WTF is really going on?

[Ren Hoëk]

I started this thread in the hope that we could, between us all, get to the crux of wtf the company are doing. It would appear from all the replies that nobody, including RM, has a clue what the goals of this company are, apart from making cash.
Although i have discovered a few things, newer posties know very little about how we used to be run and us oldies are not much liked by the newbies, mainly due to the t&c's being different, plus the whole seniority thing. They don't seem to comprehend that the difference in t&c's is due to their employer not us, seniority is slowly being eroded as we oldies leave/retire and then you will become senior, bet you don't complain then if it still exists!
Our internal fighting is what RM love, newbies need to realise we didn't make the rules and us oldies need to educate them and stop giving them a hard time, we all had to learn.
If we could gather ourselves and stop the infighting perhaps we could put up a resistance to these tyrants.

I speak for myself, not new starters at large. i don’t resent the disparity in Ts and Cs. I don’t resent longstanding staff or their experience, instead welcoming and embracing them and their valuable experience and knowledge.

But I do resent the rudeness and belligerence displayed by a small but loud minority of old-guard postmen. I also resent the fact that a union which didn’t give a hoot about new entrants’ Ts and Cs and failed to advocate for new starters in the BRTG negotiations is nonetheless s the de facto staff-side rep for us new starters regardless of if we are union members. I resent the fact that the old-boys club (aka union) has a significant hand in the allocation and booking of new starters’ annual leave when this is/should be a purely HR function. I could go on but won’t.

Smooth you say one thing and then have a go at the old-boys club which is us oldies, and you blame the union for your t&c's, while i agree to some extent about the union, you are a adult who signed said contract with the t&c's attached, i take it you read it before you signed, so take some responsibility, everywhere you work their are always cliques, and i have had plenty of jobs, but i never let that stop me or worried about them having a go. Know your rights, ignore them and eventually once you have served enough time they will ignore you. I know the seniority thing is a pain but again if you hang around long enough it comes back in your favour.
You have to remember we have a really high turnover of newbies that quit really quickly, always have had since i started, this job isn't for everyone and it takes a certain type to stay long term and then you reap the rewards. Nature of the beast.

Scotchy, you talk about infighting on boards such as these, but you have to appreciate how having a two-tiered workforce is way, way more of a problem when it comes to the job? That will cause more discontent than anything, and rightly so. It is perfectly fair for a new starter to question why older staff are receiving more pay for doing the same job, and not having to commit to working Sundays and bank holidays etc. Yes, they know what they signed up for, but I don’t think anywhere in the new contract, even if they receive one nowadays, does it set out that you will be earning less than the guy working next to you. If that was explained, I’m sure a lot of people would be thinking twice, and given how high turnover is, a lot do jack it in when learning of it.

It also will lead to a massive reduction in union membership. I know a lot of people moan on here about the CWU, but declining power in the workplace, is bad for us all. I certainly wouldn’t join as a new starter now.

So whats the answer. Drag everyone down to the new starters pay and terms? That's called a race to the bottom. It really needs to be mentioned again that it was ROYAL MAIL AND NOT THE CWU that attacked our terms and designed and implemented the new contracts. The CWU and the "old timers" actually went out on strike to try and stop this from happening. It will be the CWU that helps improve those terms. Without them there is no chance.

Some attempt to act on the provision set out in the agreement for new contracts to reach parity with legacy contracts would be a start. Or is it going to be like that other mythical section, that claimed sick leave would be looked at and if a percentage reduction in absenteeism was reached, we would return to the old system? Funny how that isn’t even mentioned now. Does anyone know if it has actually reduced people being off sick? My guess is no, because funnily enough, if you are too sick to work, you don’t turn up, no matter if it costs you financially or not.

People know how pro the agreement I was on here, and still am ultimately if it keeps us in a job, but it definitely makes me look at how the union is doing jack s**t to hold the company to account for these clear provisions in the agreement we voted for. And yes, I blame the union for this. They are there to keep the company to task and to force them to adhere to these sections of the agreement. If we announce a financial turn around in the upcoming financial yearly announcements, I expect them to actually do something, rather than the blanket radio silence that has been the CWU since the agreement was secured.

Ask your rep/areas rep/branch sec about all of those things.

They are actively being monitored and discussions taking place. As far as im aware sick levels have reduced but not enough to trigger the reinstatement of previous sick policy. I actually think this has just happened naturally as we move away from Covid. Like you, I agree. If you are sick you are sick. Especially with this job. Not much chance to hunker down in a warm office with a cold or the sh***s.

Improving the new contracts is one of the unions top priorities. These discussions are also taking place.

Did you attend your AGM? I did and Martin Walsh was the guest speaker. He spoke at great lengths about all things to do with the agreement. It was quite the eye opener.


I just find it ironic that you expect a union to exist and also advocate people not to join. Without them it would just be RM railroading what ever s**t they have planned for us. I can guarantee we would have been worse off without them.


AGAIN AGAIN AND AGAIN... IT WAS ROYAL MAIL THAT ATTACKED OUT TERMS AND CONDITIONS NOT THE CWU.


Do you also think that it empowers the CWU to do the very things you want them to do by publicly denouncing them all the time. Do you not think the employer doesn't see this and emboldens them to attack us further. Seems very self defeating.

[postslippete]

So whats the answer. Drag everyone down to the new starters pay and terms? That's called a race to the bottom. It really needs to be mentioned again that it was ROYAL MAIL AND NOT THE CWU that attacked our terms and designed and implemented the new contracts. The CWU and the "old timers" actually went out on strike to try and stop this from happening. It will be the CWU that helps improve those terms. Without them there is no chance.


New starters new what terms they were joining on. Plain and simple really. The Smoothbackgrounds of the world really do need to take responsibility for their own actions in this regard.


How strange that you recognise that membership is on the wane with declining power and advocate for not joining. Joining would increase membership figures and improve the union...

We will 100% be back in dispute soon enough. The company have clearly not stopped attacking its staff and I suspect will come back at us again soon. Do you want to be without a union then? I certainly wouldn't.

Couldn't have put it better myself and If smoothbackground isn't happy with the union on a local level they can always go higher and take it upstairs. We would be in a much weaker position overall without a Union.

Some of the new managers that have come in are dead set on the changes and are prepared to be pretty vicious and deploy any type of tactics to get what they want. They have employed Union busters to try and demoralise us using social media. It's an intentional plan to transfer us over to a parcel only company, similar to Amazon.

[LouBarlow]

I started this thread in the hope that we could, between us all, get to the crux of wtf the company are doing. It would appear from all the replies that nobody, including RM, has a clue what the goals of this company are, apart from making cash.
Although i have discovered a few things, newer posties know very little about how we used to be run and us oldies are not much liked by the newbies, mainly due to the t&c's being different, plus the whole seniority thing. They don't seem to comprehend that the difference in t&c's is due to their employer not us, seniority is slowly being eroded as we oldies leave/retire and then you will become senior, bet you don't complain then if it still exists!
Our internal fighting is what RM love, newbies need to realise we didn't make the rules and us oldies need to educate them and stop giving them a hard time, we all had to learn.
If we could gather ourselves and stop the infighting perhaps we could put up a resistance to these tyrants.

I speak for myself, not new starters at large. i don’t resent the disparity in Ts and Cs. I don’t resent longstanding staff or their experience, instead welcoming and embracing them and their valuable experience and knowledge.

But I do resent the rudeness and belligerence displayed by a small but loud minority of old-guard postmen. I also resent the fact that a union which didn’t give a hoot about new entrants’ Ts and Cs and failed to advocate for new starters in the BRTG negotiations is nonetheless s the de facto staff-side rep for us new starters regardless of if we are union members. I resent the fact that the old-boys club (aka union) has a significant hand in the allocation and booking of new starters’ annual leave when this is/should be a purely HR function. I could go on but won’t.

Smooth you say one thing and then have a go at the old-boys club which is us oldies, and you blame the union for your t&c's, while i agree to some extent about the union, you are a adult who signed said contract with the t&c's attached, i take it you read it before you signed, so take some responsibility, everywhere you work their are always cliques, and i have had plenty of jobs, but i never let that stop me or worried about them having a go. Know your rights, ignore them and eventually once you have served enough time they will ignore you. I know the seniority thing is a pain but again if you hang around long enough it comes back in your favour.
You have to remember we have a really high turnover of newbies that quit really quickly, always have had since i started, this job isn't for everyone and it takes a certain type to stay long term and then you reap the rewards. Nature of the beast.

Scotchy, you talk about infighting on boards such as these, but you have to appreciate how having a two-tiered workforce is way, way more of a problem when it comes to the job? That will cause more discontent than anything, and rightly so. It is perfectly fair for a new starter to question why older staff are receiving more pay for doing the same job, and not having to commit to working Sundays and bank holidays etc. Yes, they know what they signed up for, but I don’t think anywhere in the new contract, even if they receive one nowadays, does it set out that you will be earning less than the guy working next to you. If that was explained, I’m sure a lot of people would be thinking twice, and given how high turnover is, a lot do jack it in when learning of it.

It also will lead to a massive reduction in union membership. I know a lot of people moan on here about the CWU, but declining power in the workplace, is bad for us all. I certainly wouldn’t join as a new starter now.

So whats the answer. Drag everyone down to the new starters pay and terms? That's called a race to the bottom. It really needs to be mentioned again that it was ROYAL MAIL AND NOT THE CWU that attacked our terms and designed and implemented the new contracts. The CWU and the "old timers" actually went out on strike to try and stop this from happening. It will be the CWU that helps improve those terms. Without them there is no chance.

Some attempt to act on the provision set out in the agreement for new contracts to reach parity with legacy contracts would be a start. Or is it going to be like that other mythical section, that claimed sick leave would be looked at and if a percentage reduction in absenteeism was reached, we would return to the old system? Funny how that isn’t even mentioned now. Does anyone know if it has actually reduced people being off sick? My guess is no, because funnily enough, if you are too sick to work, you don’t turn up, no matter if it costs you financially or not.

People know how pro the agreement I was on here, and still am ultimately if it keeps us in a job, but it definitely makes me look at how the union is doing jack s**t to hold the company to account for these clear provisions in the agreement we voted for. And yes, I blame the union for this. They are there to keep the company to task and to force them to adhere to these sections of the agreement. If we announce a financial turn around in the upcoming financial yearly announcements, I expect them to actually do something, rather than the blanket radio silence that has been the CWU since the agreement was secured.

Ask your rep/areas rep/branch sec about all of those things.

They are actively being monitored and discussions taking place. As far as im aware sick levels have reduced but not enough to trigger the reinstatement of previous sick policy. I actually think this has just happened naturally as we move away from Covid. Like you, I agree. If you are sick you are sick. Especially with this job. Not much chance to hunker down in a warm office with a cold or the sh***s.

Improving the new contracts is one of the unions top priorities. These discussions are also taking place.

Did you attend your AGM? I did and Martin Walsh was the guest speaker. He spoke at great lengths about all things to do with the agreement. It was quite the eye opener.


I just find it ironic that you expect a union to exist and also advocate people not to join. Without them it would just be RM railroading what ever s**t they have planned for us. I can guarantee we would have been worse off without them.


AGAIN AGAIN AND AGAIN... IT WAS ROYAL MAIL THAT ATTACKED OUT TERMS AND CONDITIONS NOT THE CWU.


Do you also think that it empowers the CWU to do the very things you want them to do by publicly denouncing them all the time. Do you not think the employer doesn't see this and emboldens them to attack us further. Seems very self defeating.

I don’t publicly denounce them all the time though. I am as pro union as anyone here, to the point where I was constantly receiving s**t on here for defending the agreement, when we were in the voting period. However, I feel that sections in it are not being monitored and actioned upon, but if you say that is not true, then I accept that, as, as you say, you have more contact with such matters at a local level and possibly beyond.

As to advocating for people not joining the union. Nope, I never said that. I put myself in the shoes of people joining now, and I definitely would think to myself - ‘why would I want to join a union that accepted lesser conditions for myself, at the expense of existing legacy members?’ That is just the truth of it. That isn’t me saying they shouldn’t, more looking at the issue of membership from an objective perspective.

It is the exact reason RM wanted this two-tier workforce. As scotchy mentioned, it is a classic divide & conquer tactic to bust the union, and, I’m sorry, if the CWU doesn’t act to improve the chances of making up the contracts of new starters to existing terms and conditions, they are finished. It needs to happen far quicker than after 5 years of employment.

[Smoothbackground]

Yes, RM introduced new entrants’ Ts and Cs, no doubt about it. But those new Ts and Cs formed a very small part of a much wider dispute and impasse between the CWU and RM. That impasse included new methods of working, network window extension, reforms to sick pay, review of parcel networks, etc, etc.

Given the breadth of the dispute, the CWU — as the unelected and unappointed staff-side rep for new starters — decided to sacrifice anything to do with new entrants and instead concentrate only on things that were to the detriment of existing staff. They effectively said to RM, but privately, “Okay, we don’t like it that you’re watering down new entrants’ contracts and hope you might change your mind one day, but we will let that one go if you are prepared to make concessions elsewhere for existing staff.”

Why would new starters want this lot bargaining for us and representing us when none of us recognise it as our union? RM has been very clear and transparent with its intentions, yet the CWU uses smoke and mirrors in an attempt to rewrite history.

PS: I don’t see anywhere within the agreement, or elsewhere, anything about pay parity and levelling up taking place within five years, one year or any defined period — it just says it is a “shared aspiration” depending on profitability.

[Barnacle]

Yes, RM introduced new entrants’ Ts and Cs, no doubt about it. But those new Ts and Cs formed a very small part of a much wider dispute and impasse between the CWU and RM. That impasse included new methods of working, network window extension, reforms to sick pay, review of parcel networks, etc, etc.

Given the breadth of the dispute, the CWU — as the unelected and unappointed staff-side rep for new starters — decided to sacrifice anything to do with new entrants and instead concentrate only on things that were to the detriment of existing staff. They effectively said to RM, but privately, “Okay, we don’t like it that you’re watering down new entrants’ contracts and hope you might change your mind one day, but we will let that one go if you are prepared to make concessions elsewhere for existing staff.”

Why would new starters want this lot bargaining for us and representing us when none of us recognise it as our union? RM has been very clear and transparent with its intentions, yet the CWU uses smoke and mirrors in an attempt to rewrite history.

PS: I don’t see anywhere within the agreement, or elsewhere, anything about pay parity and levelling up taking place within five years, one year or any defined period — it just says it is a “shared aspiration” depending on profitability.

You are not a new starter. Not even convinced that you work at RM.

[Smoothbackground]

You are not a new starter. Not even convinced that you work at RM.

I have already proved with photographic evidence elsewhere on this forum that I work at RM. But you are entitled to your opinion. You clearly love a conspiracy theory!

[Smoothbackground]

Can I just say, this has been one of the most productive and intellectual debates on this forum in a while, and some of it may even cause me to reconsider some of my views!

[LouBarlow]

Yes, RM introduced new entrants’ Ts and Cs, no doubt about it. But those new Ts and Cs formed a very small part of a much wider dispute and impasse between the CWU and RM. That impasse included new methods of working, network window extension, reforms to sick pay, review of parcel networks, etc, etc.

Given the breadth of the dispute, the CWU — as the unelected and unappointed staff-side rep for new starters — decided to sacrifice anything to do with new entrants and instead concentrate only on things that were to the detriment of existing staff. They effectively said to RM, but privately, “Okay, we don’t like it that you’re watering down new entrants’ contracts and hope you might change your mind one day, but we will let that one go if you are prepared to make concessions elsewhere for existing staff.”

Why would new starters want this lot bargaining for us and representing us when none of us recognise it as our union? RM has been very clear and transparent with its intentions, yet the CWU uses smoke and mirrors in an attempt to rewrite history.

PS: I don’t see anywhere within the agreement, or elsewhere, anything about pay parity and levelling up taking place within five years, one year or any defined period — it just says it is a “shared aspiration” depending on profitability.

You are not a new starter. Not even convinced that you work at RM.

Stop bullying them (by your own definition of that word). They already provided photographic evidence that made one ex-postie on here look stupid.

[Barnacle]

Yes, RM introduced new entrants’ Ts and Cs, no doubt about it. But those new Ts and Cs formed a very small part of a much wider dispute and impasse between the CWU and RM. That impasse included new methods of working, network window extension, reforms to sick pay, review of parcel networks, etc, etc.

Given the breadth of the dispute, the CWU — as the unelected and unappointed staff-side rep for new starters — decided to sacrifice anything to do with new entrants and instead concentrate only on things that were to the detriment of existing staff. They effectively said to RM, but privately, “Okay, we don’t like it that you’re watering down new entrants’ contracts and hope you might change your mind one day, but we will let that one go if you are prepared to make concessions elsewhere for existing staff.”

Why would new starters want this lot bargaining for us and representing us when none of us recognise it as our union? RM has been very clear and transparent with its intentions, yet the CWU uses smoke and mirrors in an attempt to rewrite history.

PS: I don’t see anywhere within the agreement, or elsewhere, anything about pay parity and levelling up taking place within five years, one year or any defined period — it just says it is a “shared aspiration” depending on profitability.

You are not a new starter. Not even convinced that you work at RM.

Stop bullying them (by your own definition of that word). They already provided photographic evidence that made one ex-postie on here look stupid.

As predictable an arrival as rain on a sunny day.

[LouBarlow]

Yes, RM introduced new entrants’ Ts and Cs, no doubt about it. But those new Ts and Cs formed a very small part of a much wider dispute and impasse between the CWU and RM. That impasse included new methods of working, network window extension, reforms to sick pay, review of parcel networks, etc, etc.

Given the breadth of the dispute, the CWU — as the unelected and unappointed staff-side rep for new starters — decided to sacrifice anything to do with new entrants and instead concentrate only on things that were to the detriment of existing staff. They effectively said to RM, but privately, “Okay, we don’t like it that you’re watering down new entrants’ contracts and hope you might change your mind one day, but we will let that one go if you are prepared to make concessions elsewhere for existing staff.”

Why would new starters want this lot bargaining for us and representing us when none of us recognise it as our union? RM has been very clear and transparent with its intentions, yet the CWU uses smoke and mirrors in an attempt to rewrite history.

PS: I don’t see anywhere within the agreement, or elsewhere, anything about pay parity and levelling up taking place within five years, one year or any defined period — it just says it is a “shared aspiration” depending on profitability.

You are not a new starter. Not even convinced that you work at RM.

Stop bullying them (by your own definition of that word). They already provided photographic evidence that made one ex-postie on here look stupid.

As predictable an arrival as rain on a sunny day.

In your own words ‘Bullies don’t realise they are bullies’. By my own definition, someone who follows around someone, deriding them for, either their lack of experience, or indeed their gender, qualifies, and as I mentioned before, I deplore bullies, so keep it up and expect a response.

[Barnacle]

Yes, RM introduced new entrants’ Ts and Cs, no doubt about it. But those new Ts and Cs formed a very small part of a much wider dispute and impasse between the CWU and RM. That impasse included new methods of working, network window extension, reforms to sick pay, review of parcel networks, etc, etc.

Given the breadth of the dispute, the CWU — as the unelected and unappointed staff-side rep for new starters — decided to sacrifice anything to do with new entrants and instead concentrate only on things that were to the detriment of existing staff. They effectively said to RM, but privately, “Okay, we don’t like it that you’re watering down new entrants’ contracts and hope you might change your mind one day, but we will let that one go if you are prepared to make concessions elsewhere for existing staff.”

Why would new starters want this lot bargaining for us and representing us when none of us recognise it as our union? RM has been very clear and transparent with its intentions, yet the CWU uses smoke and mirrors in an attempt to rewrite history.

PS: I don’t see anywhere within the agreement, or elsewhere, anything about pay parity and levelling up taking place within five years, one year or any defined period — it just says it is a “shared aspiration” depending on profitability.

You are not a new starter. Not even convinced that you work at RM.

Stop bullying them (by your own definition of that word). They already provided photographic evidence that made one ex-postie on here look stupid.

As predictable an arrival as rain on a sunny day.

In your own words ‘Bullies don’t realise they are bullies’. By my own definition, someone who follows around someone, deriding them for, either their lack of experience, or indeed their gender, qualifies, and as I mentioned before, I deplore bullies, so keep it up and expect a response.

Stop following me.

[LouBarlow]

Yes, RM introduced new entrants’ Ts and Cs, no doubt about it. But those new Ts and Cs formed a very small part of a much wider dispute and impasse between the CWU and RM. That impasse included new methods of working, network window extension, reforms to sick pay, review of parcel networks, etc, etc.

Given the breadth of the dispute, the CWU — as the unelected and unappointed staff-side rep for new starters — decided to sacrifice anything to do with new entrants and instead concentrate only on things that were to the detriment of existing staff. They effectively said to RM, but privately, “Okay, we don’t like it that you’re watering down new entrants’ contracts and hope you might change your mind one day, but we will let that one go if you are prepared to make concessions elsewhere for existing staff.”

Why would new starters want this lot bargaining for us and representing us when none of us recognise it as our union? RM has been very clear and transparent with its intentions, yet the CWU uses smoke and mirrors in an attempt to rewrite history.

PS: I don’t see anywhere within the agreement, or elsewhere, anything about pay parity and levelling up taking place within five years, one year or any defined period — it just says it is a “shared aspiration” depending on profitability.

You are not a new starter. Not even convinced that you work at RM.

Stop bullying them (by your own definition of that word). They already provided photographic evidence that made one ex-postie on here look stupid.

As predictable an arrival as rain on a sunny day.

In your own words ‘Bullies don’t realise they are bullies’. By my own definition, someone who follows around someone, deriding them for, either their lack of experience, or indeed their gender, qualifies, and as I mentioned before, I deplore bullies, so keep it up and expect a response.

Stop following me.

If you stop quoting my posts, I will stop responding to them. That seems fair.

[Barnacle]

Yes, RM introduced new entrants’ Ts and Cs, no doubt about it. But those new Ts and Cs formed a very small part of a much wider dispute and impasse between the CWU and RM. That impasse included new methods of working, network window extension, reforms to sick pay, review of parcel networks, etc, etc.

Given the breadth of the dispute, the CWU — as the unelected and unappointed staff-side rep for new starters — decided to sacrifice anything to do with new entrants and instead concentrate only on things that were to the detriment of existing staff. They effectively said to RM, but privately, “Okay, we don’t like it that you’re watering down new entrants’ contracts and hope you might change your mind one day, but we will let that one go if you are prepared to make concessions elsewhere for existing staff.”

Why would new starters want this lot bargaining for us and representing us when none of us recognise it as our union? RM has been very clear and transparent with its intentions, yet the CWU uses smoke and mirrors in an attempt to rewrite history.

PS: I don’t see anywhere within the agreement, or elsewhere, anything about pay parity and levelling up taking place within five years, one year or any defined period — it just says it is a “shared aspiration” depending on profitability.

You are not a new starter. Not even convinced that you work at RM.

Stop bullying them (by your own definition of that word). They already provided photographic evidence that made one ex-postie on here look stupid.

As predictable an arrival as rain on a sunny day.

In your own words ‘Bullies don’t realise they are bullies’. By my own definition, someone who follows around someone, deriding them for, either their lack of experience, or indeed their gender, qualifies, and as I mentioned before, I deplore bullies, so keep it up and expect a response.

Stop following me.

If you stop quoting my posts, I will stop responding to them. That seems fair.

Blimey, ego check. Just because you are in a chain of quotes doesn’t mean that you specifically are being singled out for a personal reply.

[CarryingMGMT]

Mate. They aren't even real people at this point, just controlled opposition of the real OPGs. Royalmailchat has been infiltrated by liars, telling you to be happy with what's happening to the place. Keep working for your community, keep working over your time, keep reading their pish telling you it's a great paying job.

Utter lies, every single post from these folk, the lot of it.

[Barnacle]

Mate. They aren't even real people at this point, just controlled opposition of the real OPGs. Royalmailchat has been infiltrated by liars, telling you to be happy with what's happening to the place. Keep working for your community, keep working over your time, keep reading their pish telling you it's a great paying job.

Utter lies, every single post from these folk, the lot of it.

;)