This is entirely of the CWU's leadership's making over decades. They ruined the union, not us.
Regardless of who's at fault, the effect is a union membership which is disengaged, indifferent and not very active in the workplace. 50 percent of new entrants aren't in the Union so how do you have a rank and file movement with a workforce that is increasingly rejecting union involvement. The turnout for the last vote was woeful.
Whether the CWU has caused this themselves by neutering the local level or it is simply the capitalist system that rejects community and solidarity which has had a negative cultural effect on people,on workers, I dont know. It could be both.
[/quote]
Maybe the 50% of new entrants don't see any benefit of being in the union and those that left need a good enough reaosn to come back.
What system do you propose, bear in mind the new Off com regulations and rules we work under now. Any plan has to involve double mail
because duties were always going to be alternated. What did you want the Union to do for you?
I'm just interested because everyone seems to be critical of the union but nobody proposes solutions or has any ideas.
I didn't want my union to propose a system that would save the company money while making my working life harder.
That isn't trade unionism.
It isn't up to us to propose any system.
That is above our pay grade.
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.
It isn't up to us to propose any system.
That is above our pay grade.
[/quote]
Your correct. It isn't up to us to propose a system. That is above our pay grade. That means you leave it to Royal Management who will undoubtedly create a system that makes you work longer and harder.
Thats where the Union comes in, to defend against that.
The problem is Off com has already changed the rules and regulations meaning that the CWU had limited options what they could propose and it is also in a weakened state so it didn't have much manoeuvrability.
Google the billionaire bloke.... he's ruthless... and pure tyrannical..
Stripped the asre out of West ham..
I am not sure where you get the idea that he is ruthless and tyrannical?
As for stripping the arse out of West Ham, how did he do that as a minority shareholder?
Though I would say it did appear at times as though West Ham's defence was 3 defenders covering the work of 4 apart from when they played on Saturday when it was 2 in and 2 off.
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.
Google the billionaire bloke.... he's ruthless... and pure tyrannical..
Stripped the asre out of West ham..
I am not sure where you get the idea that he is ruthless and tyrannical?
As for stripping the arse out of West Ham, how did he do that as a minority shareholder?
Though I would say it did appear at times as though West Ham's defence was 3 defenders covering the work of 4 apart from when they played on Saturday when it was 2 in and 2 off.
This is from Google... quote..
Why He Is Considered RuthlessAggressive Cost-Cutting: In his sports and business investments, he does not hesitate to make hard choices. For example, reports highlight him ordering significant staff exits and cutbacks at West Ham United to streamline finances.Targeting Distressed Assets: He built his vast fortune via his energy group, EP Group, by snapping up undervalued, unpopular assets—like fossil-fuel power plants—and turning them into massive cash generators.
To me... the bloke is only interested in money... and will do whatever it takes to make it..
Last edited by roadrunner bill on 14 Aug 2026, 05:24, edited 3 times in total.
Cannot believe any union would agree to this clusterf,,
We voted for it! Well I didn't, nobody on here says they did, and no-one I speak to in the office seems to have voted for it... but some silent majority out there did. I must just live in an echo chamber so large that it surpasses the cosmological horizon.
Cannot believe any union would agree to this clusterf,,
We voted for it! Well I didn't, nobody on here says they did, and no-one I speak to in the office seems to have voted for it... but some silent majority out there did. I must just live in an echo chamber so large that it surpasses the cosmological horizon.
yeah, mail centre staff voted for it.
If enough delivery staff could be bothered to vote it would have easily been voted against.
Plenty delivery staff voted for it as they were told they could keep Wally weeks etc.
Cannot believe any union would agree to this clusterf,,
We voted for it! Well I didn't, nobody on here says they did, and no-one I speak to in the office seems to have voted for it... but some silent majority out there did. I must just live in an echo chamber so large that it surpasses the cosmological horizon.
yeah, mail centre staff voted for it.
Ahh the same old tune on here mc staff are outnumbered by a vast majority in delivery...maybe those in del should be the ones to blame for not VOTING AT ALL??
They don't have the costs or vehicle space for a one person-one van model to work or be feasible economically. However, they have invested in 20 electric cargo cycles to be trialled in London, Brighton and Cambridge which has enough space to carry parcels and in theory allow van shares to be reduced. They are more cost effective than purchasing vans and don't take up as much space in the yard.
They will also be great for HCT rounds as you don't need a driving license to drive them. They are restricted to 30 mile roads though so A-Roads or dual carriageways etc to get to your first delivery point will not be feasible.
Plenty of space in our yard for extra vehicles but only at Xmas do they bring in a load of hire vans. But what I'm really getting at is whether RM or the CWU have actually compared the productivity of 2 people van sharing against the singleton's because in our office the singletons tend to be on top of things and are clearing nearly every day.
So even if van sharing is inevitable then any proposed model should take that into account.
On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world.
If there was no agreement on a plan, what were you prepared to do?
Royal Mail would have brought their own system in as an executive decision.
So I would like to know the answer what were you prepared to do to stop Royal Mail from implementing it?
What is it that you wanted from the Union?
Would you have been prepared to strike?
What system do you propose, bear in mind the new Off com regulations and rules we work under now. Any plan has to involve double mail
because duties were always going to be alternated. What did you want the Union to do for you?
I'm just interested because everyone seems to be critical of the union but nobody proposes solutions or has any ideas.
Its easy to destroy something, be critical and dismissive. Its more difficult to analyse the situation and have an understanding and possibly come up with ideas.
If the Union would have done nothing and allowed the system to come in as Royal Mail wanted, the same people would be critical
of the unions actions. So the Union can't win with these people.
Your asking people ! what system they would come up with . Its not my job to come up with a system The people who should be supporting members and coming up with a workable systems are. dave Ward and the rest of the union Heirachy ! You know the guy whos gettind paid 175 grand a year . You pay me 175 grand a year im sure i figure something out . you also talk about strikes . The members have the appetite for strikes its the union itself that does not . As was proven with the last despute !
They don't have the costs or vehicle space for a one person-one van model to work or be feasible economically. However, they have invested in 20 electric cargo cycles to be trialled in London, Brighton and Cambridge which has enough space to carry parcels and in theory allow van shares to be reduced. They are more cost effective than purchasing vans and don't take up as much space in the yard.
They will also be great for HCT rounds as you don't need a driving license to drive them. They are restricted to 30 mile roads though so A-Roads or dual carriageways etc to get to your first delivery point will not be feasible.
Plenty of space in our yard for extra vehicles but only at Xmas do they bring in a load of hire vans. But what I'm really getting at is whether RM or the CWU have actually compared the productivity of 2 people van sharing against the singleton's because in our office the singletons tend to be on top of things and are clearing nearly every day.
So even if van sharing is inevitable then any proposed model should take that into account.
Shared vans, and in particular the ones that take all their large parcels without the luxury of a DPR have been the ones to mainly carry the can for savings practically since their inception. I doubt that the company want that to end. Think of the money they have saved over the past 6 years on a daily basis when they can simply send out 1 person on both duties of a shared van doing tracked only.
Shared vans, and in particular the ones that take all their large parcels without the luxury of a DPR have been the ones to mainly carry the can for savings practically since their inception. I doubt that the company want that to end. Think of the money they have saved over the past 6 years on a daily basis when they can simply send out 1 person on both duties of a shared van doing tracked only.
It's not possible to have 1 postie covering 2 duties doing Tracked only in our office. Even 1 postie covering 1 duty and a half on a Saturday often results in Tracked items being brought back. Some of the duties are fine but there are some duties with 8 or 9 loops!
We were due to go live with DM26 next week but it's been put back. The rumour that has been circulating is that we are over 20 staff short and new duties need to be put in first.
On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world.
Shared vans, and in particular the ones that take all their large parcels without the luxury of a DPR have been the ones to mainly carry the can for savings practically since their inception. I doubt that the company want that to end. Think of the money they have saved over the past 6 years on a daily basis when they can simply send out 1 person on both duties of a shared van doing tracked only.
It's not possible to have 1 postie covering 2 duties doing Tracked only in our office. Even 1 postie covering 1 duty and a half on a Saturday often results in Tracked items being brought back. Some of the duties are fine but there are some duties with 8 or 9 loops!
We were due to go live with DM26 next week but it's been put back. The rumour that has been circulating is that we are over 20 staff short and new duties need to be put in first.
Either way, it's still 1 person doing the daily 'job' of 1.5 or 2 people. Savings are too tempting for managers not to make.
The people who should be supporting members and coming up with a workable systems are. dave Ward and the rest of the union Heirachy ! You know the guy whos gettind paid 175 grand a year . You pay me 175 grand a year im sure i figure something out 
. you also talk about strikes . The members have the appetite for strikes its the union itself that does not . As was proven with the last despute !