ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (Updated 2021)... HERE

ANNOUNCEMENT : PLEASE BE AWARE WE ARE NOT ON FACEBOOK AT ALL!

Were the union's hand's forced?

Pay talks 2022 discussion, news, LTB's RMCtv and all BUSINESS RECOVERY, TRANSFORMATION AND GROWTH AGREEMENT chat
datasaint
Posts: 1541
Joined: 22 Sep 2008, 17:19
Gender: Male

Re: Were the union's hand's forced?

Post by datasaint »

Nickvilla20 wrote:
24 Apr 2023, 20:27
aiden01 wrote:
24 Apr 2023, 20:08
richietns wrote:
24 Apr 2023, 19:49
theelegend701 wrote:
24 Apr 2023, 19:20
Let's let it burn 🔥 lads if we stick together as one against the tyranny and we will win this war
But if it does burn then what,I had a job and some money now I haven't shite with the kids and mortgage.
Don't worry mate its the usual let it burn brigade on every thread.
Maybe the let it burn brigade should just find alternative employment and let the rest of us get on with it.

The deal is lousy but I would still like do keep my job and to be honest most places out there have worse T&Cs then what our deal is offering.
Omg so short sighted.

Can't you see this is the beginning of the end, towards a low cost gig economy model of employment.

RM will come after your paid breaks, sick pay, pay until they get what they want. The "deal" doesn't even address the issue of new starters on less money, how long before they outnumber the legacy grade employees, then the union is even weaker and can't fight anything.
Nickvilla20
Posts: 782
Joined: 13 May 2013, 07:30
Gender: Male

Re: Were the union's hand's forced?

Post by Nickvilla20 »

norm wrote:
24 Apr 2023, 20:30
Nickvilla20 wrote:
24 Apr 2023, 20:27
aiden01 wrote:
24 Apr 2023, 20:08
richietns wrote:
24 Apr 2023, 19:49
theelegend701 wrote:
24 Apr 2023, 19:20
Let's let it burn 🔥 lads if we stick together as one against the tyranny and we will win this war
But if it does burn then what,I had a job and some money now I haven't shite with the kids and mortgage.
Don't worry mate its the usual let it burn brigade on every thread.
Maybe the let it burn brigade should just find alternative employment and let the rest of us get on with it.

The deal is lousy but I would still like do keep my job and to be honest most places out there have worse T&Cs then what our deal is offering.
Omg so short sighted.

Can't you see this is the beginning of the end, towards a low cost gig economy model of employment.

RM will come after your paid breaks, sick pay, pay until they get what they want. The "deal" doesn't even address the issue of new starters on less money, how long before they outnumber the legacy grade employees, then the union is even weaker and can't fight anything.
Not short sighted just been realistic. We were on strike for 18 days and they hardly budged an inch.

What else can we do?

Minimum wage will catch up sooner or later anyway. Let’s be honest how long are new employees going to stick around? They can’t keep the staff they have now never mind paying them less than most other jobs.

I hate what’s happening to the company I’ve given 20 years to as soon as it was sold off you knew this was always the end game.
datasaint
Posts: 1541
Joined: 22 Sep 2008, 17:19
Gender: Male

Re: Were the union's hand's forced?

Post by datasaint »

Nickvilla20 wrote:
24 Apr 2023, 20:39

Not short sighted just been realistic. We were on strike for 18 days and they hardly budged an inch.

What else can we do?

Minimum wage will catch up sooner or later anyway. Let’s be honest how long are new employees going to stick around? They can’t keep the staff they have now never mind paying them less than most other jobs.

I hate what’s happening to the company I’ve given 20 years to as soon as it was sold off you knew this was always the end game.
Better to put up a fight now while there is still something worth fighting for. A no vote will show the board we won't be pushed around, if they want to retain the business and keep their massive salaries and bonuses they'll have to come up with better.

Let's be real the strike action was so half-hearted it's no wonder it didn't work. If we'd gone out for a week at a time the public/media/government would have taken far more interest. I know the membership would have supported it, it's just the CWU HQ that seem to have no appetite for a fight, possibly why the negotiations failed to get the results.
Nickvilla20
Posts: 782
Joined: 13 May 2013, 07:30
Gender: Male

Re: Were the union's hand's forced?

Post by Nickvilla20 »

norm wrote:
24 Apr 2023, 20:49
Nickvilla20 wrote:
24 Apr 2023, 20:39

Not short sighted just been realistic. We were on strike for 18 days and they hardly budged an inch.

What else can we do?

Minimum wage will catch up sooner or later anyway. Let’s be honest how long are new employees going to stick around? They can’t keep the staff they have now never mind paying them less than most other jobs.

I hate what’s happening to the company I’ve given 20 years to as soon as it was sold off you knew this was always the end game.
Better to put up a fight now while there is still something worth fighting for. A no vote will show the board we won't be pushed around, if they want to retain the business and keep their massive salaries and bonuses they'll have to come up with better.

Let's be real the strike action was so half-hearted it's no wonder it didn't work. If we'd gone out for a week at a time the public/media/government would have taken far more interest. I know the membership would have supported it, it's just the CWU HQ that seem to have no appetite for a fight, possibly why the negotiations failed to get the results.
I agree about the strike action but how many would have about walk out for 4 or 5 days at a time?

I don’t think many have the fight in them anymore and the majority won’t even read the deal.

Personally I don’t think Royal Mail deserves such a good workforce maybe it deserves to lose all its best staff and just become another Evri or Yodel.
freespeech
MDEC
Posts: 762
Joined: 28 Jun 2007, 16:35

Re: Were the union's hand's forced?

Post by freespeech »

norm wrote:
24 Apr 2023, 20:49
Nickvilla20 wrote:
24 Apr 2023, 20:39

Not short sighted just been realistic. We were on strike for 18 days and they hardly budged an inch.

What else can we do?

Minimum wage will catch up sooner or later anyway. Let’s be honest how long are new employees going to stick around? They can’t keep the staff they have now never mind paying them less than most other jobs.

I hate what’s happening to the company I’ve given 20 years to as soon as it was sold off you knew this was always the end game.
Better to put up a fight now while there is still something worth fighting for. A no vote will show the board we won't be pushed around, if they want to retain the business and keep their massive salaries and bonuses they'll have to come up with better.

Let's be real the strike action was so half-hearted it's no wonder it didn't work. If we'd gone out for a week at a time the public/media/government would have taken far more interest. I know the membership would have supported it, it's just the CWU HQ that seem to have no appetite for a fight, possibly why the negotiations failed to get the results.
Why do RM "have to come up with better"? They have an agreement with the CWU and that's what collective bargaining is all about. The membership vote is internal CWU politics and I'm not sure it is going to change anything with this employer.
BigSacks
Posts: 202
Joined: 25 Jul 2022, 15:16
Gender: Male

Re: Were the union's hand's forced?

Post by BigSacks »

People can’t seem to be able to comprehend that a trade unions primary concern, nay only concern, is to not have its membership endure compulsory redundancy.

That is it.

Pay, conditions, everything else is negotiable. A bonus, if you like, as distasteful as that is in todays supposedly forward thinking society.

But that is it.
And that means that every round of negotiations is a success when that is off the table.
Acca Dacca
Posts: 3189
Joined: 16 Aug 2009, 17:13
Gender: Male

Re: Were the union's hand's forced?

Post by Acca Dacca »

BigSacks wrote:
24 Apr 2023, 21:00
People can’t seem to be able to comprehend that a trade unions primary concern, nay only concern, is to not have its membership endure compulsory redundancy.

That is it.

Pay, conditions, everything else is negotiable. A bonus, if you like, as distasteful as that is in todays supposedly forward thinking society.

But that is it.
And that means that every round of negotiations is a success when that is off the table.
Only concern?

Absolute nonsense
If you tolerate this, then your paid break will be next
Nickvilla20
Posts: 782
Joined: 13 May 2013, 07:30
Gender: Male

Re: Were the union's hand's forced?

Post by Nickvilla20 »

BigSacks wrote:
24 Apr 2023, 21:00
People can’t seem to be able to comprehend that a trade unions primary concern, nay only concern, is to not have its membership endure compulsory redundancy.

That is it.

Pay, conditions, everything else is negotiable. A bonus, if you like, as distasteful as that is in todays supposedly forward thinking society.

But that is it.
And that means that every round of negotiations is a success when that is off the table.
Maybe the CWU exceeded expectations over the years. It also helped having the majority of employees as members help that.

Society has changed now and sadly we are just another delivery company now.

My wife’s teaching union are absolutely useless at protecting its members from anything and has no say on what they get paid.
BigSacks
Posts: 202
Joined: 25 Jul 2022, 15:16
Gender: Male

Re: Were the union's hand's forced?

Post by BigSacks »

Acca Dacca wrote:
24 Apr 2023, 21:07
BigSacks wrote:
24 Apr 2023, 21:00
People can’t seem to be able to comprehend that a trade unions primary concern, nay only concern, is to not have its membership endure compulsory redundancy.

That is it.

Pay, conditions, everything else is negotiable. A bonus, if you like, as distasteful as that is in todays supposedly forward thinking society.

But that is it.
And that means that every round of negotiations is a success when that is off the table.
Only concern?

Absolute nonsense
It’s not though, is it?
I’d suggest you do a bit of reading up on trade unionism.
Belgium
Posts: 82
Joined: 21 Jan 2022, 14:40
Gender: Male

Re: Were the union's hand's forced?

Post by Belgium »

It’s a s**t deal I think that much we are all agreed on, but even this s**t deal amazingly means we still have the best terms and conditions in the industry, Evri, yodel, dhl,whistl are all a country mile worse than Royal Mail, and strangely enough none of those companies have a recognised union presence, as crap as the union seems to be to some it’s still doing it’s job for us
Acca Dacca
Posts: 3189
Joined: 16 Aug 2009, 17:13
Gender: Male

Re: Were the union's hand's forced?

Post by Acca Dacca »

BigSacks wrote:
24 Apr 2023, 21:11
Acca Dacca wrote:
24 Apr 2023, 21:07
BigSacks wrote:
24 Apr 2023, 21:00
People can’t seem to be able to comprehend that a trade unions primary concern, nay only concern, is to not have its membership endure compulsory redundancy.

That is it.

Pay, conditions, everything else is negotiable. A bonus, if you like, as distasteful as that is in todays supposedly forward thinking society.

But that is it.
And that means that every round of negotiations is a success when that is off the table.
Only concern?

Absolute nonsense
It’s not though, is it?
I’d suggest you do a bit of reading up on trade unionism.
I could accept primary concern - im not accepting only concern
If you tolerate this, then your paid break will be next
stevejm
Posts: 488
Joined: 09 Dec 2017, 16:16
Gender: Male

Re: Were the union's hand's forced?

Post by stevejm »

Belgium wrote:
24 Apr 2023, 21:13
It’s a s**t deal I think that much we are all agreed on, but even this s**t deal amazingly means we still have the best terms and conditions in the industry, Evri, yodel, dhl,whistl are all a country mile worse than Royal Mail, and strangely enough none of those companies have a recognised union presence, as crap as the union seems to be to some it’s still doing it’s job for us
What industry is that then? The parcel delivery business? Thats what the RM board would have you believe - but I have yet to see an employee from any of those companies who walks 50 miles a week.
As long as RM has the USO responsibility then you can never compare the post delivery job with delivery jobs at those other companies. Grapes and Water Melon - both fruit but very different.
zz666
Posts: 223
Joined: 22 Jul 2016, 20:08
Gender: Male

Re: Were the union's hand's forced?

Post by zz666 »

The CWU got the biggest vote in union history, but managed to negotiate a surrender document for the membership.
Foxel
EX ROYAL MAIL
Posts: 514
Joined: 04 Oct 2021, 21:20
Gender: Male

Re: Were the union's hand's forced?

Post by Foxel »

BigSacks wrote:
24 Apr 2023, 21:00
People can’t seem to be able to comprehend that a trade unions primary concern, nay only concern, is to not have its membership endure compulsory redundancy.

That is it.

Pay, conditions, everything else is negotiable. A bonus, if you like, as distasteful as that is in todays supposedly forward thinking society.

But that is it.
And that means that every round of negotiations is a success when that is off the table.
Poppycock.
One of a trade union's main aims is to protect and advance the interests of its members in the workplace
.gov.uk
I'm turning purple!
sindba
Posts: 1442
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 20:27
Gender: Male

Re: Were the union's hand's forced?

Post by sindba »

Belgium wrote:
24 Apr 2023, 21:13
It’s a s**t deal I think that much we are all agreed on, but even this s**t deal amazingly means we still have the best terms and conditions in the industry, Evri, yodel, dhl,whistl are all a country mile worse than Royal Mail, and strangely enough none of those companies have a recognised union presence, as crap as the union seems to be to some it’s still doing it’s job for us
What industry? We have no competitors.

Also, "other people have it worse" is the most stupid argument. Race to the bottom bollocks.