Will two sides in postal workers strike ever agree?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.uk/le ... ticle.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MODERNISE: From the quotes in The Sentinel (September 18) you can see why the two sides in the postal workers strike cannot see eye to eye.

We have Dave Ward telling us "modernisation is crucial, but the implementation of change must be agreed and it must bring with it modern pay and conditions". He then says the Communication Workers Union (CWU) is determined to defend jobs and improve services. What on Earth does this mean and what on Earth is "modern pay"? What he wants, but can't or won't say so, is more pay and less work.

He wants his form of modernisation, but at the same time will not tolerate any reduction in the workforce.

The Royal Mail director, however, says the CWU has "already agreed all the changes the Royal Mail is making" – i.e. the exact opposite of what Mr Ward tells us – and then goes on about difficult economic times and the suffering of customers and so on.

His definition of modernisation is obvious – job losses. But that is unacceptable to the CWU, hence the stalemate.

I have heard this term modernisation, as applied to our industries, over and over again for decades.

Isn't it amazing everyone wants it, or says they want it, yet cannot seem to agree on its definition?

The only thing they can agree on is to disagree.

Fewer letters are doing the rounds these days, and this number will continue to fall.

The plain truth is we do not need as many postal workers as we did and we shall need even fewer in the future.

Both sides should own up, admit this and cease talking endlessly about modernisation.

CD ALLAN

[Fred B]

"Fewer letters are doing the rounds these days, and this number will continue to fall."

Using whose figures? I don't trust their figures. Fiddlers!

[Jack Mehoff]

It seems that most people are up for a change so long as it doesn't affect them directly.

[banner18]

"The plain truth is we do not need as many postal workers as we did and we shall need even fewer in the future."

True, the issue is, how will the remaining work be distrubuted between fewer postal workers and will it be fair and managable?

Remember that a 10% fall in volume does not equal a 10% fall in postal work. Instead of carrying 4 letters to a door, we carry 3. Less work there? Not really.
Also there are 40 000 fewer postal workers now than there were a few years ago.

Where are the machines and modern working practices? Where is the assisted delivery technology? Why are RM still allowing countless people to do the job incorrectly,coming in early, using their cars and running and working through their breaks?

We all know about the reality of change, it comes down to how it is managed.

[bertie]

Well put, banner