Postal workers: Vote no and defend our terms and conditions

[Woody Guthrie]

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.

You could sell it all off.
Then just lease back whatever capacity you needed, it's common in distribution in the parcel business to share a roof, when they were talking about setting up a separate parcel company they were planning to share the infrastructure, the truth is this would definitely mean things like centralisation, bench merging probably before dispatch and posties just waiting in car parks for their trays of letters so you wouldn't need many DOs, likely just the 350 or so parcel hubs.

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

That's just a label we put on them, they are just things you could technically call anything.

[Woody Guthrie]

When people say the job is f****d I don't think they realise how proper f****d it could be.

The union has been fighting this scenario for years while people have been moaning about the union selling them out because their start times are getting later.

I totally understand, I was around when we were out on delivery by 0645 but that's just ancient history now. There needs to be a reality check.

[Jen1]

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.

So I’m guessing that your contract has a flexibility clause? Here’s what it says on GOV.uk about that

Flexibility clauses
Your contract may include what are known as 'flexibility clauses', which gives your employer the right to change certain conditions for example, shift patterns, or a 'mobility clause' which allows changes to your job location.
A flexibility clause that is vaguely worded for example: 'the employer reserves the right to change terms from time to time' cannot be used to bring in completely unreasonable changes. This is because there's an 'implied term of mutual trust and confidence' in all contracts that requires the employer not to act completely unreasonably.


So the question is that are the new start/finish times unreasonable?

For anyone that chose this job because of the hours so they could pick kids up from school then I would think they’d win the argument that the changes are unreasonable

[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

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

The government there’s loads of info on GOV.uk
here’s what I found about your rights if they try change your contract

Making a change without agreement
If an employer makes a change to a contract without getting agreement (including by using flexibility clauses unreasonably), employees may:
• have the right to refuse to work under the new conditions
• say that they're working any new terms under protest, and are treating the change as a breach of contract
• resign and claim constructive dismissal
• be able to take a case to an employment tribunal

Don’t take my word for it explore the topic yourself if you ask citizens advice they will also provide you with some good reliable sources of information

Just saying coz I’m getting bored of having to refind everything I’ve read to copy and paste on here

[Woody Guthrie]

Is your start time in your contract?

In reality for most people I doubt it is so rather than a straightforward contractual change it would be down to custom and practice so what you would need to do is show that the change would have such a detrimental affect that you would no longer be able to continue under the new times.

You would need to show that the changes were unreasonable and the business did not have any urgent justification for doing so.

You would also need to go through all of the internal processes including applying for flexible working and the grievance procedure.

You would then need to show that the business had not followed their own processes or did not have the correct processes in place bearing in mind this agreement does have a process for dealing with this exact situation.

After all that if the situation hasn't been resolved you can then try your luck at an employment tribunal bearing in mind that tribunals have already ruled that up to 30 mins change is automatically "reasonable".

The most important thing to remember is that none of this actually stops an employer from changing your start times, it only gives you a potential recourse at an employment tribunal.

[Boltonian-White]

For anyone doubting what can happen in future and what Royal Mail could implement look at the Dutch postal system.

Actually educate yourselves instead of just repeating the mantra "vote no".

Articles here:

https://9to5groningen.com/2022/02/11/th ... consumers/

https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/05/10/postnl-wages


This story is an old one but was full of predictions for Royal Mail

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/apr ... s-delivery

I'm sure there's more stories out there if you look. Educate yourselves.

Past behaviour of Royal Mail is a great predictor for future behaviour.

I'm not telling you to vote No or Yes but vote accordingly in your best interests. Not because someone rams "vote NO" down your throat.

[pieoftheday]

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..

Ofwat can give as much guidance as they like, the investors have already taken millions out of Thames water , sounds familiar....

[Jen1]

For anyone doubting what can happen in future and what Royal Mail could implement look at the Dutch postal system.

Actually educate yourselves instead of just repeating the mantra "vote no".

Articles here:

https://9to5groningen.com/2022/02/11/th ... consumers/

https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/05/10/postnl-wages


This story is an old one but was full of predictions for Royal Mail

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/apr ... s-delivery

I'm sure there's more stories out there if you look. Educate yourselves.

Past behaviour of Royal Mail is a great predictor for future behaviour.

I'm not telling you to vote No or Yes but vote accordingly in your best interests. Not because someone rams "vote NO" down your throat.

Those articles are exactly why many of us have voted no

If we don’t fight for our terms and conditions now then when should we? Should we wait until we find ourselves sorting mail in our bedrooms getting paid £3 an hour like those poor sods?

[Woody Guthrie]

Those articles are exactly why many of us have voted no

If we don’t fight for our terms and conditions now then when should we? Should we wait until we find ourselves sorting mail in our bedrooms getting paid £3 an hour like those poor sods?

The problem is I suspect that voting no will actually have the opposite affect.

The closer the business comes to unsustainability the more attractive these scenarios become, especially if the union loses its voice in the workplace.

There is no doubt in my mind the business orchestrated this dispute from the start and has been in control for the majority of it with the intention of removing the union's influence in the workplace.

Whether they actually want an agreement or not is debatable, they seem to have left the union with a giant turd they know they are struggling to sell and seem uninterested in joining in with the sales pitch.

I'm convinced Simon didn't want an agreement, I don't think Keith Williams does either, I'm pretty sure some of his appointees on the board feel the same, how much of the board is difficult to say but it has felt from the start that we were walking into a trap and voting no feels like the endgame.

Your theory only works if we can get a better agreement and it's very difficult to see how or where that could come from.

[Jen1]

Those articles are exactly why many of us have voted no

If we don’t fight for our terms and conditions now then when should we? Should we wait until we find ourselves sorting mail in our bedrooms getting paid £3 an hour like those poor sods?

The problem is I suspect that voting no will actually have the opposite affect.

The closer the business comes to unsustainability the more attractive these scenarios become, especially if the union loses its voice in the workplace.

There is no doubt in my mind the business orchestrated this dispute from the start and has been in control for the majority of it with the intention of removing the union's influence in the workplace.

Whether they actually want an agreement or not is debatable, they seem to have left the union with a giant turd they know they are struggling to sell and seem uninterested in joining in with the sales pitch.

I'm convinced Simon didn't want an agreement, I don't think Keith Williams does either, I'm pretty sure some of his appointees on the board feel the same, how much of the board is difficult to say but it has felt from the start that we were walking into a trap and voting no feels like the endgame.

Your theory only works if we can get a better agreement and it's very difficult to see how or where that could come from.

I get what you are saying Woody and maybe it would make this whole situation less distressing if any of us believed that these plans are actually achievable or even beneficial for the business

We’re failing walks now but the plan in our office is to lapse another 6 duties

If the start/finish times change then we’re going to be slowed down by the school run traffic not to mention the fact that the stay at home parents that are normally in to take their and their neighbours parcels will be out on the school run so delivering parcels will take longer or you’ll be bringing more back to take out again the next day to face the same scenario

The small businesses that are at the end of my regular duty that shut at 4pm are going to need to get letterboxes and parcel boxes because they’re likely to be shut by the time we get there

So basically what I’m saying is they’re expecting us to be able to do more but at the same time making us less efficient

I have zero confidence in the business recovery plans and I don’t think abandoning the am delivery period leaving it open for our competitors is a sensible business strategy

If what you are saying is correct then the job is only going to get worse so why not take a stand now while we’ve got something to fight for

Let them worry about the alternatives that’s what they get paid mega bucks to do all we need to do is stand up and say a solid no

I love this job and I don’t want this business to fail but I can see the real world problems with some aspects of what they’re proposing I genuinely believe we are being mismanaged

[Woody Guthrie]

Let them worry about the alternatives that’s what they get paid mega bucks to do all we need to do is stand up and say a solid no

I can't do that.
Much as I'm not impressed with the deal I can't with a clear conscience encourage members to ignore the consequences of voting either way.

The consequences of voting yes will be difficult for some members but there are protections in the agreement with regards to flexible working and mitigation to keep the changes to a minimum , although the level of trust is low no matter what was agreed we would always be in that position.

The exact consequences of a No vote are unknown but I do know what our options will be and to be honest in 30 years in the job most of it representing members at various levels (no I'm not on release, I still have a proper job) I have never known us to be facing such a dire set of alternative options.

It is probably the worst possible time to make a stand, the worst possible time to reject an agreement.

I don't fear for myself, I could probably walk away tomorrow.
I fear for the members left behind, that they are about to inflict a level of self harm that will cost many of them their jobs and the rest what terms and conditions they have left.

[Jen1]

The bit you’re not getting here Woody is that for some of us if these new hours come in we won’t be able to stay in our jobs we will have lost our job

And it angers me that all the union is doing is saying oh well sorry about that

Like I said I love this job but I don’t know if I can afford to keep it

thing is if we all stuck together and refused to work the new hours then RM have either got to make us all redundant or sack us all and face a tribunal and possible discrimination claims which I doubt they’ll be willing to take that risk

Isn’t that what being in a union is all about? Strength in numbers and all that?

There’s no point in me banging on about it all now because most of us have probably already voted

And I hate that I’ve turned into a bore that bangs on about the same stuff over and over but I am upset about the whole situation and I feel let down by my union

[timbo1234]

It's not the union's fault. RM have been right up for this dispute since day one. RM was determined to get as many changes introduced in a short space of time. The CWU have lessened the impact of some of them but certainly not all. At least the CWU can still represent us in local issues but nationally CWU has been badly wounded.

[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

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.

We have had 17 leave out of 100 posties since February most replaced with agency or not at all,as i said you convinced yourself, Royal Mail always come out with we are losing of a million pound a day in every dispute they were doing it in 2011,sick pay ,IHR and seasonal hours if not implemented will not bankrupt the company just give them more profit,all the profit this year was spent building super hubs but creative accounting has made it look like we are in the s**t,i guarantee they will be back in profit as soon as the paper is dry on a yes vote if it gets through and the cwu are only towing the line because royal mail threatened to kick them out,don't be so naive ,all big corporate companies are doing the same thing trying to frighten the workers,and yes i will stand up and say it as it is,if you want to vote yes carry on its a democracy ,but for all the one's who do vote yes i dont want to hear the moaning and dripping next year on how bad the job is.Striking is the only way to change things,if you dont want too that's your choice its a free country the last time i looked ,the biggest moaners in my place are the one's who have given up and voted yes.

[Woody Guthrie]

thing is if we all stuck together and refused to work the new hours then RM have either got to make us all redundant or sack us all and face a tribunal and possible discrimination claims which I doubt they’ll be willing to take that risk

What you have to understand about collective strength is that you can't just expect it to do what you want it to and you have to be aware of its limitations.

Many members won't be affected by the later starts, many will use the flexible working option and many will be able to make other arrangements.

So already us all sticking together has started to look weak.
Royal Mail don't have to sack anyone, they could just bring in the later starts, probably in two or three half hour phases over 18 months and the likelihood of any serious numbers resigning and pushing for constructive dismissal would be very small...and as long as proper consultation was carried out and there was a process for exceptional circumstances (which there is in this agreement) the chances of anyone winning one are tiny.

As I've already pointed out the legal avenue for stopping these changes is not viable.

The only real option is to have union involvement and try to mitigate the impact as much as possible.