“The legislation will be put to the Commons "in the coming weeks" and set minimum service levels for fire, ambulance and rail services for when the sectors decide to take action.
The government will consult on what those service levels should be, but said it would take into account that "disruption to blue light services puts lives at immediate risk".
There had been reports that other sectors would also be covered by the new laws, including health, education, nuclear power, other transport services and border security.”
Do you lot actually think now Xmas and January is out the way Royal Mail give a toss if we strike or
Not with the new torrie laws in place meaning they’ll be a workforce in place
Live in la la land
The new laws only propose a minimum service level for public sector workers, don't they? I don't think we come within the remit of them.
Erm… I thought we were Key Workers?
The law if implemented will definitely apply to us.
Doubt it very much, this is the proposed bill:
Regulations under subsection (3) may specify only services that fall
within any of the following categories—
(a) health services;
(b) fire and rescue services;
(c) education services;
(d) transport services;
(e) decommissioning of nuclear installations and management
of radioactive waste and spent fuel;
(f) border security.
I thought one of the first things they needed to discuss is the guidelines for the revisions.
They will need to communicate that (or the lack of agreement) pretty quickly.
Either the reps are to engage with the revision process or they are not. Simon says they will be going ahead with or without agreement.
If they can't agree on that. what is the point of carrying on the talks?
From what I am hearing at my office - they are going to have 18% of walks with nobody on them and they will be absorbed....whatever that means - it's impossible for us to even clear our rounds now due to having no 'day off cover' and essentially delivering 6 days worth of mail within 5 days.
Our office has ignored the USO for 2 years and it seems like it's going to continue to do so. No respect for the USO, no respect for the people paying for the service - both senders and recipients.
There is more pressure on the business to agree a deal now than there ever has been.
The strikes have been incredibly damaging for Royal Mail financially and reputationally and they must deploy a recovery plan at pace.
The thought of deploying these revisions against the will of the staff has most managers terrified because they know after the capitulation of the CMA last year they have no protection if they fail.
The bottom line is you can criticise the union all you like but they are the only people in the room who talk for us.
Even if you don't support the CWU strategy or think that all is lost it makes no sense to withdraw your support, If you do that you're actually giving the union a free pass to say that they could have reached an agreement but the members let them down.
If you truly believe the union has failed the best thing to do is make sure you vote yes in the upcoming ballot to force the negotiators to take full ownership of the final outcome of the dispute.
Criticism of HQ is fine, I've done plenty of it in the past but you have to at least think through the consequences of any alternative.
What will withdrawing support for the union achieve?
I thought one of the first things they needed to discuss is the guidelines for the revisions.
They will need to communicate that (or the lack of agreement) pretty quickly.
Either the reps are to engage with the revision process or they are not. Simon says they will be going ahead with or without agreement.
If they can't agree on that. what is the point of carrying on the talks?
There was a topic thread earlier on during the dispute that had a Power Point slide
that had a list of what managers could and couldn't do wrt revisions under the existing IR
guidance IIRC. Someone might be able to trace it.
Edit: Found it, but it appears it is NOT the agreed procedure:
What will withdrawing support for the union achieve?
I get what you are saying, I guess the counter argument would be:
It will provide pressure on them to reach an agreement with the employer. Both entities need pressure applied to them or there's no chance of ever reaching an agreement.
A Union's role is to get the best agreement they can out of the employer, then put it to their members. In this current dispute, that clearly requires compromise from both sides. If you damage the business too much in the process, ultimately it'll be to the detriment to members anyways.
Lets assume a massive 85% turnout, 100% yes vote, that just enables the CWU to be as stubborn as they want. If they lose support, they will have to make concessions. The question really is, whether individual posties are willing to make those concessions. Accepting most of the change (with mitigation where possible), is probably the only resolution to this dispute.
What will withdrawing support for the union achieve?
I get what you are saying, I guess the counter argument would be:
It will provide pressure on them to reach an agreement with the employer. Both entities need pressure applied to them or there's no chance of ever reaching an agreement.
A Union's role is to get the best agreement they can out of the employer, then put it to their members. In this current dispute, that clearly requires compromise from both sides. If you damage the business too much in the process, ultimately it'll be to the detriment to members anyways.
Lets assume a massive 85% turnout, 100% yes vote, that just enables the CWU to be as stubborn as they want. If they lose support, they will have to make concessions. The question really is, whether individual posties are willing to make those concessions. Accepting most of the change (with mitigation where possible), is probably the only resolution to this dispute.
I completely disagree with what you're saying. You're talking about a double edged sword where whatever outcome, we cannot win.
A higher yes vote puts more pressure on Royal Mail, allowing the Union to negotiate a better outcome for us.
What will withdrawing support for the union achieve?
I get what you are saying, I guess the counter argument would be:
It will provide pressure on them to reach an agreement with the employer. Both entities need pressure applied to them or there's no chance of ever reaching an agreement.
A Union's role is to get the best agreement they can out of the employer, then put it to their members. In this current dispute, that clearly requires compromise from both sides. If you damage the business too much in the process, ultimately it'll be to the detriment to members anyways.
Lets assume a massive 85% turnout, 100% yes vote, that just enables the CWU to be as stubborn as they want. If they lose support, they will have to make concessions. The question really is, whether individual posties are willing to make those concessions. Accepting most of the change (with mitigation where possible), is probably the only resolution to this dispute.
That would only counter the argument that CWU want nothing more than to damage the business. This is not the case. This would require RM being willing to damage the business too. The CWU wants an agreement that's beneficial to not only the members, but also the customer and the business. It's willing to compromise and accept change. Strike action is only being used to get RM to the table and to talk, and come to this agreement.
A Union's role is to get the best agreement they can out of the employer
I don't believe any union is niave enough to believe that an agreement that is ultimately unaffordable or damaging to the business is in the long term interests of the members.
The CWU has a long history of making pragmatic agreements which benefit both sides. I think that's evidenced by the fact that every deal in the last 15 years has been labelled a sell out on this very site.
As you say an agreement takes compromise on both sides, given that the CWU has moved significantly on most issues and the business very little it's difficult to see your logic that undermining the union's position would help to break the deadlock. It would surely encourage the business to go for more forcing the union into a more entrenched defensive position.
What will withdrawing support for the union achieve?
I get what you are saying, I guess the counter argument would be:
It will provide pressure on them to reach an agreement with the employer. Both entities need pressure applied to them or there's no chance of ever reaching an agreement.
A Union's role is to get the best agreement they can out of the employer, then put it to their members. In this current dispute, that clearly requires compromise from both sides. If you damage the business too much in the process, ultimately it'll be to the detriment to members anyways.
Lets assume a massive 85% turnout, 100% yes vote, that just enables the CWU to be as stubborn as they want. If they lose support, they will have to make concessions. The question really is, whether individual posties are willing to make those concessions. Accepting most of the change (with mitigation where possible), is probably the only resolution to this dispute.
Given there hasn't been a 100% yes vote in the previous two ballots I would be amazed if this one was.
There is more pressure on the business to agree a deal now than there ever has been.
The strikes have been incredibly damaging for Royal Mail financially and reputationally and they must deploy a recovery plan at pace.
The thought of deploying these revisions against the will of the staff has most managers terrified because they know after the capitulation of the CMA last year they have no protection if they fail.
The bottom line is you can criticise the union all you like but they are the only people in the room who talk for us.
Even if you don't support the CWU strategy or think that all is lost it makes no sense to withdraw your support, If you do that you're actually giving the union a free pass to say that they could have reached an agreement but the members let them down.
If you truly believe the union has failed the best thing to do is make sure you vote yes in the upcoming ballot to force the negotiators to take full ownership of the final outcome of the dispute.
Criticism of HQ is fine, I've done plenty of it in the past but you have to at least think through the consequences of any alternative.
What will withdrawing support for the union achieve?
Spot on!
I disagree with much of what the upper echelons of the union say but I know they do have our best interests at heart and another yes vote puts more pressure on the company.
There is a mounting suspicion that all they are interested in is securing a big golden handshake VR payoff for all those with high seniority,
Then the rest of us will be left to pick up the peices with greatly reduced T&C's / Allowances etc.
I'm not striking or voting yes to protect some disgruntled old timer's £50k payoff or a handfull of people's postbus driving allowance that dissapeared 23yrs ago!
Or the Ex-PHG, workplace coach who works the mech and collects 5 days TPM adding up to about £90 per week on top of basic that only a select chosen few get.
We all know we will never get the same deals going forward so why back it?
Rather like a teenager being expected to give up his seat on the bus for some old boomer with multiple final salary pensions and several properties, nah mate that games up.
There is a mounting suspicion that all they are interested in is securing a big golden handshake VR payoff for all those with high seniority,
Then the rest of us will be left to pick up the peices with greatly reduced T&C's / Allowances etc.
I'm not striking or voting yes to protect some disgruntled old timer's £50k payoff or a handfull of people's postbus driving allowance that dissapeared 23yrs ago!
Or the Ex-PHG, workplace coach who works the mech and collects 5 days TPM adding up to about £90 per week on top of basic that only a select chosen few get.
We all know we will never get the same deals going forward so why back it?
Rather like a teenager being expected to give up his seat on the bus for some old boomer with multiple final salary pensions and several properties, nah mate that games up.
