not on facebook
ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (UPDATED 2017)... HERE

ANNOUNCEMENT : NEW CORONAVIRUS FORUM... HERE



This will not be a popular post

08 Mar 2020, 08:40

Are any of us really free???

This will not be a popular post

08 Mar 2020, 09:04

terry2972 wrote:Are any of us really free???


I bit deep for this early on a Sunday Terry. :Very Happy I would argue that anyone that has to work to pay rent, or mortgage, and all the other bills that modern life brings ...... is not really Free. :hmmmm I have often tried to reduce the ammount of money I have to pay out just so I don't have to work like a dog to make ends meet. :cuppa

This will not be a popular post

08 Mar 2020, 09:20

Shocking really that Workers Rights can just be pushed aside so easily when it suits the Establishment. :cuppa



I can break it down even further Dorset.

The anti-trade union laws are unfair.
The CWU broke those laws.

This blog was written by the UK Labour law group, it's an opinion which I do agree with mostly apart from a couple of fundamental points.

1. How unfair a law is does not affect how unlawful it is.

2. Just because the employer used a section of the law designed to protect workers against its own workers it doesn't mean the original act was lawful.

It's very dangerous especially nowadays to blame the 'establishment' every time things don't go your way. It breeds distrust in all institutions (including the law) which leads to populism like Trump and Brexit. This was not about the 'establishment' it was about a law everybody knew about being broken and gifting RM an easy win in the courts.

That was a stupid mistake and the union should own it so hopefully they think twice next time someone comes up with another hare-brained idea.

This will not be a popular post

08 Mar 2020, 09:38

Dorset Plodder wrote:
rogersh wrote:Postby TrueBlueTerrier

https://uklabourlawblog.com/2020/03/06/ ... abadjieva/

Date: March 6, 2020
Author: UK Labour Law Blog


d) Benefit to the employer


Finally, this case is a remarkable example of an employer successfully preventing industrial action on the basis of legal provisions which are intended to benefit workers. Many of the other notable cases, such as Metrobus, RMT v Serco or British Airways Plc v British Airline Pilots’ Association [2019] EWCA Civ 1633 have concerned provisions (information and notice requirements) which are at least partially, if not entirely, intended to benefit the employer. As discussed above, the purpose of s 230 is to ensure that workers can cast their vote freely, and the purpose of ballots more generally is to ensure that industrial action has a democratic mandate. Here the employer is, effectively, able to use these provisions against workers, in a way which interferes much more deeply with their ability to choose whether and when to take industrial action than any action of the union. This paradox—which is not legally problematic—is perhaps the inevitable product of the fact that organising and going on strike is regarded in law as a prima facie wrongdoing against the employer, rather than as an expression of the fundamental human right of workers to defend their interests through collective action. So long as this is the case, the burden will remain on unions and workers seeking to defend their interest to show that they enjoy an immunity, on top of all the other challenges of organising a successful strike against ever more powerful and well-resourced employers; and the labour injunction will remain a key piece in the arsenal of employers keen to suppress collective action.

3) Conclusion

Even if we accept the reasoning of the judges at every stage—and I have criticised aspects of that reasoning above—the result in the case itself is difficult to accept. As Sir Patrick Elias says (para 89), given the high turnout and overwhelming ‘yes’ vote, it is difficult to believe that the result of the ballot would have been any different without the actions of the union in question. There was clearly wide support for the planned industrial action and a strong dissatisfaction amongst union members with the behaviour of the employer. Yet, workers were not able to exercise their right to take collective action, because the employer—hardly the hero of the story—was able to take advantage of provisions intended to protect workers against those workers. That such a scenario is possible under UK law is evidence of the fact that the system of immunities, as it stands at the moment, is simply not an adequate way of protecting workers’ and trade unions’ right to strike.
All post by me in Green are Admin Posts.


Bit of a daunting post at first glance ...... perhaps this will make it a bit more attractive to read to those with limited attention spans ? :hmmmm The rest you can peruse at your leisure. Doesn't say whether they're going to do anything about it. Shocking really that Workers Rights can just be pushed aside so easily when it suits the Establishment. :cuppa


Yes Dorset a bit daunting but I think it was necessary to post the whole article. It is a point of view. It's fine if people who think the union F***d up still hold the same opinion after reading it. The focus is now on the next ballot result & thereafter.

This will not be a popular post

08 Mar 2020, 09:49

Woody Guthrie wrote:
1. How unfair a law is does not affect how unlawful it is.

2. Just because the employer used a section of the law designed to protect workers against its own workers it doesn't mean the original act was lawful.


This is unfortunately true and the union should have been aware of that in my view.

The law is horribly biased against unions and industrial action. The flip side of that is it's what the British population have voted for for the past forty-odd years, it's not an 'establishment stitch-up', it's democracy (albeit a far from ideal form of democracy) in action. Don't blame the judges, blame the law-makers and those who've voted for them (and that will include the vast majority of us, neither Tories, Labour under Blair/Brown, nor the Coalition government did anything to sort these laws out, nor did we demand that they did).

This will not be a popular post

08 Mar 2020, 16:12

aiden01 wrote:
daveyeff wrote:
clashcityrocker wrote:So why isn't the rep pushing to have the WTLL rerun for the benefit of the part time staff?
Or is the rep content to see the part time staff working 30 minutes extra each week?
That is 24 hours extra each year. £250 free work from each part timer.
Does the rep not care?

he seems to take managements side when they get 'slated' for any reason. always seems to try to justify their stance on anything. he is also a workplace coach as well. no other takers for rep's job either. so its him or no-one.

An yet you back cwu 100% how does that work if your own CWU REP IS SHITE.

''one bad apple'' as the saying goes. we've always got the A/R and the branch. i've had many scraps and disagreements with reps over the years but i will ALWAYS back my union. we would be well up shitcreek without a paddle if we didn't have the CWU.

This will not be a popular post

08 Mar 2020, 20:33

daveyeff wrote:
aiden01 wrote:
daveyeff wrote:
clashcityrocker wrote:So why isn't the rep pushing to have the WTLL rerun for the benefit of the part time staff?
Or is the rep content to see the part time staff working 30 minutes extra each week?
That is 24 hours extra each year. £250 free work from each part timer.
Does the rep not care?

he seems to take managements side when they get 'slated' for any reason. always seems to try to justify their stance on anything. he is also a workplace coach as well. no other takers for rep's job either. so its him or no-one.

An yet you back cwu 100% how does that work if your own CWU REP IS SHITE.

''one bad apple'' as the saying goes. we've always got the A/R and the branch. i've had many scraps and disagreements with reps over the years but i will ALWAYS back my union. we would be well up shitcreek without a paddle if we didn't have the CWU.

So your rep is ( one bad apple) and the cwu do a great job dream on need changes from top to bottom in my humble opinion

This will not be a popular post

08 Mar 2020, 21:12

they're not great. no. but can you imagine this job without them.

This will not be a popular post

09 Mar 2020, 14:29

Woody Guthrie wrote:
I can break it down even further Dorset.

The anti-trade union laws are unfair.
The CWU broke those laws.


I think we all realise now that the last Ballot was handled badly, and the Union, and some Members, were very naive in their postings on Facebook. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. :arrrghhh

I realise Life ain't Fair, and we can't always blame the Establishment, but to look at such a small aspect of that VERY Obvious Result ..... and Turn it Over Completely is Ridiculous. Fair Enough that's the Law but as they say ...."If that is against the Law, then the Law is an Ass". I hope we can do someting to change it in the Future. :cuppa

This will not be a popular post

09 Mar 2020, 14:31

rogersh wrote:
Yes Dorset a bit daunting but I think it was necessary to post the whole article. It is a point of view. It's fine if people who think the union F***d up still hold the same opinion after reading it. The focus is now on the next ballot result & thereafter


I wasn't having a dig mate. I think it was a fair point to share the entire article. :cuppa

This will not be a popular post

10 May 2020, 22:07

wdo1256 wrote:Feduppostie
They are already trying to change our contracts via shift pattern changes, ie later start times or getting rid of 9 day fortnights, Wallingtons.


Contracts usually outline total hours over a period (usually a month). I'm not aware that shifts, Wallingtons or similar are contractual at all in legal terms and they are certainly not listed in the contract as far as I am aware.

This will not be a popular post

16 May 2020, 20:02

freespeech wrote:
wdo1256 wrote:Feduppostie
They are already trying to change our contracts via shift pattern changes, ie later start times or getting rid of 9 day fortnights, Wallingtons.


Contracts usually outline total hours over a period (usually a month). I'm not aware that shifts, Wallingtons or similar are contractual at all in legal terms and they are certainly not listed in the contract as far as I am aware.

Contracts are the same weekly where you do 38 hours as it is now and in effect work your day off and the employer should give you the whole week off if you have done the previous 5 weeks without absence. As to hours and contracts I had late's nights dawn shifts when I started and you had to do overtime in those days and Bank Holidays as well.

Previous page Next page


Page 10 of 10   1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10