LTB 194/23 - Royal Mail's Customer Service Points (CSP) - Further Advice to Branches and Members

[heraldmoth]

Vote yes you said , we are back in the room you said .

Voting no would have prevented this then?

You and I will never know

P.S. is the above going to be your stock answer?

For as long as people blame the result of the vote for everything going forward, yes. Yes it is.

To be clear “Lou” voted yes simply for the cash don’t expect a reasoned argument or case to be put forward

[nuisance]

Cwu have no power now to stop anything nowadays

If people don't turn up to the CSP how do you keep it open?

They did turn up and it would be shut, RM had closed it.
They would ask us, "when is it open?"
We'd say "No idea, they keep changing it, so that whenever you turn up for your parcel at a time it was open last time, its closed so you'll give up coming".

So it's worked and they've given up coming? Maybe still time to do something about RM doing the same with letters - giving people such a shite service regarding when they'll arrive so they'll stop sending them.
The CWU are doing nothing about it, they should have jumped on the CSP stuff and double and triple mail policies at the very start. WTF are we paying subs for if they're not even doing the basic bit of trying to protect jobs?

[Woody Guthrie]

The CWU are doing nothing about it, they should have jumped on the CSP

By doing what exactly?
They've been trying to highlight this to politicians and the public for years, there are countless LTBs about the subject and they've tried to put forward various alternative models that actually show the benefits of CSPs but they cannot make Royal Mail change its closure policy.

Unless you believe the membership as a whole will go to the gate to protect members that are regularly called lazy and workshy on here?

[A2B]

Cwu have no power now to stop anything nowadays

If people don't turn up to the CSP how do you keep it open?

They did turn up and it would be shut, RM had closed it.
They would ask us, "when is it open?"
We'd say "No idea, they keep changing it, so that whenever you turn up for your parcel at a time it was open last time, its closed so you'll give up coming".

So it's worked and they've given up coming? Maybe still time to do something about RM doing the same with letters - giving people such a shite service regarding when they'll arrive so they'll stop sending them.
The CWU are doing nothing about it, they should have jumped on the CSP stuff and double and triple mail policies at the very start. WTF are we paying subs for if they're not even doing the basic bit of trying to protect jobs?

Just like the banks have done with their branches and coming to your local rail station very soon.

[Mr Rush]

Just like the banks have done with their branches and coming to your local rail station very soon.

Nothing says dying empire like scrimping pennies by shutting down and running down everything. When they fully privatise the NHS, that's when you'll know the century of decline has run its course.

[LouBarlow]

Vote yes you said , we are back in the room you said .

Voting no would have prevented this then?

You and I will never know

P.S. is the above going to be your stock answer?

For as long as people blame the result of the vote for everything going forward, yes. Yes it is.

To be clear “Lou” voted yes simply for the cash don’t expect a reasoned argument or case to be put forward

I’ve been putting a reasoned argument and case forward for ages on here. You obviously haven’t been paying attention. Why did you vote no? I expect a reasoned argument for doing so. What did you hope to achieve with a no vote?

[heraldmoth]

A no vote sends a message that we are not happy and can see the bigger picture. A yes vote is a submissive vote that allows runners and their ilk to continue on as they hve been with heads buried in the sand. you obviously have things too cushy or just dnt give a f**k about those around u. Over the past 18 months you have been click bait at best, I have been paying attention.

[aiden01]

A no vote sends a message that we are not happy and can see the bigger picture. A yes vote is a submissive vote that allows runners and their ilk to continue on as they hve been with heads buried in the sand. you obviously have things too cushy or just dnt give a f**k about those around u. Over the past 18 months you have been click bait at best, I have been paying attention.

So it was a yes vote an members still are not happy how do the cwu win.does anyone in this job care about each other nope everyone in for themselves now.whether del or mc or wherever else.

[heraldmoth]

They know most people had lost interest by the time voting came round, at least half my office saw the 1400 quid and voted yes. That’s essentially what the vote was no (people who actually read and understood the agreement) and yes (the people who had been beaten down and saw the money)

[Woody Guthrie]

That’s essentially what the vote was no (people who actually read and understood the agreement) and yes (the people who had been beaten down and saw the money)

That's just assumptions based on the idea that you are smarter than everyone else.

A no vote may have been people who read and understood the agreement but they certainly didn't read and understand the situation.

The overwhelming feedback I got from yes voters was that they had read and understood the agreement, didn't like it but saw no path to a better agreement only a worse outcome.

No voters must surely have seen a way to a better agreement that the majority of members couldn't see. Perhaps if they had spent more time outlining that path and less time simply abusing members and HQ, shouting sell out and blindly repeating the slogan vote no!!! maybe more would have been convinced that it was a serious and workable option.

[heraldmoth]

That’s essentially what the vote was no (people who actually read and understood the agreement) and yes (the people who had been beaten down and saw the money)

That's just assumptions based on the idea that you are smarter than everyone else.

A no vote may have been people who read and understood the agreement but they certainly didn't read and understand the situation.

The overwhelming feedback I got from yes voters was that they had read and understood the agreement, didn't like it but saw no path to a better agreement only a worse outcome.

No voters must surely have seen a way to a better agreement that the majority of members couldn't see. Perhaps if they had spent more time outlining that path and less time simply abusing members and HQ, shouting sell out and blindly repeating the slogan vote no!!! maybe more would have been convinced that it was a serious and workable option.

As you say “saw no path” and so chose the money, backs up my argument. I think most No voters have been clear from the start it should have been were long strikes, failing that work to rule by all members and anyone not doing this removed from the union. Now what you have is vocal people leaving the union and a membership now brimming over with sheep.

[scotchy1962]

That’s essentially what the vote was no (people who actually read and understood the agreement) and yes (the people who had been beaten down and saw the money)

That's just assumptions based on the idea that you are smarter than everyone else.

A no vote may have been people who read and understood the agreement but they certainly didn't read and understand the situation.

The overwhelming feedback I got from yes voters was that they had read and understood the agreement, didn't like it but saw no path to a better agreement only a worse outcome.

No voters must surely have seen a way to a better agreement that the majority of members couldn't see. Perhaps if they had spent more time outlining that path and less time simply abusing members and HQ, shouting sell out and blindly repeating the slogan vote no!!! maybe more would have been convinced that it was a serious and workable option.

Woody you criticise for assumptions based on the idea you are smarter than anyone else.
Then you say that no voters didn't read and understand the situation.
So are you saying you are smarter..... little bit of hypocrisy perhaps, But i digress.
The vote is over, the result is in and it won't be changed so arguing about why and how is pointless.
The next great question is how we become relevant to the company, if they don't become relevant then why pay subs.

[clashcityrocker]

Then you say that no voters didn't read and understand the situation.

How exactly did the "massive" no voters understand the situation?

They clearly didn't have much contact with their colleagues as the "massive" no vote they were expecting didn't come to fruition.
They have now fallen back on the old tried and tested - "they just saw the £££" - which is just about as relevant as the massive no vote they were expecting.
They seem incapable of understanding anything outside of their little bubble.
Are the rank and file committees still going to smash the company?

[LouBarlow]

A no vote sends a message that we are not happy and can see the bigger picture. A yes vote is a submissive vote that allows runners and their ilk to continue on as they hve been with heads buried in the sand. you obviously have things too cushy or just dnt give a f**k about those around u. Over the past 18 months you have been click bait at best, I have been paying attention.

Sending a message with the goal of achieving what exactly? If you think more strike action was coming you are deluded. Neither side of the dispute wanted it, which is why we have the compromised agreement that the vast majority agreed to. Did the money offered help? Yep, it sure did, because most people go to work to earn money, funnily enough.

I’m sick of the bitterness of the no voters who thought they were in a majority. You lost. Get over it. Suck it up or f**k off and get another job.

[richietns]

That’s essentially what the vote was no (people who actually read and understood the agreement) and yes (the people who had been beaten down and saw the money)

That's just assumptions based on the idea that you are smarter than everyone else.

A no vote may have been people who read and understood the agreement but they certainly didn't read and understand the situation.

The overwhelming feedback I got from yes voters was that they had read and understood the agreement, didn't like it but saw no path to a better agreement only a worse outcome.

No voters must surely have seen a way to a better agreement that the majority of members couldn't see. Perhaps if they had spent more time outlining that path and less time simply abusing members and HQ, shouting sell out and blindly repeating the slogan vote no!!! maybe more would have been convinced that it was a serious and workable option.

Woody you criticise for assumptions based on the idea you are smarter than anyone else.
Then you say that no voters didn't read and understand the situation.
So are you saying you are smarter..... little bit of hypocrisy perhaps, But i digress.
The vote is over, the result is in and it won't be changed so arguing about why and how is pointless.
The next great question is how we become relevant to the company,

if they don't become relevant then why pay subs.

Local issues they are still very relevant providing you have a good rep.