Postal workers: Vote no and defend our terms and conditions

[guardianangel]

So the result of a no vote should be all out strikes when people are struggling financially. We’ve done the striking thing it didn’t work. It’s seems emotion has overtaken pragmatism.

The cwu got the whole strike wrong,they striked on the wrong days and not long enough they are to blame for the whole mess,im voting NO and am willing to strike for the unforseeable.

I assume you are financially comfortable enough to go on week long strikes then? Many can’t and now won’t go on extended strikes we walked out over Xmas and the company hardly budged. Going on strike now will achieve nothing.

You need to think of an alternative to just strikes if you want to make the company renegotiate.

Nope not financially comfortable,strikes is the only thing that will ever work and the only way we get any meaningful talks or outcome,as i said the tactics were all wrong should of gone all out at the start ,probably didn't help after strike days members going back in doing shed loads of overtime to clear,sometimes we are our own worst enemies. Im willing to fight on and voted NO but fearing some members have already started to believe the rubbish RM and the union come out with. Every dispute since privatisation all we ever here is we must change to save the company what they mean is the workers must except less so we can get more .As i said previously i'm not far from retirement so makes no odds to me but you've been warned.

[emu72]

A yes vote means we accept the new terms and conditions and we waive the right to protest

A no vote means that we’ll probably lose any lump sum and pay rise but they still can’t change our start/finish times without agreement

Maybe those that vote yes could work the later hours as they don’t have an issue with that and maybe they could do the parcel routes

Where as those that vote no could continue as they are

Maybe the yes voters could get the higher rate of pay and the lump sum and all the terms they’ve voted for as incentive

I mean there’s got to be other solutions to this??

Not really thought it through just offering ideas because the union and the board seem to be fresh outta those

Yes its not all about being tempted with a pay rise.think about the rest of your time at rm and the s**t t&c they will put forward and how miserable things could be for you

[Jen1]

A yes vote means we accept the new terms and conditions and we waive the right to protest

A no vote means that we’ll probably lose any lump sum and pay rise but they still can’t change our start/finish times without agreement

Maybe those that vote yes could work the later hours as they don’t have an issue with that and maybe they could do the parcel routes

Where as those that vote no could continue as they are

Maybe the yes voters could get the higher rate of pay and the lump sum and all the terms they’ve voted for as incentive

I mean there’s got to be other solutions to this??

Not really thought it through just offering ideas because the union and the board seem to be fresh outta those

Yes its not all about being tempted with a pay rise.think about the rest of your time at rm and the s**t t&c they will put forward and how miserable things could be for you

Agreed I’ve already voted no I would happily give up the lump sum and the pay rise to save the t&cs

I’m happy for the yes voters to start later and mop up what the earlier shift can’t clear and give them a lump sum and pay rise

[TopperGas]

Do you seriously think RM will give up on the later starts just because CWU members vote No?

[Woody Guthrie]

but they still can’t change our start/finish times without agreement

Who told you this?
It really isn't true.

Does your contract specifically state your hours of work?
Mine doesn't.
When I started the job my start time was 0430.

[LouBarlow]

Nope not financially comfortable,strikes is the only thing that will ever work and the only way we get any meaningful talks or outcome,as i said the tactics were all wrong should of gone all out at the start ,probably didn't help after strike days members going back in doing shed loads of overtime to clear,sometimes we are our own worst enemies. Im willing to fight on and voted NO but fearing some members have already started to believe the rubbish RM and the union come out with. Every dispute since privatisation all we ever here is we must change to save the company what they mean is the workers must except less so we can get more .As i said previously i'm not far from retirement so makes no odds to me but you've been warned.

Striking always works. Except when it doesn’t. What do you think we have been doing for nearly a year? You might be able to go out on strike indefinitely, but the majority of staff aren’t in your obvious financially comfortable position and live pay check to pay check. You sound close to retirement, so possibly own your own home outright, or are not affected by increasing mortgage rates et al. As long as you are OK though right? The reality is people earning £12 an hour, aren’t as well off as you seem to be.

Could it be that maybe the CWU, RM and the PEC are actually not lying to you, and are telling you the truth? A wild take I know, but I’m throwing that out there.

[Nickvilla20]

Nope not financially comfortable,strikes is the only thing that will ever work and the only way we get any meaningful talks or outcome,as i said the tactics were all wrong should of gone all out at the start ,probably didn't help after strike days members going back in doing shed loads of overtime to clear,sometimes we are our own worst enemies. Im willing to fight on and voted NO but fearing some members have already started to believe the rubbish RM and the union come out with. Every dispute since privatisation all we ever here is we must change to save the company what they mean is the workers must except less so we can get more .As i said previously i'm not far from retirement so makes no odds to me but you've been warned.

Striking always works. Except when it doesn’t. What do you think we have been doing for nearly a year? You might be able to go out on strike indefinitely, but the majority of staff aren’t in your obvious financially comfortable position and live pay check to pay check. You sound close to retirement, so possibly own your own home outright, or are not affected by increasing mortgage rates et al. As long as you are OK though right? The reality is people earning £12 an hour, aren’t as well off as you seem to be.

Could it be that maybe the CWU, RM and the PEC are actually not lying to you, and are telling you the truth? A wild take I know, but I’m throwing that out there.

There is a married couple who work at my office and one of them had to cross the picket line so they could pay their bills. An all out strike was never on the cards as by day 3 people would have started to go back to work and the union knew this and so did Royal Mail.

A lack of meaningful strike fund didn’t help either. Many people doing this job are working pay check to pay check especially the younger ones. With how aggressive the company was and the current economic conditions I don’t think the deal is a bad as people are saying.

[guardianangel]

Nope not financially comfortable,strikes is the only thing that will ever work and the only way we get any meaningful talks or outcome,as i said the tactics were all wrong should of gone all out at the start ,probably didn't help after strike days members going back in doing shed loads of overtime to clear,sometimes we are our own worst enemies. Im willing to fight on and voted NO but fearing some members have already started to believe the rubbish RM and the union come out with. Every dispute since privatisation all we ever here is we must change to save the company what they mean is the workers must except less so we can get more .As i said previously i'm not far from retirement so makes no odds to me but you've been warned.

Striking always works. Except when it doesn’t. What do you think we have been doing for nearly a year? You might be able to go out on strike indefinitely, but the majority of staff aren’t in your obvious financially comfortable position and live pay check to pay check. You sound close to retirement, so possibly own your own home outright, or are not affected by increasing mortgage rates et al. As long as you are OK though right? The reality is people earning £12 an hour, aren’t as well off as you seem to be.

Could it be that maybe the CWU, RM and the PEC are actually not lying to you, and are telling you the truth? A wild take I know, but I’m throwing that out there.

There is a married couple who work at my office and one of them had to cross the picket line so they could pay their bills. An all out strike was never on the cards as by day 3 people would have started to go back to work and the union knew this and so did Royal Mail.

A lack of meaningful strike fund didn’t help either. Many people doing this job are working pay check to pay check especially the younger ones. With how aggressive the company was and the current economic conditions I don’t think the deal is a bad as people are saying.

You have convinced yourself

[Mick100]

A yes vote means we accept the new terms and conditions and we waive the right to protest

A no vote means that we’ll probably lose any lump sum and pay rise but they still can’t change our start/finish times without agreement

Maybe those that vote yes could work the later hours as they don’t have an issue with that and maybe they could do the parcel routes

Where as those that vote no could continue as they are

Maybe the yes voters could get the higher rate of pay and the lump sum and all the terms they’ve voted for as incentive

I mean there’s got to be other solutions to this??

Not really thought it through just offering ideas because the union and the board seem to be fresh outta those

Who says they can’t change our start times without agreement

[Nickvilla20]

Nope not financially comfortable,strikes is the only thing that will ever work and the only way we get any meaningful talks or outcome,as i said the tactics were all wrong should of gone all out at the start ,probably didn't help after strike days members going back in doing shed loads of overtime to clear,sometimes we are our own worst enemies. Im willing to fight on and voted NO but fearing some members have already started to believe the rubbish RM and the union come out with. Every dispute since privatisation all we ever here is we must change to save the company what they mean is the workers must except less so we can get more .As i said previously i'm not far from retirement so makes no odds to me but you've been warned.

Striking always works. Except when it doesn’t. What do you think we have been doing for nearly a year? You might be able to go out on strike indefinitely, but the majority of staff aren’t in your obvious financially comfortable position and live pay check to pay check. You sound close to retirement, so possibly own your own home outright, or are not affected by increasing mortgage rates et al. As long as you are OK though right? The reality is people earning £12 an hour, aren’t as well off as you seem to be.

Could it be that maybe the CWU, RM and the PEC are actually not lying to you, and are telling you the truth? A wild take I know, but I’m throwing that out there.

There is a married couple who work at my office and one of them had to cross the picket line so they could pay their bills. An all out strike was never on the cards as by day 3 people would have started to go back to work and the union knew this and so did Royal Mail.

A lack of meaningful strike fund didn’t help either. Many people doing this job are working pay check to pay check especially the younger ones. With how aggressive the company was and the current economic conditions I don’t think the deal is a bad as people are saying.

You have convinced yourself

No I’m been realistic and if you look at our competitors and other companies who pay a similar wage then we aren’t doing to bad.

You’re very vocal on here saying strike and calling people weak for voting yes for the money so come on out your money where your mouth is and come up with an alternative solution what doesn’t bankrupt the company and it’s members?

I also keep hearing there is much better jobs out there but where are they? People aren’t exactly leaving on mass are they.

[LouBarlow]

A yes vote means we accept the new terms and conditions and we waive the right to protest

A no vote means that we’ll probably lose any lump sum and pay rise but they still can’t change our start/finish times without agreement

Maybe those that vote yes could work the later hours as they don’t have an issue with that and maybe they could do the parcel routes

Where as those that vote no could continue as they are

Maybe the yes voters could get the higher rate of pay and the lump sum and all the terms they’ve voted for as incentive

I mean there’s got to be other solutions to this??

Not really thought it through just offering ideas because the union and the board seem to be fresh outta those

Who says they can’t change our start times without agreement

They can and they have been doing for years now.

[koolishy67]

Voted YES let's give me a my pay rise I don't mind to start late and finish late who ever vote let them stay on same finishing time and don't give them pay rise simple

And let the NO voters keep their current terms and conditions too!!! And those who vote Yes, who are you gonna run to if you have to go of sick with flu because you've been out in the pouring rain for hours on delivery and then get less SSP. Or even worse case scenario, you suffer from ill health because of the job, unable to work elsewhere, and are handed a pittance amount for ill health retirement. Please, see the bigger picture and not just a few pounds pay rise in your pocket. It's a NO vote from me.

It just not about pay CWU clearly said vote NO means no more talks anyway will find out soon now I would love to see after voting NO you still keep your term and conditions

[Woody Guthrie]

If anyone thinks that the government/nationalisation is a way out of this situation they really need to think that through.

This is what OfWat have said about Thames Water, arguably a far more important service than us

One option facing Thames is being placed into special administration. Ofwat says in its guidance that this process is designed “not to keep a company in business but rather to ensure that the provision of services to customers is maintained” – meaning investors “bear an appropriate level of risk in relation to the decisions that they make” and reducing the “risk to taxpayers that they will have to bear costs relating to a failed company”.

If we were placed into special administration the government would first of all sell off anything of value which would not only be things like GLS but also a great deal of our infrastructure and UK parcel network, Parcel delivery is not a service the government is obliged to maintain as there are plenty of alternatives for the customer, all of those staff would then be transferred where there was jobs for them over to any new employer under TUPE rules which would protect your basic t&cs for perhaps six months to a year. Any surplus staff that the new employer didn't want/need would be made redundant under minimum terms.

What would be left for the government to deal with would be the letters business.
The government would need to provide a basic level of service with letters but that would have to be the bare minimum to "minimise the risk to taxpayers".

I saw this happen to one of my mates who originally worked for Railtrack, they all cheered when it went back into government hands under Network Rail then they got presented with new contracts and it wasn't so pretty, then his section got sold to Babcock and along came another new contract worse than the last, you get the picture..

[SpacePhoenix]

If anyone thinks that the government/nationalisation is a way out of this situation they really need to think that through.

This is what OfWat have said about Thames Water, arguably a far more important service than us

One option facing Thames is being placed into special administration. Ofwat says in its guidance that this process is designed “not to keep a company in business but rather to ensure that the provision of services to customers is maintained” – meaning investors “bear an appropriate level of risk in relation to the decisions that they make” and reducing the “risk to taxpayers that they will have to bear costs relating to a failed company”.

If we were placed into special administration the government would first of all sell off anything of value which would not only be things like GLS but also a great deal of our infrastructure and UK parcel network, Parcel delivery is not a service the government is obliged to maintain as there are plenty of alternatives for the customer, all of those staff would then be transferred where there was jobs for them over to any new employer under TUPE rules which would protect your basic t&cs for perhaps six months to a year. Any surplus staff that the new employer didn't want/need would be made redundant under minimum terms.

What would be left for the government to deal with would be the letters business.
The government would need to provide a basic level of service with letters but that would have to be the bare minimum to "minimise the risk to taxpayers".

I saw this happen to one of my mates who originally worked for Railtrack, they all cheered when it went back into government hands under Network Rail then they got presented with new contracts and it wasn't so pretty, then his section got sold to Babcock and along came another new contract worse than the last, you get the picture..

Apart from GLS all they could really sell off is PF and the 3 superhubs (have they even started any construction on 2 and 3?). If they wanted to split the letters side right off, the government would have to invest on a new infrastructure as any firm that would buy the parcels side might well want all the MCs and DOs.

A good chunk of what we send to DOs as small packets are technically large letters

[aiden01]

A yes vote means we accept the new terms and conditions and we waive the right to protest

A no vote means that we’ll probably lose any lump sum and pay rise but they still can’t change our start/finish times without agreement

Maybe those that vote yes could work the later hours as they don’t have an issue with that and maybe they could do the parcel routes

Where as those that vote no could continue as they are

Maybe the yes voters could get the higher rate of pay and the lump sum and all the terms they’ve voted for as incentive

I mean there’s got to be other solutions to this??

Not really thought it through just offering ideas because the union and the board seem to be fresh outta those

Who says they can’t change our start times without agreement

Did you not know quite a few lawyers on here who are experts in everything.