Come on Truth give us your thoughts

[dvbuk55]

I am not being arrogant..... I am pointing out a fact! Time and the membership will tell if this agreement goes through!!

I suggest you claiming a no vote before the ballot papers have even gone out is arrogant...

Personally, I don't think either of you are being arrogant. You're both expressing your opinions, and are entitled to do so. There wouldn't be any point having RMC, if we all agreed about everything, would there?

There's nothing arrogant about believing that there will be a no vote. Considering the problems with the deal. And neither is there anything arrogant about believing that it'd be a yes. In 2007, Lovejoy was one of a very tiny group, who had the courage of their convictions, by arguing on here, for a yes vote. And sadly, he turned out to be right. I thought he was wrong to back that one, and think he's wrong to back this one. But that's just my opinion. If I was to suggest that anyone should vote no, just because I think they should, that would be stupid and undemocratic. But what I think those of us who oppose the agreement, SHOULD be doing. Is trying to convince others to vote no. By putting forward reasoned arguments.

I think there has been enough reasoned argument for a no vote - the onus is on those who believe it will be of benefit to the membership in the short term and the long term.

There is a great deal of emphasis paid to the lump sums - already shown to be money we are already entitled to. The £1000 transformation money - £200 for the unsequenced revisions and then a succession of ifs for the other £800 which may or may not be fulfilled. The 1 hour less a week - comes in when the sequencing is complete if it is completed. Full timers keep their hours, part timers keep theirs - how exactly is that different from what we have now? There will be no compulsory redundancy - well there isn't now. There will be full and frank exchanges and inclusion in planning for the CWU - that was agreed in the 2007 agreement, but was never adhered to and really there is absolutely nothing in this agreement to change anything.

This agreement loses money for the vast majority of delivery postmen from the word go and that includes the 2% increase, the real slap in the teeth is for part timers, and I can only conclude that the negotiators took advice from areas where part time is not an issue, whereby the D2D monies have been subject to a pro rata payment coupled with the loss of any grandfather rights. In my office alone this will affect some 40% of postmen/women.


The FT/PT ratio is a complete pie in the sky figure which cannot possibly be monitored or maintained and I would truly like to see the statistic that proves there will be a 75% FT workforce by 2013, moreover I would like to see what the projected figure for employees will be by 2013.

People need not fear voting NO, Royal Mail needs a compliant, flexible and willing workforce to carry out the modernisation, a modernisation which has its good points BUT I see no reason why the workforce should have to finance it. There are two reasons for this:

!. Royal Mail are having to finance the pension fund and the deficit and that is costing a quarter of a billion pounds+ a year
2. The low price of access to our services for DSA which costs Royal Mail money

Do we need modernisation? Clearly we do BUT do we need it on the terms set out in this agreement? - the answer must be NO

[wranglered]

To quote you Andy.....

But what I think those of us who oppose the agreement, SHOULD be doing. Is trying to convince others to vote no. By putting forward reasoned arguments.

absolutely and I still hear nothing from the top table trio to how this agrement can possibly improve terms and conditions, bearing in mind inflation, the surrender to the pay freeze last year (what did the negotiators do for a whole f****k year? Maldives? Phillipines? Moscow? BELGIUM?) and, of course the great door to door swindle....

hello? any top union officials out there?

oh yeah I forgot...you all have a life outside of your cosy little numbers.....

The deal is, as Roy Mayall put it, the first in history made after a strike that makes you significantly worse off.....

[taxi4leighton]

the main point is about TRUST
do you really trust the management of RM?
after all the lies in the past
even today exposed for the lies about quality of service in the press
the "massaged" traffic figures
the lies they told about us during this dispute
the way they imposed Executive Action on innocent offices throughout the UK
the greed to cut hours so they can get their fat bonuses
if you trust them after all this, remember, its still the same people in management
they may try to put on a shiny, new, friendly face
bur its still the same a**eholes in charge
VOTE NO TO THIS SELLOUT

[lovejoy]

the main point is about TRUST
do you really trust the management of RM?
after all the lies in the past
even today exposed for the lies about quality of service in the press
the "massaged" traffic figures
the lies they told about us during this dispute
the way they imposed Executive Action on innocent offices throughout the UK
the greed to cut hours so they can get their fat bonuses
if you trust them after all this, remember, its still the same people in management
they may try to put on a shiny, new, friendly face
bur its still the same a**eholes in charge
VOTE NO TO THIS SELLOUT

I agree with you 100% that trust is a massive issue. I doubt Dave Ward or any of the negotiators trust RM but if we use this as a measure to judge the agreement against then we will never get any deal.

At some point in time whether we like it or not we are going to have to dip our toes in the water with RM. Should we do it now? or should we wait, keep fighting, striking and risk that one day when we decide the time is right that maybe its too late?

I don't trust any managers but the fact is if they take this company down then we all go with them.

[MinisterofCucumber]

Lovejoy,

I hope you realise that it's not just the management who are not trusted. A lot of us don't trust the CWU either. What you are telling us is:

"Four legs good, two legs better."

Why does anybody not working on deliveries get the right to vote for changes that will give delivery workers a paycut?

[dvbuk55]

I'd like to remind Lovejoy that we "dipped our toe in the water" with the 2007 agreement and THAT is precisely what has brought us to this point - the "Interim Agreement" another little "dippy" and how many offices had change imposed whilst the negotiations were taking place - FFS its time the likes of you and the CWU started to understand that Royal Mail have absolutely no intention of adhering to any agreements once the paperwork is done. As for ACAS for the joke that it was whilst these "negotiations" took place.

I say vote NO and let em bring it on.

[Pat Ostman]

Well if the deal goes through I am leaving the Union LoveJoy. Something I never thought I would do.

I agree with you 100% that trust is a massive issue. I doubt Dave Ward or any of the negotiators trust RM but if we use this as a measure to judge the agreement against then we will never get any deal.

Dave Ward what? Dave Ward gave just about everything Royal Mail wanted in this 'abomination just so they keep their fat cat jobs themselves'. Sorry but I refuse to use the word 'deal'.....

[andy2007]

Lovejoy,

I hope you realise that it's not just the management who are not trusted. A lot of us don't trust the CWU either. What you are telling us is:

"Four legs good, two legs better."

Why does anybody not working on deliveries get the right to vote for changes that will give delivery workers a paycut?

Because if you read the agreement properly, you'll see that although the bulk of it is about Deliveries. There is also a lot in there, that is specific to other sections (MDEC, MC, RDC, etc..), so why wouldn't we get to vote on changes to OUR working conditions too?

Or are you seriously suggesting that there should be separate agreements for every section of RM. With separate working conditions, pay, etc.?
Does the phrase "divide and conquor" mean anything to you?

[MinisterofCucumber]

What I am saying is that where collective agreement to changes are sought, only the people affected by those changes should be ballotted. A lot of Germans voted for the Nazis because their standard of living rose on the back of a minority slave workforce. The Nazis knew how to manipulate democracy for their own ends.

National agreements are for changes that affect everyone e.g. a pay rise.

This does not mean I am in favour of local agreements because you get the reverse problem of not enough people getting to decide on an issue that could affect them all, i.e. by setting a precedent.

It should not be difficult for the union to ballot the appropriate members.

Why did the union think this agreement was the answer?

The so called 'comprehensiveness' does not stop the evil of local agreement.

[dvbuk55]

Lovejoy,

I hope you realise that it's not just the management who are not trusted. A lot of us don't trust the CWU either. What you are telling us is:

"Four legs good, two legs better."

Why does anybody not working on deliveries get the right to vote for changes that will give delivery workers a paycut?

Because if you read the agreement properly, you'll see that although the bulk of it is about Deliveries. There is also a lot in there, that is specific to other sections (MDEC, MC, RDC, etc..), so why wouldn't we get to vote on changes to OUR working conditions too?

Or are you seriously suggesting that there should be separate agreements for every section of RM. With separate working conditions, pay, etc.?
Does the phrase "divide and conquor" mean anything to you?

Yes it certainly does and the union have done a wonderful job in creating that atmosphere without any help from Royal Mail on this occasion.

[spilie]

andy giving money to one section of RM while robbing the other, does divide and conquer mean anything to you?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

andy giving money to one section of RM while robbing the other, does divide and conquer mean anything to you?

Andy is voting against the deal so I think he is showing solidarity to us in Deliveries. To be honest though I agree with only voting on sections of any deal that pertains to you, I think that

1. Its not a major issue and we can return to it later,
2. Any changes we make to the voting system have too be done in the normal way and through a motion and acceptance at conference.
Finally 3. I don't think it would be accepted on cost and complexity grounds.

[chewi]

To quote you Andy.....

But what I think those of us who oppose the agreement, SHOULD be doing. Is trying to convince others to vote no. By putting forward reasoned arguments.

absolutely and I still hear nothing from the top table trio to how this agrement can possibly improve terms and conditions, bearing in mind inflation, the surrender to the pay freeze last year (what did the negotiators do for a whole f****k year? Maldives? Phillipines? Moscow? BELGIUM?) and, of course the great door to door swindle....

hello? any top union officials out there?

oh yeah I forgot...you all have a life outside of your cosy little numbers.....

The deal is, as Roy Mayall put it, the first in history made after a strike that makes you significantly worse off.....

Point of order:- My dad went out in the early 70's for Tom Jackson and I believe that after 6 weeks they went back for worse terms and conditions than they walked out over.(you find out who your friends are when you're that long with no money)

[fishtank]

Just for the history buffs
Tom Jackson and the 1971 strike
Jackson's decision to call his members out on strike over a pay claim in January 1971 was the most costly mistake of his career. The union had submitted a claim for a minimum £3 a week rise, or 15 to 20 per cent, in October 1970. When management made an offer of eight per cent on January 14, Jackson rejected the option of arbitration. Six days later union members walked out for what was the beginning of the first national postal strike.
The stoppage lasted seven weeks and cost the Post Office an estimated £25 million in lost revenue. But the shortage of mail never seemed to bite in the way that Jackson had expected. To win emphatically, he needed the backing of the telephonists - but their union refused positive aid. Jackson's union, moreover, had no strike fund; and, when he appealed to comrades in other unions for help, he found that the fraternal spirit - and ready cash - was in short supply.
With his union facing bankruptcy, Jackson was forced back to the negotiating table after admitting that there was no money left to make any more hardship payments to the 30-40,000 members who had no income at all. The Post Office workers eventually settled for a package which made wage increases dependent on the outcome of an inquiry into the efficiency of Post Office staff and management.
Many strikers were furious that they were being asked to return to work without even the unconditional eight per cent rise offered when the walk-out began. At a rally in Hyde Park Jackson was jeered when he announced the terms of the deal. Members called "Sell-out!" and "Hey, hey, Tommy J, how about our £3 pay?" Although he remained a popular figure, Jackson's reputation in the trades union movement never fully recovered from this debacle. Eventually, in 1982, he took early retirement.

[dvbuk55]

A very sobering tale there fishtank - Jackson only managed to hang on for another 11 years - sooooooooooooooooo - no it is too distressing to even contemplate this pair of muppets hanging on until 2021 - get me the rope