dingo wrote:Big Daz I think what CWU HQs was asking was Branch`s to get an agreement on 2.4 mph walking speed in light of the media stuff regarding this. At no point has anyone at HQs level asked branch`s to reach an agreement on peagsus.
The request was because Mick Stockdale Royal Mails head of stratagy for deliveries came out and said to the media that Royal Mail didt plan walks at 4mph but 2.4. Hence the request for branch`s to secure an agreement on that speed. My understanding and unsurpisly is that no cwu branch has managed to reach an 2.4 mph agreement.
The ADR has gone back to RM and asked for all pegasus revisions to be re done if they were done a speed faster than RM press statement.
Big Daz wrote:If RM dont break employment law what can the CWU do?
That is a very good question. The answer being if they aren't breaking the law they are certainly breaking agreements made and in those circumstances rather than be the straight man to RMs tactics they should declare that we will not take part in any trials, operate new machinery, embark on spurious "modernisation" schemes without full consultation and agreement - the problem with that is the agreement on Pay and Modernisation gave Royal Mail what was tantamount to carte blanche on any practices they decided was "modernisation". Did the membership agree to that? - yes they did BUT it was expressly recommended by the leadership and the PEC - and that my friend is where the CWU and I part company. Did they suggest that there was a myriad of difficulties with the agreement - NO, instead they left it to local reps who are in the main woefully inadequate to deal with the problems raised by this catch all agreement. I wish I could meet a woman like the Union - they never seem to be able to say unequivocally NO.
Big Daz wrote:If RM dont break employment law what can the CWU do?
That is a very good question. The answer being if they aren't breaking the law they are certainly breaking agreements made and in those circumstances rather than be the straight man to RMs tactics they should declare that we will not take part in any trials, operate new machinery, embark on spurious "modernisation" schemes without full consultation and agreement - the problem with that is the agreement on Pay and Modernisation gave Royal Mail what was tantamount to carte blanche on any practices they decided was "modernisation". Did the membership agree to that? - yes they did BUT it was expressly recommended by the leadership and the PEC - and that my friend is where the CWU and I part company. Did they suggest that there was a myriad of difficulties with the agreement - NO, instead they left it to local reps who are in the main woefully inadequate to deal with the problems raised by this catch all agreement. I wish I could meet a woman like the Union - they never seem to be able to say unequivocally NO.
The membership(you) voted for the agreement because they had lost an irretrievable amount of money through dispute, most picket lines were pitifully staffed and the number of strike breakers were increasing on a daily basis. If agreement had not been reached then the membership(you) would have broke the back of the union for ever. The idea that members did not understand what they agreed to is patronising and complete nonsense. We all know that things have changed and the business world is a highly competitve one. If we dont find more efficient ways of working then none of us will have a job with Royal Mail in 10 years time because it will have withered on the vine. Many of the ways of working succesfully achieve all that we have been campaigning for over the last 20 years or more.
Big Daz wrote:If RM dont break employment law what can the CWU do?
That is a very good question. The answer being if they aren't breaking the law they are certainly breaking agreements made and in those circumstances rather than be the straight man to RMs tactics they should declare that we will not take part in any trials, operate new machinery, embark on spurious "modernisation" schemes without full consultation and agreement - the problem with that is the agreement on Pay and Modernisation gave Royal Mail what was tantamount to carte blanche on any practices they decided was "modernisation". Did the membership agree to that? - yes they did BUT it was expressly recommended by the leadership and the PEC - and that my friend is where the CWU and I part company. Did they suggest that there was a myriad of difficulties with the agreement - NO, instead they left it to local reps who are in the main woefully inadequate to deal with the problems raised by this catch all agreement. I wish I could meet a woman like the Union - they never seem to be able to say unequivocally NO.
The membership(you) voted for the agreement because they had lost an irretrievable amount of money through dispute, most picket lines were pitifully staffed and the number of strike breakers were increasing on a daily basis. If agreement had not been reached then the membership(you) would have broke the back of the union for ever. The idea that members did not understand what they agreed to is patronising and complete nonsense. We all know that things have changed and the business world is a highly competitve one. If we dont find more efficient ways of working then none of us will have a job with Royal Mail in 10 years time because it will have withered on the vine. Many of the ways of working succesfully achieve all that we have been campaigning for over the last 20 years or more.
Bit late with the post - because since my post HQ HAVE advised a non cooperation in any cost saving exercises. I am by no means patronising the membership - it is true to say that we had no idea what the modernisation plans entailed and by their own admission neither did the leadership, despite which the recommendation was for acceptance - because the closure of mail centres and delivery offices hadn't been made clear and the promised "consultations" were merely details of the closures. If you think that the changes that have been brought in are more efficient then you aren't involved in the changes. I think you misjudge the resolve of the membership in the dispute of 2007 and the will of the majority to stand firm - there are a great number of people who are NOT members of the union now and their support is not guaranteed. There is some objection to the Hooper proposals and although it may not be enough to immediately change opinion I do think it will engender discussion and perhaps an acceptance that a third party is not necessary to make Royal Mail profitable again - BUT it all hinges on the government picking up the tab for the pensions deficit.
You may also note that despite the competition and the falling mail volumes, reputedly, RM have made more profit in the first 9 months this year than in the whole of the previous year. So we don't need to jump through hoops and we won't wither on the vine because we can have a bright future but we need investment and considering the amount of money being splashed about on private companies that investment should come from the government who do own RM.