16 Sep 2017, 09:42
steve1873 wrote:How the **** will the payrise not benefit part-timers? Engage your brain before you type please!
16 Sep 2017, 10:26
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.
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!
16 Sep 2017, 15:26
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.
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?
16 Sep 2017, 18:38
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?
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.
16 Sep 2017, 21:22
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.
17 Sep 2017, 00:18
17 Sep 2017, 00:28
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.
17 Sep 2017, 07:12
chrisj wrote:Furthermore, RM has now come up with sums claiming the CWU will make 70% worse off.
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.
17 Sep 2017, 17:16
17 Sep 2017, 17:18
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
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.