Industrial Relations Summit Meeting The Hooper Report

[lovejoy]

Industrial Relations Summit Meeting – The Hooper Report

In light of the Hooper Report the Postal Executive has agreed that the Union should write to the Chief Executive of Royal Mail calling for an urgent Industrial Relations Summit meeting between the leaders of our respective organisations.

Whilst we do not accept Hooper’s clichéd portrayal of the Union, we are in total agreement that CWU members and Royal Mail will only be successful if there is a fundamental change to the current industrial and employee relations environment.

The CWU is ready and willing to set a new course for industrial relations and will support the modernisation of the company, providing there are proper negotiations that culminate in a new National Agreement. This must ensure sensible change can be managed in a way that provides CWU members with the best possible job security, terms and conditions. Furthermore, that agreement must lead to improved postal services, opportunities to grow new business and a sustainable Universal Service.

However, for this Union initiative to work Royal Mail must finally demonstrate they are also prepared to change their approach.

The Union will urge the company to reflect and act upon the serious criticisms levelled against them by Hooper. This includes management’s failure to engage Unions and the workforce and management’s lack of transparency over their modernisation plans and the company’s finances.

Given the gravity of the situation the Union will make it clear we are agreeable, if necessary, to facilitate our proposal for a Summit meeting through an independent Chair.

We will keep you advised of developments and a full report will be made at next week’s National Briefing. Please ensure this LTB is circulated to all Union Reps and workplaces.

Yours sincerely



Dave Ward
Deputy General Secretary (P)

[norbert]

the excuse parroted out by somebody that apparently doesn't work for RM but seems to know a lot about them - is that RM can't go round telling the competition everything - so that's all right then - also mistakes were inevitable as there wasn't enough time

[dvbuk55]

I'm not entirely sure what it is about the Hooper Report that has galvanised the Union into taking steps to engage RM in a "Industrial Relations Summit Meeting" - industrial relations have been non existent for the last two years - RM has demanded what it wants and the CWU has agreed either in fact or by tacit agreement (the pension scheme) - what has frightened the Union so much?

[Big Daz]

Mass reduction in RM workers = mass deduction in CWU membership levels

That might be a clue for dvbuk

[dvbuk55]

Mass reduction in RM workers = mass deduction in CWU membership levels

That might be a clue for dvbuk

Well it might have been except for the obvious Big Daz - and that would be - yep you've guessed it - part timers which equals part time subs, which has been going on now for some years - most people won't remember the last time they had a full time appointment made in their office. Part timers are equally entitled to representation for less money, so that would be an issue that should be addressed, particularly so if they are to fund foreign junkets. - however I digress, as usual - what has prompted the initiative at this point. The reduction of the workforce has been on the cards since the agreement to pay and modernisation - the only NEW factor as far as I can see is the part privatisation threatened by the Report.

[Big Daz]

Last week for a FT new starter in my office

[Big Daz]

We all pay for the same service from the CWU but some get it cheaper than others simply because they work less than 40 hours a week. The political levy is the same for both FT and PT so why not general subs? Retired mbrs pay a different rate but then they dont have IR reps

So the big question is should there be a convergence of memebership rate across all the different types of mbrs to bring a greater level of equality in what is paid for essentially the same benefits?

[dvbuk55]

Last week for a FT new starter in my office

Yes I've always felt there was something special about your office - the usual trends seem to be different where you are - I can't remember the last full time contract handed out in my office and certainly for the last 3 years no new starter has had a full time contract.

Should union subs be equalised across the board - certainly - when the money is spent wisely.

[bogstandard]

We all pay for the same service from the CWU but some get it cheaper than others simply because they work less than 40 hours a week. The political levy is the same for both FT and PT so why not general subs? Retired mbrs pay a different rate but then they dont have IR reps

So the big question is should there be a convergence of memebership rate across all the different types of mbrs to bring a greater level of equality in what is paid for essentially the same benefits?

Why not pro rata ?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

I was the last PTimer made up to FT in my office - 4 years ago