Scotland No 2 says 'NO'

[Burghboy]

Following a full branch committee of Scotland no2 CWU where we fully debated the agreement reached by the CWU negotiators, the committee unanimously agreed to put to today’s full branch meeting that we should recommend a no vote in the national ballot

Today we held a special branch meeting which was addressed by Bobby Weatherall from the postal executive and full debate took place in a fraternal manner after which it was agreed without anyone voting against and 2 abstentions that as a branch we recommend that our members vote no in the ballot

As a branch we wish to put it on record our thanks to Bobby Weatherall for attending and speaking at the meeting today and will also have great respect to Bobby

Gary Clark
CWU Scotland no2
Branch Secretary

[CRIBMAD]

With these ever increasing recommendations to vote NO by the Union Branches you would be insane to accept this life destroying agreement ! VOTE NO !

[richietns]

With these ever increasing recommendations to vote NO by the Union Branches you would be insane to accept this life destroying agreement ! VOTE NO !

What will happen if we do vote no,we know whats going to happen if we vote yes,its all well saying vote no but for alot of staff its like voting for less thats the vote no problem.

[dazzler123]

when are the financials being released?

[richietns]

when are the financials being released?

17th May if I recall.

[Basildon Bond]

What will happen if we do vote no,we know whats going to happen if we vote yes,

A quick idea but not exhaustive...

If you vote YES:

• Most amount of certainty for the short term. Not absolute certainty - just more than you can get with a NO vote right now.

• End to strikes for the short term.

• CWU still in the workplace but with a weakened position due to initially over promising and under delivering.

• A lot of workers unhappy with CWU leadership and potentially the strongest call for changes on who runs it.

• More workers leaving the union which weakens it further.

• Once the deal ends more changes and/or executive action. And the whole darn thing starts again.

If you vote NO:

• No certainty of what will happen. Just a weak expectation that the CWU will go back to RM and try to get a "different" deal.

• Potential strikes if RM will not move.

• Actually the greatest chance that, with the current deal being so unacceptable (if it comes back with a big majority voting NO), that the board and the CWU will work together for a new deal that aims for far better acceptance by the majority - you certainly will not get a different deal if you vote YES.

• RM potentially playing the "we're broke" card very strongly and putting the ball seemingly in the CWU court to push the present deal very hard to the workers. RM may do this to put workers and the CWU leadership in serious conflict with each other and further weaken the CWU leaders. Ultimately destroying the union.

• Potential for the government to step and/or even take over if the situation cannot be resolved.

In either case there is a whole lot of uncertainty and any deal is very short term and the future looks like more conflict with both sides trying to dig their heels in.

Is there a better way forwards into the future?

If the company shortly shows that it has no money we all have to be realistic on pay rises and what we can expect the CWU leadership to get their workers on that specific point.

If RM pleads poverty maybe a better direction is to take is a lower pay rise overall or spread out over a longer term but the provision that there is a solid plan to improve worker stress and workload in the short and medium term (6 months to 5 years).

If I was to advise RM and the CWU I would suggest each side agree to a set pay rise that will not break the company. Then ask each side to produce a list of top 10 "wants" - an RM list of ten things and a separate CWU listed based on polling workers. The lists are nothing to do with basic salary but all about conditions, workload, perks, and perhaps overtime rates (i.e., not base salary). The CWU could look at family friendly times, fixed end times, new fair revisions, walk lengths, hours spent outside in various weather conditions and times of year, regular break times for indoor staff/processing, private medical contributions inc. dentists, mental health support, overtime rates, temporary bonuses that align with management requests (we all pull together for necessary periods of time), PDAs that work in the rain, better shoes - etc. etc. Then both sides prioritise their lists from most important to least. Then if RM need their top four implementing the CWU should get their top four. There would be some horse-trading in priority order if things look like they are getting nowhere but each side should get the same number of wants each time the company needs a new change or modernisation.

Ultimately the agreement should be a pay rise (potentially backdated slightly or if not and it has to be spread out into the future a lump sum for those near retirement) that the company can afford and does not force special administration and both sides get an equal amounts of wants from their respective lists.

Both lists should be living documents (constantly reviewed and updated regularly) by both sides. Any time one side wants something the other side gets one of their "wants" - like rather that RM taking executive action, they just ask for a new "want" and the CWU gets one of their "wants" too. Ultimately it's a fair way to move forwards. RM, the CWU leadership, and the works can see the "want" list and it's all open. If RM want later starts they know the workers will want, for example, private dental cover (or whatever is at the top at the current time).

It would save a lot of arguing, strikes, and stress. It would provide a method of implementing necessary changes over the next few years.

[stevejm]

At Ruckus - good post, well written and an investment of your time. It sounds reasonable if everyone is playing fair but the reality is they are not and there are, I believe, hidden agendas such as RM wanting to decrease Union influence, the Union wanting to maximise influence (even at expense of members T&C) and RM wanting to maximise profit, which is fine, by deliberately under-staffing the workplace, which isn't fine.

[robson144]

What will happen if we do vote no,we know whats going to happen if we vote yes,

A quick idea but not exhaustive...

If you vote YES:

• Most amount of certainty for the short term. Not absolute certainty - just more than you can get with a NO vote right now.

• End to strikes for the short term.

• CWU still in the workplace but with a weakened position due to initially over promising and under delivering.

• A lot of workers unhappy with CWU leadership and potentially the strongest call for changes on who runs it.

• More workers leaving the union which weakens it further.

• Once the deal ends more changes and/or executive action. And the whole darn thing starts again.

If you vote NO:

• No certainty of what will happen. Just a weak expectation that the CWU will go back to RM and try to get a "different" deal.

• Potential strikes if RM will not move.

• Actually the greatest chance that, with the current deal being so unacceptable (if it comes back with a big majority voting NO), that the board and the CWU will work together for a new deal that aims for far better acceptance by the majority - you certainly will not get a different deal if you vote YES.

• RM potentially playing the "we're broke" card very strongly and putting the ball seemingly in the CWU court to push the present deal very hard to the workers. RM may do this to put workers and the CWU leadership in serious conflict with each other and further weaken the CWU leaders. Ultimately destroying the union.

• Potential for the government to step and/or even take over if the situation cannot be resolved.

In either case there is a whole lot of uncertainty and any deal is very short term and the future looks like more conflict with both sides trying to dig their heels in.

Is there a better way forwards into the future?

If the company shortly shows that it has no money we all have to be realistic on pay rises and what we can expect the CWU leadership to get their workers on that specific point.

If RM pleads poverty maybe a better direction is to take is a lower pay rise overall or spread out over a longer term but the provision that there is a solid plan to improve worker stress and workload in the short and medium term (6 months to 5 years).

If I was to advise RM and the CWU I would suggest each side agree to a set pay rise that will not break the company. Then ask each side to produce a list of top 10 "wants" - an RM list of ten things and a separate CWU listed based on polling workers. The lists are nothing to do with basic salary but all about conditions, workload, perks, and perhaps overtime rates (i.e., not base salary). The CWU could look at family friendly times, fixed end times, new fair revisions, walk lengths, hours spent outside in various weather conditions and times of year, regular break times for indoor staff/processing, private medical contributions inc. dentists, mental health support, overtime rates, temporary bonuses that align with management requests (we all pull together for necessary periods of time), PDAs that work in the rain, better shoes - etc. etc. Then both sides prioritise their lists from most important to least. Then if RM need their top four implementing the CWU should get their top four. There would be some horse-trading in priority order if things look like they are getting nowhere but each side should get the same number of wants each time the company needs a new change or modernisation.

Ultimately the agreement should be a pay rise (potentially backdated slightly or if not and it has to be spread out into the future a lump sum for those near retirement) that the company can afford and does not force special administration and both sides get an equal amounts of wants from their respective lists.

Both lists should be living documents (constantly reviewed and updated regularly) by both sides. Any time one side wants something the other side gets one of their "wants" - like rather that RM taking executive action, they just ask for a new "want" and the CWU gets one of their "wants" too. Ultimately it's a fair way to move forwards. RM, the CWU leadership, and the works can see the "want" list and it's all open. If RM want later starts they know the workers will want, for example, private dental cover (or whatever is at the top at the current time).

It would save a lot of arguing, strikes, and stress. It would provide a method of implementing necessary changes over the next few years.

Great post Refreshing to see a post here that reads well and makes sense.

[Basildon Bond]

At Ruckus - good post, well written and an investment of your time. It sounds reasonable if everyone is playing fair but the reality is they are not and there are, I believe, hidden agendas such as RM wanting to decrease Union influence, the Union wanting to maximise influence (even at expense of members T&C) and RM wanting to maximise profit, which is fine, by deliberately under-staffing the workplace, which isn't fine.

If I was RM I would probably, based on history, see the union as a massive thorn in my side and hence I would want it gone too – to RM the union just slow down changes and make modernisation difficult and more costly. However, it doesn't have be like this going forwards. It could be a refreshed union approach that works very closely with RM to resolve issues and defined strong communication channels from the union to make suggestions back to RM that RM would love to implement rapidly.

The union could be, if required, full on militant when resolving individual worker issues (conduct, unfair sacking, bullying and harassment, etc.) but far more like company men (and women) when it comes to national issues. Local reps should have your back at an individual level but if a postie isn't liking a wide-ranging change the rep should work to help that postie or office understand the required change at a local level along with local managers.

A major problem that occurs to me is that there are no rules of engagement for the CWU leadership and RM at a national level. RM wants change exactly how they want it and the CWU leadership just shouts 'No' from a picket line. In this scenario RM would be right to dislike the union.

If however changes were more quid pro quo (you give me something and I'll give you something) and the union had a list of worker voted for requests in priority order the union could negotiate a required change with RM faster. Like Dave or similar announcing: “OK guys and gals...RM want the USO down to five days; looks like they have a nodding agreement with OFCOM. If it goes through we all get mini-printers that auto-generate 739 cards on the doorstep (put the printer in your current cards and pens pocket as you really won’t need them now and it’ll be faster to card a parcel) and we all get a new Royal Mail Gore-tex (waterproof and breathable) jacket that are rather posh” – or whatever, that’s just an example. In that world both sides go into the discussions knowing they are going to get something out of the deal.

On profit and that being the current focus...we’ll have to see what new CEO’s priories are. Maybe the new person could angle RM in a new direction that’s mutually beneficial to both parties. Both sides can agree that they want Royal Mail to be a great company, with happy customers and a growing customer base. And neither side wants conflict nor strikes. These things we can easily agree on. What we are stuck on is why national changes being made centrally continue to make a hard job harder and both sides complaining about either time, money or costs.

[postslippete]

Good post ruckus and full credit for posting that.

The union leadership have decided to go full steam ahead trying to get this current deal through as they really don't want to have to go back to the drawing board and have more talks.

The issue at the moment seems to be the revisions that RM have forced in and staff being unable to complete deliveries. I suppose this could be reconciled by asking posties what they would prefer - bigger unachievable deliveries Monday to Saturday OR a day off the USO? Now I know that this is the governments decision to make and they have knocked it back twice, but I wonder if the Union would agree with Royal Mail that this might be the way forward?

Royal Mail would still make the savings by not needing as many staff on a Saturday, for example and quality might be better. If Royal Mail, the CWU and the posties agree by petition that this might be the way forward, that might help change parliament's original decision.

[stevejm]

@ Ruckus - are you a postman working on delivery? I ask because a mini printer that prints out 739s is the LEAST of my concerns, ditto a breathable goretex jacket - and that ain't happening on a cost basis - I've given up on a decent pair of shoes coming from RM, which is much more important to me personally.

@ postslippete - how would knocking a day off the USO make our work loads more deliverable? There'd be 5 days to get it all done instead of 6. I'm actually in favour of having every Saturday off if that's what it'd entail - but under no illusion that the workload would be less.
It's also not parliament that need to change their mind, there won't be a bill introduced that goes to the vote in both Houses - it is the government - it would be an executive decision.

[postslippete]

@ postslippete - how would knocking a day off the USO make our work loads more deliverable? There'd be 5 days to get it all done instead of 6. I'm actually in favour of having every Saturday off if that's what it'd entail - but under no illusion that the workload would be less.
It's also not parliament that need to change their mind, there won't be a bill introduced that goes to the vote in both Houses - it is the government - it would be an executive decision.

I did say that it was the govt decision in my post and that they have knocked it back twice

Taking a day off the USO on a Saturday would mean that the Monday would be a busier day. Sure we would taking out more post for that day - but at least the duties might be achievable if the company in return, for example, take off a few loops. I think every postie would rather walk less and not have to bring mail back everyday?

[Flashman_]

@ Ruckus - This sort of approach would still need an arbitrator, and that would be in the form of ACAS but that is why we have this abysmal surrender document. So your plan may be a bit off with the fairies I am afraid. We do not live in a world where fairness and reason rules, we are dictated to by greed and exploitation, only tempered when people like us stand against it.

[Basildon Bond]

@ Ruckus - are you a postman working on delivery?

Yes out in all weathers and got soaked (along with all the mail) a week ago and so a decent waterproof jacket and rain repellent shorts would have been nice - now looking to cook for a while as the weather is heating up. I was just throwing in examples at random and trying to be creative - don't read them as things I necessarily want or are my priority.

Your reply does highlight that if we were all to list what we really wanted we may get a lot of different answers!

Note: I saw the printer idea today here: viewtopic.php?p=1055514#p1055514 - I didn't think it up.

[enskied]

I'm beyond it.
It's a simple VOTE NO.

I can in no way support my employer or my Union.
My colleagues in processing simply do not understand the difference. So, unfortunately as usual we are set at odds.