highlighted in bold and then your response. I did go on to say that others too will lose out - because a lump sum will be less than what would have earned if the pay rise was implemented into wages and backdated.

Typical!



I think you quoted the wrong post.

I'm voting no

16 Sep 2017, 14:47

chrisj wrote:... I did go on to say that others too will lose out - because a lump sum will be less than what would have earned if the pay rise was implemented into wages and backdated.

- posting whilst doing delivery - no need for quotation anyway...

* Just to highlight to the poster that I am passionate about the part time cause.

** A large number of part timers on 20x hours do overtime to make up the wages - some are even coarsed into it as their office is permanently short of staff.

*** Some that started years back really thought (some even assured during interview) that they will be made up but now we know that is almost a zero chance of that happening.

**** I do not agree that the CWU are pushing the part timer's cause - by the way, I have written to Terry Pullinger about certain part time issues; not even a standard reply and area not helpful...

***** Lastly, I am not on 20x hours contract!


How? If it was backdated then it would be pro-rata also - the percentage would apply to the hours worked. If everyone was handed the lump sum of £375 then then that would in effect mean part-time staff were scoring a larger percentage payrise than their full-time colleagues!

I'm voting no

16 Sep 2017, 15:26

Help!

You have to follow my argument and the part time issue... I suppose most of the vocal posters here are full time.

It appears hard for some to understand the concept of average hours worked (up to a maximum of full time contract)... This should apply to all benefits including this pay rise lump sum.

Just like it happened when we were allocated the first tranche of shares.

Do we now understand?

I'm voting no

16 Sep 2017, 16:29

FelicityRae wrote:A yes vote doesn't make you obliged to strike though. It just gives the cwu a stronger hand on negotiating.



This :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup

I'm voting no

16 Sep 2017, 16:31

chrisj wrote:It appears hard for some to understand the concept of average hours worked (up to a maximum of full time contract)... This should apply to all benefits including this pay rise lump sum.

Do we now understand?


No as to why you appear to be advocating a No Vote.

Yes to why this is an important issue for you, me, and ideally everyone else.

I'm voting no

16 Sep 2017, 18:38

I am not advocating a NO vote! I am also not advocating a YES vote.

I know which way I am leaning but this is a private ballot!

I just do not hold the current crop of Union officials in the highest regard that others do - and will not just surrender my vote potentially to people I do not trust or understand their tactics and those that might potentially lead us to ruin.

Once you give a political organisation a large mandate, you cannot then turn round and start questioning how they go about things...

Some even said a YES vote does not mean one has to go on strike - what is that all about? You are being balloted fir a strike and a snake dance; it might be bloody or fatal.

I'm voting no

16 Sep 2017, 18:54

Some even said a YES vote does not mean one has to go on strike - what is that all about?

A yes vote gives the CWU a mandate to go all out to achieve it's/our aims, while a No vote means RM can laugh off any "threats" the CWU could make.
A No vote means any subsequent negotiations will be a pointless waste of time.

I'm voting no

16 Sep 2017, 19:05

chrisj wrote:I am not advocating a NO vote! I am also not advocating a YES vote.

I know which way I am leaning but this is a private ballot!

I just do not hold the current crop of Union officials in the highest regard that others do - and will not just surrender my vote potentially to people I do not trust or understand their tactics and those that might potentially lead us to ruin.

Once you give a political organisation a large mandate, you cannot then turn round and start questioning how they go about things...

Some even said a YES vote does not mean one has to go on strike - what is that all about? You are being balloted fir a strike and a snake dance; it might be bloody or fatal.

Hazard a guess you are leaning towards a no vote :hmmmm :hmmmm

I'm voting no

16 Sep 2017, 21:22

Imagine if a no vote won RM would be laughing their socks off and you would all be doomed,you would all be treated so much worse than what you are now.They could do whatever they wanted and you just wouldnt be able to do a thing about it.It doesnt bear thinking about. :hmmmm

I'm voting no

16 Sep 2017, 23:45

Tman wrote:
Some even said a YES vote does not mean one has to go on strike - what is that all about?

A yes vote gives the CWU a mandate to go all out to achieve it's/our aims, while a No vote means RM can laugh off any "threats" the CWU could make.
A No vote means any subsequent negotiations will be a pointless waste of time.


I don't know why people can't see this.

Even when we win a landslide majority in the ballot for yes, RM will still be keenly eyeing the percentages. If we only mustered 60% for example, the rate of attrition when strike actually took place could soon turn the sentiment towards ending the strike.

A union is only strong if we stick together, that's all it's ever been a collective effort. The reason the miners strike failed so horribly in the 80s was you had collieries still operating while the strikes were taking place, and no real across the board unity. I except back then it would have been a lot harder to coordinate/communicate with members without the advent of social media, but the lack of unity is what ruined it.

I'm voting no

17 Sep 2017, 00:18

If you are want to compare this dispute with the miners strike you are dreaming do you really expect postal workers would to stay out for months like they did not a chance it wouldn't last 2 weeks before everyone was back at work maybe you don't remember the hardship they went through it will never happen again

I'm voting no

17 Sep 2017, 00:28

All the people I've heard who either said they're voting no, or don't care, have said the same thing - the plans don't affect them (only new starters, those on legacy payments etc), so why should they care.

The point of a union is that it's united. "It doesn't affect me, so why should I bother". When you need the union, I hope they say the same thing - it's your problem, deal with it yourself.

A union only works when everyone works together. New starters might get screwed over but give it a few years and they'll be the majority of the workforce. Even before then, the company will be saying "these people are happy with their conditions, so should you", and their pay and conditions will be pushed on the rest of us.

I'm voting no

17 Sep 2017, 05:40

stan_lers wrote:All the people I've heard who either said they're voting no, or don't care, have said the same thing - the plans don't affect them (only new starters, those on legacy payments etc), so why should they care.

The point of a union is that it's united. "It doesn't affect me, so why should I bother". When you need the union, I hope they say the same thing - it's your problem, deal with it yourself.

A union only works when everyone works together. New starters might get screwed over but give it a few years and they'll be the majority of the workforce. Even before then, the company will be saying "these people are happy with their conditions, so should you", and their pay and conditions will be pushed on the rest of us.

I keep seeing people making comments about unions needing to be united and how we all need to work together, I wasn't there in 2008 but I've spoken to people who were and from my understanding nobody fought for my rights, it was a matter of I don't care what happens to the new people's pensions and conditions as long as you don't touch mine.
The divide between new starters and longer serving staff happened in 2008, that's a lot of people who might not be fully behind a strike.

I'm voting no

17 Sep 2017, 07:12

chrisj wrote:Furthermore, RM has now come up with sums claiming the CWU will make 70% worse off.


I saw this on my pda friday but there was no detail. Surprised this has not been picked up by more folk or the cwu yet.

I'm voting no

17 Sep 2017, 16:19

chrisj wrote:Some even said a YES vote does not mean one has to go on strike - what is that all about? You are being balloted fir a strike and a snake dance; it might be bloody or fatal.


Really? You don't understand how democracy works?

The bigger the yes vote, the stronger the Unions position is.

The stronger the Unions position the more likely there will be a compromise deal acceptable to the majority of members.

The bigger the No Vote, the weaker the Unions Position is. The weaker the Unions position the less likely Royal Mail will compromise.

It's not a difficult concept, but it is one some struggle to understand.


Also even if you do vote Yes for a strike, there is no law, process or contract that demands you honour that vote - though I will.

I'm voting no

17 Sep 2017, 17:16

I have voted YES for strike action in every ballot we have had and voted NO for every agreement that has come out of said strike action.

For instance I can't rem what agreement it was to screw new starters over the 1st year no sick pay thing, like I said I voted no for every agreement as each agreement was/is, a recipe for disaster and would always be interpreted by managers differently to what was actually in the agreement, the wording of every agreement is s**t.

CWU to this day have not learnt their lesson with that, will they in any new agreements.

I feel for the newbies and part timers, they could be the downfall in this dispute.

CWU to this day seem to have not learnt their lesson with the newbies and part timers, will it now bite them on the arse.

And lets not forget the ignorance of " some if not most " full timers/senior staff ignoring newbies and part timers. troubles.

I'm voting no

17 Sep 2017, 17:18

Just went to look at the vote thread, at the time of writing this is the latest post on it...

it's a NO for me guys.

As a part time floater I have never received one ounce of help from any senior members who all have easy rounds and yet moan, moan, moan.
I complained in a wtl that I haven't had a saturday off in 9 months and not one person backed me up - the cwu rep even said " operational needs"
I'll do my 25 hours same as usual - which is what I do every week.
I've come to realise its each man for himself with royal mail so I'm voting for me.
If I dont like any changes then I'll leave and get another job.
Not too sure if its true but another part time said in 2008 the CWU stitched up 2008 + starters with pensions.
Not meaning to antagonise but thats how I feel

I'm voting no

17 Sep 2017, 17:25

POSTMAN wrote:I have voted YES for strike action in every ballot we have had and voted NO for every agreement that has come out of said strike action.

For instance I can't rem what agreement it was to screw new starters over the 1st year no sick pay thing, like I said I voted no for every agreement as each agreement was/is, a recipe for disaster and would always be interpreted by managers differently to what was actually in the agreement, the wording of every agreement is s**t.

CWU to this day have not learnt their lesson with that, will they in any new agreements.

I feel for the newbies and part timers, they could be the downfall in this dispute.

CWU to this day seem to have not learnt their lesson with the newbies and part timers, will it now bite them on the arse.

And lets not forget the ignorance of " some if not most " full timers/senior staff ignoring newbies and part timers. troubles.


Aren't the part-timers in a way their own worst enemy? If they all stuck with just their contract hours, RM might have been forced to make more of them upto full time. Why does RM need to make part-timers up to full time when they can get the work covered as needed by part-timers on ot?

Previous page Next page


Page 4 of 6   1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6