Vote No.

[nuisance]

.

[nuisance]

Anything might lead to anything.

Signing our agreement to be worse off in terms of spending power, useful free time, sick pay allowance, IHR payout, flexible finish times, etc, etc is guaranteed to result in being exactly that. Please jog on, defend our t & cs and put pressure on RM to give us decent pay rises, like unions are meant to.

[stevejm]

Yet it's fine to encourage people to vote no without any consideration that the alternative may lead to more and faster detrimental change?

Your idea of ridiculous is different to mine.

long term things would have to improve - you won't get new starters staying for long-term for barely more than minimum wage. The only way to build a more profitable business is to set yourself apart from the competition OR win the race to the bottom - being the crappiest cheapest delivery company will destroy the brand and value of RM - the only future is with better service and for that you need motivated employees. Any business person knows this.

[LouBarlow]

And lets face it, with a 'no' vote, the subsequent actions that the company takes will see them do everything to increase the efficiency so that the company is more profitable and there are no job losses.

Our working conditions would be worse but then "quiet quitting" and massive increase of sickness would be a drag on any productivity gains they hoped to make. Which is why the Union had the mantra that they have to take the workforce with them.

A no vote will indeed see the company bring about efficiency changes, including not paying the pay rise that is part of the agreement. I’m not sure I agree with your theory that a no vote will lead to more job security either.

There isn’t any hypothesising needed in regard the future without an agreement. Both the CWU and RM have been quite clear about that. I do agree with you though, the vote needs to be done now.

[RTP]

Not at all. I’ve always said the deal is terrible, but not having one is worse. I’ve never defended the agreement.

This is the polemic world we live in.
You have to be for or against something.
There is no nuance, no recognition that you can be against something but even more against the alternative.

What do people actually think rejecting this agreement will result in?

I'm not asking for a comprehensive plan because the usual suspects will bleat that it's up to the union to come up with a plan b.

Just what do you think will happen.
Day 1.
Week 1.
Month 1.
Year 1.
Anything?
Anyone?
Any ideas?

Thing is though Woody, we are being asked to give up so much for £500 pro rata. Pay rise is poor, but it is what it is. In past deals long time ago we got £400 lump sums and more for future agreements. The vote will struggle to get over the line on these terms.

[Nickvilla20]

And lets face it, with a 'no' vote, the subsequent actions that the company takes will see them do everything to increase the efficiency so that the company is more profitable and there are no job losses.

Our working conditions would be worse but then "quiet quitting" and massive increase of sickness would be a drag on any productivity gains they hoped to make. Which is why the Union had the mantra that they have to take the workforce with them.

A no vote will indeed see the company bring about efficiency changes, including not paying the pay rise that is part of the agreement. I’m not sure I agree with your theory that a no vote will lead to more job security either.

There isn’t any hypothesising needed in regard the future without an agreement. Both the CWU and RM have been quite clear about that. I do agree with you though, the vote needs to be done now.

Regardless if we vote yes or no big changes are coming in if we like it or not. I can see quite a few people actually not bothering to vote due to apathy and yes will probably get a 60 - 70% of the vote.

[Shadedpostie]

The two options are basically, accept this deal and whatever bullshit comes with it or reject the deal. Bare in mind, those that reject it are then forced to put their faith in the very same guys that are in the negotiating room. My personal opinion is there ain't no chance you get a better deal with this union, especially how long they've took to get to this point and how they've handled this whole thing. The fact you have union representatives telling you "what next" when told you are voting no is an indication to me they haven't got any fight in them whatsoever. So, you may as well kiss striking action goodbye. Ain't got much luck with a union that isn't willing to fight for its members.

And probably see a few of you saying "well let's get another union in charge" or "get new representatives in". The problems you'll find there is those options take time and also the earlier suggestion is dependent on if the company chooses to recognise that union or not. If it was earlier on, I'd of said yeah to getting another union in there. However, things have gone on far too long (which is the fault of the company and this union) that the damage is done and pretty too late to roll the clock now. Have never worked in a company with so much incompetence around me in my entire life which is why I'm choosing to leave once we get a final verdict on the outcome of this agreement.

I completely get those that want to vote yes to this agreement since they've been battered and torn to shreds and hung out to dry by both parties so they just want it over and done with. But, also understand those that want to vote no, especially if you are choosing to stick around long term or have been in this company and fought for the rights of these Terms and Conditions the company and union have gambled away with. One thing's for certain in all of this we can all agree with on both sides, there is zero faith in this company.

[postslippete]

What do people actually think rejecting this agreement will result in?

I'm not asking for a comprehensive plan because the usual suspects will bleat that it's up to the union to come up with a plan b.

Just what do you think will happen.
Day 1.
Week 1.
Month 1.
Year 1.
Anything?
Anyone?
Any ideas?

None of us on here are mystic meg nor can we predict the future. But here are my thoughts...



1. The company will still force through sick pay and IHR changes. They will do this in month 3
2. The company will continue recruiting new staff on less pay, terms and cons.
3. The company in the absence of seasonal variations will continue to lapse and absorb duties. In fact, they will do this regardless of the agreement because it only "significantly reduces" lapsing. Always read the small print.
4. Any flex will still be voluntary and so it should be. Walking the streets for an extra half an hour is a bit different to sitting in an cosy office.
5. We will never be forced to work Sundays, work on LATS or start and finish work at least 2 hours later unless we have an agreement.

Whilst I accept the company needs to change, whether that's because of less planes or reduced C02, what I don't understand is why they are trying to re-invent the wheel and force us all to work later when we already have LAT drivers who can still capture this later parcel traffic? Please spare me the bulls*t!! It doesn't make any sense if our competitors are already out there delivering before we even start our shift either.

6. There will be no compulsory redundancies in the immediate future. The company has just done an extensive VR exercise on reduced terms even though we have been short staffed for years. Right now the company need to address the quality of service failures that it deliberately self inflicted via its revisions. Regarding the current financial situation, the Royal Mail board are saying one thing to its staff and the Union and quite another to its investors and hedge funds.

7. Commit to deliver won't happen UNLESS we are all self-employed delivering parcels. Whilst we all know that this is Royal Mail's endgame I'm not sure it would go ahead whilst we still have a USO on letters? The other issue is that there are still a lot of staff who still don't/won't drive for the company and have no intentions of doing so.

8. The question of whether RM would force through some of the changes and not pay the staff the pay rises/lump sum that it originally promised in the deal is unknown. It may decide to just give us a pathetic 2% rise like it did last time. All this will really do is further destroy staff morale and make the company an even more undesirable place to work.


But I would argue that this would be the case anyway with this current deal. The company's attitude ever since privatisation is that we are overpaid and obviously believe that an alternative workforce that they can mould into their ways of working and who are cheaper with reduced terms and cons are the answer; because it works at GLS. Gone are the days of valued staff working at reputable companies for 20 years and instead we will be a company with a high turnover of staff. And when this happens in around 5 years I'm sad to say there won't be an effective CWU union either as its likely to have gone.

[LouBarlow]

Royal Mail and the CWU have been clear about what happens without an agreement. When both sides of a dispute agree on something, it is wise to consider this and vote accordingly. You don’t have to be mystic Meg to predict the future in this case.

[Surfpostie]

I heard on the news two days ago,that the average pay rise for last year was just over 7%. And we got screwed over with 2%! I know if we ever get a vote which way I shall be voting

[LouBarlow]

I heard on the news two days ago,that the average pay rise for last year was just over 7%. And we got screwed over with 2%! I know if we ever get a vote which way I shall be voting

You will be voting against receiving a pay-rise then? That doesn’t make much sense.

[49erman]

Everybody’s entitled to their own opinions and the way they want to vote! I’m guessing people have already decided which way they are going to vote and I doubt like me the majority wont change their minds. Let’s get the vote done…….

[postslippete]

Royal Mail and the CWU have been clear about what happens without an agreement. When both sides of a dispute agree on something, it is wise to consider this and vote accordingly. You don’t have to be mystic Meg to predict the future in this case.

The CWU leadership are supposed to be representing our side. Personally, I don't think they are very good job. Do you agree?

[LouBarlow]

Royal Mail and the CWU have been clear about what happens without an agreement. When both sides of a dispute agree on something, it is wise to consider this and vote accordingly. You don’t have to be mystic Meg to predict the future in this case.

The CWU leadership are supposed to be representing our side. Personally, I don't think they are very good job. Do you agree?

I’m not sure what you are asking with that second sentence but do I think they are doing a good job? For a union operating in a privatised workplace, sure, I think they are doing as well as can be expected. You can’t compare them to the unions representing government funded industries, so it is hard to judge ultimately. Considering we are working for a company losing money, in a declining market, then what they have achieved is commendable, sure.

[smartin1982]

Please stop encouraging us to do something ridiculous and support this agreement to detrimental change.

Yet it's fine to encourage people to vote no without any consideration that the alternative may lead to more and faster detrimental change?

Your idea of ridiculous is different to mine.

The key work here is may. If this deal is voted through it’s definite.
Accepting something terrible just in case (becomes nobody actually knows) something worse MAY happen is ludicrous.