Why?

[Weetrogg2]

I cannot understand why the hierarchy (PEC) are actively promoting this proposed agreement?

It would have made more sense for the executive to say RM have withdrawn from talks and this is their final proposal which as a union we cannot endorse but due to the length and bitterness of the dispute we feel we need to put the offer to the members for their verdict.

Instead the executive has chosen to push the agreement that basically is us agreeing to work longer and harder for less whilst at the same time reducing our T&Cs, why?

I personally will be voting no and think there is a 50/50 chance of the agreement being rejected.

[stevejm]

I cannot understand why the hierarchy (PEC) are actively promoting this proposed agreement?

It would have made more sense for the executive to say RM have withdrawn from talks and this is their final proposal which as a union we cannot endorse but due to the length and bitterness of the dispute we feel we need to put the offer to the members for their verdict.

Instead the executive has chosen to push the agreement that basically is us agreeing to work longer and harder for less whilst at the same time reducing our T&Cs, why?

I personally will be voting no and think there is a 50/50 chance of the agreement being rejected.

It makes no sense especially given the stance of the leadership prior to Christmas.
It comes down to 2 possibilities.
a/ you believe (because you don't know for sure) that the leadership are telling the truth when they say RM's pot is empty and business is in a bad way
or b/ you believe the leadership sold out after RM threatened to sop deducting subs from wages and also stop paying wages when senior reps were on release for union jollies (sorry duties).

I think you can tell what I believe. The finances are manipulated to look worse than they are and the leadership caved as membership would plummet if they had to convince and cajole members to set up direct debits.

[pieoftheday]

I cannot understand why the hierarchy (PEC) are actively promoting this proposed agreement?

It would have made more sense for the executive to say RM have withdrawn from talks and this is their final proposal which as a union we cannot endorse but due to the length and bitterness of the dispute we feel we need to put the offer to the members for their verdict.

Instead the executive has chosen to push the agreement that basically is us agreeing to work longer and harder for less whilst at the same time reducing our T&Cs, why?

I personally will be voting no and think there is a 50/50 chance of the agreement being rejected.

It makes no sense especially given the stance of the leadership prior to Christmas.
It comes down to 2 possibilities.
a/ you believe (because you don't know for sure) that the leadership are telling the truth when they say RM's pot is empty and business is in a bad way
or b/ you believe the leadership sold out after RM threatened to sop deducting subs from wages and also stop paying wages when senior reps were on release for union jollies (sorry duties).

I think you can tell what I believe. The finances are manipulated to look worse than they are and the leadership caved as membership would plummet if they had to convince and cajole members to set up direct debits.

No doubt be accused of conspiracy theories but I have to agree there so much not right here, books cooked etc....

[twoloops]

I personally will be voting no and think there is a 50/50 chance of the agreement being rejected.

Wow! 50/50 I know we have quite a few deadheads & fruit loops working for RM, but surely not 50%

[LouBarlow]

Instead the executive has chosen to push the agreement that basically is us agreeing to work longer and harder for less whilst at the same time reducing our T&Cs, why?

What part of the agreement states you will be working longer and harder?

[Nickvilla20]

Instead the executive has chosen to push the agreement that basically is us agreeing to work longer and harder for less whilst at the same time reducing our T&Cs, why?

What part of the agreement states you will be working longer and harder?

As far as I see you still have a start and finish time. If anything if rounds are failing everyday you’re probably working slower as you have no reason to push harder.

Talking to the area rep he said the deal isn’t good but he doesn’t see an alternative and I would imagine for many the feeling is mutual.

The thought of going on more strikes and losing more money doesn’t sound very appealing to me anymore and if it is a no vote then we better be prepared for an all out shut out.

I’ve yet to hear what a no vote will get us in the long run.

[guardianangel]

Because they are as corrupted as our bosses.

[Basildon Bond]

Maybe this agreement doesn't specifically say anything about the length of walks but the future doesn't look like the job is going to get easier with either a yes or a no.

I've been loaned out several times to different delivery offices - five so far. I have never heard that the walks are going to get smaller. Quite the opposite. It's always "three walks are being removed" or "two walks must come out" etc. Why "must" they? Just because they say so. Plus there is always a bit of collapsing/lapsing/absorption (pick your term) during the week.

[Burghboy]

Instead the executive has chosen to push the agreement that basically is us agreeing to work longer and harder for less whilst at the same time reducing our T&Cs, why?

What part of the agreement states you will be working longer and harder?

24 min seasonal variation and 30 min flex could mean some days you are working 54 mins longer per shift, add in if your on delivery the 25-35 min less prep this could mean some are doing an extra 90 mins extra outdoor work per day.

Have you not read the agreement?

[LouBarlow]

Maybe this agreement doesn't specifically say anything about the length of walks but the future doesn't look like the job is going to get easier with either a yes or a no.

I've been loaned out several times to different delivery offices - five so far. I have never heard that the walks are going to get smaller. Quite the opposite. It's always "three walks are being removed" or "two walks must come out" etc. Why "must" they? Just because they say so. Plus there is always a bit of collapsing/lapsing/absorption (pick your term) during the week.

They can make the duties up to have 2000 calls. You still only have to work your contracted hours.

[norris9]

the worst thing for me is the sick pay..... and it seems this new sick policy is partly designed to discourage skiving. I think it encourages skiving.

If say you have a niggle with your foot for 1 day and then 2 month's later you are off for 5 days with covid, you lose several day's pay. Don't you think people will want to make up for that loss in pay by at least dragging out the first or 2nd absence? though the postie won't make up for it in pay, they will make up for it with extra time off.

It's hard to tell if Royal Mail will benefit from the sick pay changes if this is the case. It's potentially lose-lose.

[theargyspy]

Ref Sick pay on second absence, the way I understand it, if second absence is due to an injury then you continue to get paid fully, so look out for a huge rise in accidents at work under the new regime

[toonshola]

It’s because they are very concerned about losing their cushy little numbers where they can pontificate about work items per work hour in warm meeting rooms with tea and biscuits whilst we get flogged to death on delivery. They play the game and pretend to care about the member’s welfare but in reality it’s all about looking out for themselves.

[rambo1]

Instead the executive has chosen to push the agreement that basically is us agreeing to work longer and harder for less whilst at the same time reducing our T&Cs, why?

What part of the agreement states you will be working longer and harder?

I can't understand people spouting that rubbish. I'm with you, start/breaks/finish. They can deal with what I bring back.

[rambo1]

Instead the executive has chosen to push the agreement that basically is us agreeing to work longer and harder for less whilst at the same time reducing our T&Cs, why?

What part of the agreement states you will be working longer and harder?

24 min seasonal variation and 30 min flex could mean some days you are working 54 mins longer per shift, add in if your on delivery the 25-35 min less prep this could mean some are doing an extra 90 mins extra outdoor work per day.

Have you not read the agreement?

Come on. Balance your argument. What about saying...you are working x mins less on certain days to make up for that. Why is outdoor work harder, you're still on yer feet.