What will ultimately break this dispute?

[clashcityrocker]

IMO, a big step forward would be a signed commitment from management on no compulsory redundancies.

How exactly can a business guarantee no compulsory redundancies?
What other businesses provide such a guarantee?
Did any previous agreement between RM and the CWU contain such a guarantee?

I could be wrong but wasn't the wording - the overarching objective would be to avoid compulsory redundancies?

[BenacreNick]

Re: What will ultimately break this dispute?

Striking for the whole week before Easter should just about do it.

If that doesn't work them I'm out of ideas

[Halfhappy]

The union will have to give up something unless they think a Labour Government are going to give us a 100% pay rise and we all live happily ever after. Every strike I've been involved in we end up no better off. We lost d2d payments and final salary pension. Realistically some people are not going to be happy with any part of a deal. They never are.

Of course they will, I don't think anyone is expecting a deal without compromise. I just wouldn't put 10,000+ compulsory redundancies, whilst employing agency and advertising lesser term jobs, as that something. As for Labour, I've read two articles in the last 24hrs, one in the Guardian, where both Starmer and Reeves have refused to commit to repealing the anti-union laws being forced in. The second is in the Telegraph in which Streeting vows war on health unions. There's gonna be no salvation there.

[Halfhappy]

IMO, a big step forward would be a signed commitment from management on no compulsory redundancies.

How exactly can a business guarantee no compulsory redundancies?
What other businesses provide such a guarantee?
Did any previous agreement between RM and the CWU contain such a guarantee?

I could be wrong but wasn't the wording - the overarching objective would be to avoid compulsory redundancies?

The guarantee of no compulsory is achieved through managed voluntary, over a certain time period, as has been the case for as long as I've been in RM. Possibly the problem RM have, is they don't necessarily want less staff, they just want staff on lesser terms, and in precarious employment. From the small tidbits I've seen in here, CR has certain criteria it needs to meet, and doesn't seem so straight forward. I think this how it's usually approached.

[LouBarlow]

Re: What will ultimately break this dispute?

Striking for the whole week before Easter should just about do it.

If that doesn't work them I'm out of ideas

So RM haven’t shifted despite backlogs around the country, during Christmas, and you somehow think they will capitulate at Easter?

[Wullie10]

The union will have to give up something unless they think a Labour Government are going to give us a 100% pay rise and we all live happily ever after. Every strike I've been involved in we end up no better off. We lost d2d payments and final salary pension. Realistically some people are not going to be happy with any part of a deal. They never are.

Of course they will, I don't think anyone is expecting a deal without compromise. I just wouldn't put 10,000+ compulsory redundancies, whilst employing agency and advertising lesser term jobs, as that something. As for Labour, I've read two articles in the last 24hrs, one in the Guardian, where both Starmer and Reeves have refused to commit to repealing the anti-union laws being forced in. The second is in the Telegraph in which Streeting vows war on health unions. There's gonna be no salvation there.

Reading the posts everyone is expecting a deal without compromise. As for redundancies the workforce is ageing and you could easily get rid of that many voluntary if there was a honest deal negotiated. But when you hear the union leaders talk of national strikes etc then its obvious it's becoming political with other larger objectives rather than trying to work out a solution for posties. That's why I think a solution to solve the dispute is going to be difficult. RM just say its political so bring in what terms they want. The public turn against us. Welcome to 1978 just hope the power stays on. I have no faith in any political party.

[Halfhappy]

It is a political strike.the aim is ultimately a Labour government. History will repeat itself. Like james Challaghan in 1978 who found himself with massive inflation the unions will strike until the public have had enough as large wage increases will further fuel inflation and deafet the object. That brought in the era of Thatcher who deregulated the financial markets . This created prosperity for working people for a short while as it increased asset prices and created cheap money and massive public and private debt. But ultimately it only favoured the rich as increased asset prices only favour the rich. Interesting that the present government are brining in new anti union laws and more relaxed financial rules. As I say History just repeats himself.. The CWU mistake was not trying to reach an agreement for its members ages ago which may have not suited every worker but they chose a political war instead. It would make more sense if people tried to understand what created inflation in the first place The Russian Ukraine conflict , QE ( money printing ) first introduced by Alister Darling to save the banks and the ridiculous lockdowns which all parties supported.

I thought it was the bring down the government line. I suppose the attacks on our jobs, and terms are a coincidence? I've no doubt the CWU most probably want a labour government, but to think we're being balloted and striking for the goal of achieving that, is ridiculous. As for wages increasing inflation, inflation is through the roof, and no one has had a near inflation pay increase for 10yrs, the only thing increasing is profits. We have this situation as there's no money flowing in the economy. Ask yourself where all this money that's been printed during the pandemic is? £450 billion, I think. Where is it? Its not flowing in the economy where it should be. This government has chose the arbitrary number of 5yrs to pay off this debt, it's doesn't have to do that. They could choose longer, instead they're opting for austerity.

[norris9]

The guarantee of no compulsory is achieved through managed voluntary, over a certain time period, as has been the case for as long as I've been in RM. Possibly problem the RM have, is they don't necessarily want less staff, they just want staff on lesser terms, and in precarious employment. From the small tidbits I've seen in here, CR has certain criteria it needs to meet, and doesn't seem so straight forward. I think this how it's usually approached.

How can there be significant compulsory redundancies?

Based on the poll we have put up in this forum, most people aren't being offered voluntary redundancy. If they wanted to get rid of as many posties as possible - why don't they pay off all those who applied for VR and replace them all with cheaper labour.

Surely they can't choose X amount for VR and then do X amount of CR........don't they - by law - have to pay off the VR applicants first?

The only way I assume they can move onto CR is if there are offices where very few applied for VR and that office is also pretty full with employees and none want to move office.

-I don't know if the above is correct - I am hoping someone can clarify all this.

[Halfhappy]

The guarantee of no compulsory is achieved through managed voluntary, over a certain time period, as has been the case for as long as I've been in RM. Possibly problem the RM have, is they don't necessarily want less staff, they just want staff on lesser terms, and in precarious employment. From the small tidbits I've seen in here, CR has certain criteria it needs to meet, and doesn't seem so straight forward. I think this how it's usually approached.

How can there be significant compulsory redundancies?

Based on the poll we have put up in this forum, most people aren't being offered voluntary redundancy. If they wanted to get rid of as many posties as possible - why don't they pay off all those who applied for VR and replace them all with cheaper labour.

Surely they can't choose X amount for VR and then do X amount of CR........don't they - by law - have to pay off the VR applicants first?

The only way I assume they can move onto CR is if there are offices where very few applied for VR and that office is also pretty full with employees and none want to move office.

-I don't know if the above is correct - I am hoping someone can clarify all this.

It think it's the mailcentres where the redundancies are hitting. If I remember rightly there's a thread on here, with the announcements. That's the problem with polls on a forum, 98% of Royal Mail employees aren't on here, lol.

[heapsy]

Tbh I think the best we can hope for is a few tweaks to the deal. There's a number of problems regarding the whole thing.
There's a natural split in the work force due to age. Older staff with a few years to go are on count down and just want to get out. These will likely stick it out due to their pensions, and the fact they don't fancy starting again, just for a few years. Better the devil you know. The younger ones don't look 30 years down the road. Most offices have got these and they don't give a toss about pensions and the future in general. They see everything as short term and will probably move on within the next 5 to 10 years. I do find it difficult to see how a change in business model will work, when if you look at the job vacancy situation, people can get a less physical job out of the weather working in a supermarket.
I'm probably going to get some flack hear, but I honestly believe the best way is to accept a two tier work force. The sick pay, self certification thing is a big issue. This is largely down to people abusing it for their own means. I truly we should try to keep this. Those in deliver will know just how difficult the job is with a muscle strain that takes weeks to shake off.
I think the CWU should ditch the idea of Drive to 35 and settle on the current 37 hrs. If we can get RM to make those on 35 hrs up to 37 this should be seen as a good thing both for pay and pension purposes.
We might have to accept that SSP will come in, especially for new starters. Yes I know, a red line for most but I don't see how we can move forward without this.
Actual changing of start times might not be a bad as we think. Most offices have already moved over the years. I believe that the parcel duties are more likely to start later than deliveries.

[walthmstowman]

IMO, a big step forward would be a signed commitment from management on no compulsory redundancies.

How exactly can a business guarantee no compulsory redundancies?
What other businesses provide such a guarantee?
Did any previous agreement between RM and the CWU contain such a guarantee?

I could be wrong but wasn't the wording - the overarching objective would be to avoid compulsory redundancies?

Royal Mail are employing over 11,000 casual staff every week. That was happening long before the strikes started. We’ve had them in my MC for ages now.Royal Mail can easily take compulsory redundancies off the table

[POSTPERSON50]

There won't be any resolution come Christmas.
The mail will be terribly backed up, but Royal Mail will play it out.

Royal Mail are happy with the firm being destroyed in its current guise. It will lose a hell of a lot of money over the Christmas period, but they have factored that in anyway.

The world will be a different place come January.
A slow clearance, but an eventual catch up of the backlog will happen. Once that does happen, strike action has no effect.
Most people will be cold, tired and broke with an uncertain future ahead.

What then?

[walthmstowman]

A lot of angry shareholders watching their investments going down the drain

[Acca Dacca]

A lot of angry shareholders watching their investments going down the drain

The reality is most of those shareholders will use any lower share price to just buy some more on the cheap and wait it out

[heapsy]

A lot of angry shareholders watching their investments going down the drain

The reality is most of those shareholders will use any lower share price to just buy some more on the cheap and wait it out

I think you're right. Investors nearly always play the long game, with the occasional exception. They will probably top up on their holding.