cwu an royal mail

[Halfhappy]

What exactly are you questioning?

Who's telling truth an who is trying to save face.

Union are telling the truth . Management saying their changes won't mean any compulsory redundancies yet we received two letters from management asking for help in making compulsory redundancies . Management can't even lie properly .

Were union telling the truth when they asked for a no strings payrise. which by the way didnt last very long.

I think they were, let's be honest we were all furious with the imposed 2%, regardless of what people are going to say with hindsight, there were few that were happy to accept it. Of course this persuit didn't last long because, boy did things escalate. It went from no strings to fighting compulsory redundancies overnight.

[sindba]

What exactly are you questioning?

Who's telling truth an who is trying to save face.

The truth about what?

We know exactly what Royal Mail are trying to do us, because we've read it from RM themselves.

And we are even starting to see it in our daily working lives.

[k979aaa]

Two sides to the story but I will put our case the fact that changing start times will impact child care issues as 25% of the workforce are women with children. As to other issues like working sundays and other changes have they thought through the complications as far as I am aware we don't have child care facilities or schools on sunday or after 4.00 PM. This is the madness of one mans thought process or the lack of never in all my time has such wanton destruction been carried out by one mans delusional vision!

[scotchy1962]

Two sides to the story but I will put our case the fact that changing start times will impact child care issues as 25% of the workforce are women with children. As to other issues like working sundays and other changes have they thought through the complications as far as I am aware we don't have child care facilities or schools on sunday or after 4.00 PM. This is the madness of one mans thought process or the lack of never in all my time has such wanton destruction been carried out by one mans delusional vision!

I have a thought on Royal Fails plans for the future and how simple Slymans agenda is pretty much a contradiction on itself from the get go. They say that the later start times are to allow for the carbon footprint of the company and less use of planes, now i am going to guess that the majority of all overseas mail and parcels come in on planes from all over the world including his much pushed for late at night 12am parcels which would have no way of getting around the place without the quickest form of transport available which let me just suggest would be........ Planes. So most of our product is transported locally with internal flights in our own country therefore probably minimal impact in terms of carbon footprint in comparison to the international stuff ( I wait to be corrected as i am not a expert ). So no need to push back any start times, the introduction of a afternoon parcel delivery....... hold on that already exists so why exactly are we pushing the start times back, apart from a vanity project on Slymans behalf with no real need for it. I struggle to get my head around the upper echelons of this company, they get a idea in their head and then decide it is the only way to go, nobody disputes the need for change but really what change for the better are they suggesting as simply rotating the hours around actually make little to no difference to how the company runs. We all took the job knowing it was early start early finish same as they invested in a 6 day USO. Sometimes when reinventing the wheel its best if it stays wheel shaped.

[FilthyBloke]

Two sides to the story but I will put our case the fact that changing start times will impact child care issues as 25% of the workforce are women with children. As to other issues like working sundays and other changes have they thought through the complications as far as I am aware we don't have child care facilities or schools on sunday or after 4.00 PM. This is the madness of one mans thought process or the lack of never in all my time has such wanton destruction been carried out by one mans delusional vision!

I have a thought on Royal Fails plans for the future and how simple Slymans agenda is pretty much a contradiction on itself from the get go. They say that the later start times are to allow for the carbon footprint of the company and less use of planes, now i am going to guess that the majority of all overseas mail and parcels come in on planes from all over the world including his much pushed for late at night 12am parcels which would have no way of getting around the place without the quickest form of transport available which let me just suggest would be........ Planes. So most of our product is transported locally with internal flights in our own country therefore probably minimal impact in terms of carbon footprint in comparison to the international stuff ( I wait to be corrected as i am not a expert ). So no need to push back any start times, the introduction of a afternoon parcel delivery....... hold on that already exists so why exactly are we pushing the start times back, apart from a vanity project on Slymans behalf with no real need for it. I struggle to get my head around the upper echelons of this company, they get a idea in their head and then decide it is the only way to go, nobody disputes the need for change but really what change for the better are they suggesting as simply rotating the hours around actually make little to no difference to how the company runs. We all took the job knowing it was early start early finish same as they invested in a 6 day USO. Sometimes when reinventing the wheel its best if it stays wheel shaped.

But from their point of view having an extra afternoon service means either more overtime or more staff doing the afternoons.
If they feel they can get all the letters and parcels/late parcels in one shift 8-30 - 4-30 then it will save them money.

[Woody Guthrie]

What exactly are you questioning?

Who's telling truth an who is trying to save face.

What do you think the union is lying about?

I think Royal Mail have made their aspirations clear so there's nothing the union can lie about in that.

As for the union's aspirations it was and always has been from day one (as it has been in any previous disputes) about damage limitation.

Yes it started with a demand for a no strings pay rise but what else were they supposed to demand, a pay rise with strings?

I think that initial interaction was designed to draw out Royal Mail's real plans, something they had refused to do by not engaging in any pay talks for three months. It worked.

[k979aaa]

Two sides to the story but I will put our case the fact that changing start times will impact child care issues as 25% of the workforce are women with children. As to other issues like working sundays and other changes have they thought through the complications as far as I am aware we don't have child care facilities or schools on sunday or after 4.00 PM. This is the madness of one mans thought process or the lack of never in all my time has such wanton destruction been carried out by one mans delusional vision!

I have a thought on Royal Fails plans for the future and how simple Slymans agenda is pretty much a contradiction on itself from the get go. They say that the later start times are to allow for the carbon footprint of the company and less use of planes, now i am going to guess that the majority of all overseas mail and parcels come in on planes from all over the world including his much pushed for late at night 12am parcels which would have no way of getting around the place without the quickest form of transport available which let me just suggest would be........ Planes. So most of our product is transported locally with internal flights in our own country therefore probably minimal impact in terms of carbon footprint in comparison to the international stuff ( I wait to be corrected as i am not a expert ). So no need to push back any start times, the introduction of a afternoon parcel delivery....... hold on that already exists so why exactly are we pushing the start times back, apart from a vanity project on Slymans behalf with no real need for it. I struggle to get my head around the upper echelons of this company, they get a idea in their head and then decide it is the only way to go, nobody disputes the need for change but really what change for the better are they suggesting as simply rotating the hours around actually make little to no difference to how the company runs. We all took the job knowing it was early start early finish same as they invested in a 6 day USO. Sometimes when reinventing the wheel its best if it stays wheel shaped.

But from their point of view having an extra afternoon service means either more overtime or more staff doing the afternoons.
If they feel they can get all the letters and parcels/late parcels in one shift 8-30 - 4-30 then it will save them money.

Most people are at or going to work then so like flogging a dead horse!

[grchpo]

Two sides to the story but I will put our case the fact that changing start times will impact child care issues as 25% of the workforce are women with children. As to other issues like working sundays and other changes have they thought through the complications as far as I am aware we don't have child care facilities or schools on sunday or after 4.00 PM. This is the madness of one mans thought process or the lack of never in all my time has such wanton destruction been carried out by one mans delusional vision!

I agree that the man is deluded but is it the responsibility of RM to make sure you have child care

[aiden01]

What exactly are you questioning?

Who's telling truth an who is trying to save face.

What do you think the union is lying about?

I think Royal Mail have made their aspirations clear so there's nothing the union can lie about in that.

As for the union's aspirations it was and always has been from day one (as it has been in any previous disputes) about damage limitation.

Yes it started with a demand for a no strings pay rise but what else were they supposed to demand, a pay rise with strings?

I think that initial interaction was designed to draw out Royal Mail's real plans, something they had refused to do by not engaging in any pay talks for three months. It worked.

Why demand a no strings payrise when there is no chance of getting it??also why was pullingers talks with kretinsky kept in the dark so long??

[Binsey]

Off the top of my head the Unions biggest failings of the last 20+ years has been…..

Refusing to deal with the huge issues in Delivery ie since the 2nd Deliveries finished in 2004.

The huge amount of Agency workers in MC , Network and Distribution.
This is now having consequences for members up and down the land regarding Employment, Job prospects,Overtime and SA etc,…

Owner drivers in Parcelforce…..

As for Royal Mail a total clusterf….

[TopperGas]

What exactly are you questioning?

Who's telling truth an who is trying to save face.

What do you think the union is lying about?

I think Royal Mail have made their aspirations clear so there's nothing the union can lie about in that.

As for the union's aspirations it was and always has been from day one (as it has been in any previous disputes) about damage limitation.

Yes it started with a demand for a no strings pay rise but what else were they supposed to demand, a pay rise with strings?

I think that initial interaction was designed to draw out Royal Mail's real plans, something they had refused to do by not engaging in any pay talks for three months. It worked.

Why demand a no strings payrise when there is no chance of getting it??also why was pullingers talks with kretinsky kept in the dark so long??

Perhaps they originally hoped they could get a no strings deal?

I sense only TP could have answered that question if he was still at work.

Regardless what's the alternative to the CWU we have an Employee Rep trying to agree a deal without being able to use IA as a threat, how do you think that would work out?

[Halfhappy]

What exactly are you questioning?

Who's telling truth an who is trying to save face.

What do you think the union is lying about?

I think Royal Mail have made their aspirations clear so there's nothing the union can lie about in that.

As for the union's aspirations it was and always has been from day one (as it has been in any previous disputes) about damage limitation.

Yes it started with a demand for a no strings pay rise but what else were they supposed to demand, a pay rise with strings?

I think that initial interaction was designed to draw out Royal Mail's real plans, something they had refused to do by not engaging in any pay talks for three months. It worked.

Why demand a no strings payrise when there is no chance of getting it??also why was pullingers talks with kretinsky kept in the dark so long??

I'm not even sure that this thread is a genuine question, it started with trust, that didn't catch. Then went to something about saving face, that didn't catch. Then on to the authenticity of a no strings pay rise, which seemed to be getting pulled at, excuse the pun. And, now it's throwing in a little Pullinger, which RM would've been all over, if it was anything.

With regards to the CWU, I'm not exactly sure what there is to not trust, or where there's been any sign of trying to save face. I don't know where they've shown signs of deceit or self-serving. As far as I have seen the union have been pretty upfront with us, in a rapidly escalating dispute, that I don't think anyone expected. We obviously don't hear everything, it's a negotiation. They communicate the information they can, when they can.

As for RM, we'll apart from showing deceit with regards to things such as compulsory redundancies and the actual value of the pay offer, they also want your job gone and ultimately to replace you with a temporary workforce, with no contracts, no sick pay, no allowances and no pension. I mean swings and roundabouts, eh?

What I have noticed is, there seems to be a an element of people, and I work with some, who think of the union as a separate group away from its members. I don't get it, I've asked why, and never had it explained. For these people there just seems to be a need to criticise, not in a constructive way. There's never an alternative, or better way, it's just criticism.

I can only think it would be beneficial to the entire workforce, to maybe see that this dispute isn't a 3 horse race. It's just us, supported by our union rep we elected, against a management that ultimately wants your job, as you know it, gone.

I accept the CWU is always going to be at the brunt of criticism over the decisions they make, to a degree. The people we elect to represent us are representing 115k members. They're have to use broad strokes. They are trying to garner the best possible terms for 115k members, who are all in different positions, and all with different circumstances. A P/T postie in a D.O. doesn't have much in common with a F/T ex-phg on night shift in a mailcentre, or a HGV driver in Parcelforce, or an MDEC worker keying on a late shift. We all see things from our circumstances, and relate to it accordingly. However, it's worth bearing this in mind when you're raging.

Whatever deal comes about, there is gonna be people who think it's wonderful, people who are just relieved it over and people who think we've been sold short. It's just worth remembering though, it's us, the members, who will vote on this, and ultimately decide.

To sum up... it's not complex, being part of a union is of benefit to any employee, even if that union isn't a particularly good one.

[Schiff]

To sum up... it's not complex, being part of a union is of benefit to any employee, even if that union isn't a particularly good one.

That is the definitive answer. I have often been critical of the union leadership, but if people fail to fully back them in this dispute then they are effectively backing Thompson against the rest of their colleagues.

[enskied]

Does anyone actually believe either side.

I just know my burden Aiden, my manager doesn't.