CWU : Ballot papers start to land from today : BUSINESS RECOVERY, TRANSFORMATION AND GROWTH AGREEMENT - CWU MEMBERS BALLOT - VOTE YES

[77SAMPOST77]

compusory redundancies could happen if its a no vote

More scaremongering nonsense , They are short of staff already and people are leaving in there droves .

There are loads of agency at our place covering vacancies .

[Acca Dacca]

Maybe Martin can explain how they would have been able to use their 'warchest to defeat the union' when access to that warchest hinged on getting an agreement with that same union

Does the below make any sense? These three statements are what we have been told

''Royal Mail have a warchest of over a billion to bust our union''

The billion warchest is actually a credit facility

'Access to the credit facilty hinges on RM ending the dispute and having an agreement with the union

so ermm Royal Mail then have a warchest of over a billion they can use to bust the union that they couldnt have got access to until they resolved a dispute with the union

[jahbalon]

compusory redundancies could happen if its a no vote

It's a certainty if its a No Vote.
And the Company likely to go into voluntary administration.
But try telling the ignorant naysayers on here, who are attempting to lead the blind up the garden path with a mutually guaranteed destructive No vote.

[postslippete]

compusory redundancies could happen if its a no vote

It's a certainty if its a No Vote.
And the Company likely to go into voluntary administration.
But try telling the ignorant naysayers on here, who are attempting to lead the blind up the garden path with a mutually guaranteed destructive No vote.

The company going into administration is the nuclear option and an absolute last resort. They are not at that point yet.


Because RM provides an essential service via the USO, going into administration would require the approval of the government. Royal Mail have been determined to get rid of the USO for as long as I've known and they haven't managed it yet because they still have a legal obligation to do so. It will be for the government to decide and as I've said *umpteen times* they have already rejected Royal Mail's proposals for a 5 day USO; three times now. If push came to shove and there was a decision on either allowing the company to reduce its 6 day letter service or go out of business - what do you think might happen? RM have proven to be hugely profitable during the pandemic and there are many reasons to be optimistic that it can be just as profitable in the future. The company made substantial savings by not fulfilling the USO during this period, and look at what is happening now with offices routinely failing to get duties covered and overtime bans. Don't forget that the government also gave the business plenty of work with Covid kits during the pandemic and they can also do other things to improve Royal Mail's letter business if it needs to.

Royal Mail need an agreement which is why they have improved their offer from their 'best and final offer' last year. The board have a stabilisation plan in order to be even more profitable in years to come. That is why it has spent billions in the last 5 years with their capital investment into parcel modernisation and they clearly want to maximise their returns on these investments. If they can't make all the changes that they need - then they will do their best with what they have. Extending walks and focussing on parcel traffic will certainly help short term cash flow. But in the longer term, reduced head-counts, asset disposals and possible flexibility/seasonal variations and cuts to sick pay for us plus new entrants on just above min wage will improve the finances even further. The fact that they have now come up with an additional £900 conditional on a yes vote is proof that they want this deal.

The group's balance sheet is strong and no-one should be blind to the fact that IDS has a very profitable overseas business in GLS which is expanding into Eastern Europe, even if they are not prepared to cross-subsidise their operation.

[sweepster70]

I agree with the majority of what you say, but if the company (Royal Mail) is put into administration and there is a possibility, then there would be carnage. You have to admit that?

[postslippete]

I agree with the majority of what you say, but if the company (Royal Mail) is put into administration and there is a possibility, then there would be carnage. You have to admit that?

It's a hypothetical worse case scenario into uncharted territory and the truth is nobody knows. I remember back in the day talk of Royal Mail going into administration when they were losing a million pounds a day. At the time the company wanted permission from Postcomm (now OfCom) to raise stamp prices. Fast forward to today and Royal Mail at present have already raised the price of stamps and made walks much bigger. They are failing the USO and focussing on parcels. I would be very surprised if this company is still losing over a million pounds a day at this present time.

[norris9]

Do people actually want to vote NO and go on more strikes, losing more money, whilst remaining on the measly 2% pay rise they currently have....

I honestly don't believe all these people claiming they are voting no, there is no logic to voting no. You will only lose more money, jobs will be culled as a potential recession comes at the time we are striking.....

On top of this, if a no vote wins, the strikes will fail - WHY? - because a huge % of the workforce will no longer agree with strikes. A huge % of the workforce will vote YES.

At the end of the day I expect the vote to be a solid yes vote, but I am confused as to why anyone would want this dispute to go on and on and on when the company is dying and recession is coming.

[The Postman]

Do people actually want to vote NO and go on more strikes, losing more money, whilst remaining on the measly 2% pay rise they currently have....

Yes

[Pharox]

Do people actually want to vote NO and go on more strikes, losing more money, whilst remaining on the measly 2% pay rise they currently have....

I voted No, not because of the crappy pay rise (3.33% each year for 3yrs), but because the union that I pay my weekly subs too, failed to protect my terms and conditions and made them inferior to what they were prior to voting to go out on strike. The likes of IHR, VR payments, conduct due to PDA activity etc, have all been reduced, along with all the other daft stuff our union has decided to give away. Pure disgrace!

[Woody Guthrie]

There is very little logic in voting no.
It's an emotional response and I completely understand it.

To apply logic to it you would have believe it would end with a better agreement.

You would have to believe that you could find within the union that apparently nobody has any faith in a negotiating team willing and able to achieve that better agreement.

You would have to believe that Royal Mail would be willing to negotiate a better agreement and wouldn't just continue down the path they did last year of imposition and de-recognising, dismissals and suspensions.

You would have to believe that the members who are hopelessly divided, tired of this long and bitter dispute and financially vulnerable could somehow be united again and convinced to sacrifice even more for even longer.

You would have to believe that Royal Mail could continue to sustain the losses and losing customers long enough for us to find a new team, ballot the members then renegotiate another deal.

That's doesn't seem logical.

[einastronaut]

There is very little logic in voting no.
It's an emotional response and I completely understand it.

To apply logic to it you would have believe it would end with a better agreement.

You would have to believe that you could find within the union that apparently nobody has any faith in a negotiating team willing and able to achieve that better agreement.

You would have to believe that Royal Mail would be willing to negotiate a better agreement and wouldn't just continue down the path they did last year of imposition and de-recognising, dismissals and suspensions.

You would have to believe that the members who are hopelessly divided, tired of this long and bitter dispute and financially vulnerable could somehow be united again and convinced to sacrifice even more for even longer.

You would have to believe that Royal Mail could continue to sustain the losses and losing customers long enough for us to find a new team, ballot the members then renegotiate another deal.

That's doesn't seem logical.

Or...

You would, for example, find the idea of working, unpaid, for 28 hours extra every winter - in essence loaning the company your labour for 9 months of the year (should they deign to give it back to you in the next financial year, and should you even still work there) - so onerous and contrary to good faith employment practice that you would rather keep the terms that shielded you from that.

They can fire and rehire, but that'll be on them to deal with the invairably damaging fallout from that on brand and staffing. If they want to be a poor and exploitative employer, which this deal seems to codify into contract via a degradation of all terms and conditions for a substantial real terms pay cut - then let them do it the hard way. Many staff clearly already feel like their efforts would be better appreciated elsewhere, with alternative like for like employment now catching or exceeding royal mail on terms and remuneration.

It's no less logical to hold on to those terms and conditions for as long as workers here are happy to turn down derisory pay offers. Make them do it the hard way and the harder it is, the less likely they will have the political and economic capital to get everything they want. In the end, free market economics will force their hand on pay. As much as they wish it wasn't, it's still a labour intensive job. If they don't pay the market rate, they'll lose more staff than they can afford to lose and fail to acquire or retain new hires to replace them. It's a competitive labour market, and royal mail are no longer competitive.

It's not an emotional decision to reject this poor deal. I'm not in the union. The union's part in this is a whole other farce. I don't even have a vote, but if I did, I wouldn't vote yes. The job is too hard to sign up to what amounts to a ~20% real terms pay cut over 3 years and a contractual promise that the job will be made ever harder going forward.

[jahbalon]

I agree with the majority of what you say, but if the company (Royal Mail) is put into administration and there is a possibility, then there would be carnage. You have to admit that?

Of course there would be carnage, and the carnage would start with the mass pay offs
of postal workers on the ground. The No agitators on here are likely not reflective of the wider Royal Mail postal workers in the country, and are playing Russian Roulette with postie's jobs, their dependents and their futures.

The CWU and Royal Mail have carved out together what any fair minded person would say is a reasonable deal considering all the circumstances, and the CWU Scotland are recommending their members to vote for the deal.

There is also the not so little subject of the whopping £1,400 in total lump sum, which you would not get many employers offering their workers during a deepening recession. The last strikes failed, as the CWU acknowledged, it was an unwise move anyway I would suggest, so there are not going to be any more wildcat or organised strikes by the CWU in the near future.

Most level headed postal workers will see it as a reasonable deal considering all the hardships and suffering they and their families suffered during the abortive strikes, the No voters are only in it to cut and run and take the money.

I fully expect a YES vote in the region of 70%.

[Woody Guthrie]

It's no less logical to hold on to those terms and conditions for as long as workers here are happy to turn down derisory pay offers. Make them do it the hard way

It's still illogical because you are assuming that the members could hold this position in large enough numbers to stop it simply becoming a case of attritional reduction in terms and conditions without reward.

It's an individualistic position which is fair enough but it's also a very selfish position to expect the membership to vote collectively to protect you individually especially as a non member.

It would at best slow down change for some individuals but the vast majority would not be able to hold out for long, it would also remove the protection members have at local level, this dispute is not just about pay and terms and conditions but also about the way members are treated by management in offices and this "make them do it the hard way" plan would no doubt mean exactly that.

I don't think forcing Royal Mail into a more confrontation stance would be logical at all,, there are things in the agreement that are subject to trials and joint working groups and there are things they originally wanted but didn't get. if you're forced into doing things the hard way you might as well go for everything.

[barrychuckle]

If the no voters are in it to take the money and cut and run surely they would vote yes otherwise they won’t get the money. Talking rubbish again. Referring to jahbalon

[jahbalon]

If the no voters are in it to take the money and cut and run surely they would vote yes otherwise they won’t get the money. Talking rubbish again. Referring to jahbalon

It's not as simplistic as that, bear with me.

The No voters are just toying with the emotions and feelings of their fellow workers and dependent families, they already know it is going to be a Yes vote.

So,their game plan is to cut and run with the lump sum after all the carnage they have inflicted on posties peace of mind.

Sadistic so and so's.