Myths about the agreement

[andy2007]

Here are a few more myths about the agreement. Perhaps you would be good enough to comment on them Dingo.
1) We're more concerned about financial gain, than our terms and conditions, and health and safety (in case you're wondering. I'm one of the ones who'll gain financially from it, if it gets in).
2) We're willing to see some of our Collegues loose out financially, to pay for other's gains.
3) Workloads will become fair and achievable, with such a weak reference to it.
4) Delivery Posties H&S won't be threatened by the increased outdoor element.
5) WCM will be used as anything but a means of saving money in the short term. Rather than being used properly, to achieve greater quality of service, safety, efficiency, etc..

Sorry to quote my own post. But I'm still interested to find out if Dingo, Lovejoy, etc., have any answer to it. Are they myths, as I say they are. Or am I somehow mistaken?

[lovejoy]

Here are a few more myths about the agreement. Perhaps you would be good enough to comment on them Dingo.
1) We're more concerned about financial gain, than our terms and conditions, and health and safety (in case you're wondering. I'm one of the ones who'll gain financially from it, if it gets in).
2) We're willing to see some of our Collegues loose out financially, to pay for other's gains.
3) Workloads will become fair and achievable, with such a weak reference to it.
4) Delivery Posties H&S won't be threatened by the increased outdoor element.
5) WCM will be used as anything but a means of saving money in the short term. Rather than being used properly, to achieve greater quality of service, safety, efficiency, etc..

Sorry to quote my own post. But I'm still interested to find out if Dingo, Lovejoy, etc., have any answer to it. Are they myths, as I say they are. Or am I somehow mistaken?

1) I am not concerned about the finances of the deal. The action was never about that for me or any member that I spoke to.

2) Nobody is asking people to lose out to pay for others gains. Nobody has hidden from the fact that in the short term some members will lose financially against what they currently earn. The fact is though that the negotiators faced the following deicison (a) keep things as they are, see jobs lost through lack of workload and let RM continue to turn work away - shameful in the current economic circumstances or (b) put the product into workload, protect jobs and take more work into the industry. When logic is applied to this argument it is a no brainer.

3) People worried that RM will carry on with unachievable workloads should note that they have agreed to implement no revisions until this is sorted. This puts their finances under pressure and meetings are taking place this week to finalise the details with ACAS work measurement experts involved.

4) Nobodies H&S will be put at risk as long as the reps are doing the business. The ASRs are able to risk assess every walk! Also the new methods will take weight off the shoulder. Add this to the agreed standards and the job will be far more reasonable than it currently is.

5) You are right on WCM. It is just a cost cutting scheme. The CWU had 2 choices. Stay away from it and let RM bribe people to become involved (they have even been taking people on holiday) or get in amongst it and do what we have done with every scheme of this type - kill it off.

[andy2007]

Here are a few more myths about the agreement. Perhaps you would be good enough to comment on them Dingo.
1) We're more concerned about financial gain, than our terms and conditions, and health and safety (in case you're wondering. I'm one of the ones who'll gain financially from it, if it gets in).
2) We're willing to see some of our Collegues loose out financially, to pay for other's gains.
3) Workloads will become fair and achievable, with such a weak reference to it.
4) Delivery Posties H&S won't be threatened by the increased outdoor element.
5) WCM will be used as anything but a means of saving money in the short term. Rather than being used properly, to achieve greater quality of service, safety, efficiency, etc..

Sorry to quote my own post. But I'm still interested to find out if Dingo, Lovejoy, etc., have any answer to it. Are they myths, as I say they are. Or am I somehow mistaken?

1) I am not concerned about the finances of the deal. The action was never about that for me or any member that I spoke to.
Neither am I, or many of the people I've spoken to. It was certainly nothing to do with the Christmas Strikes. Yet the negotiators spent a great deal of time, trying to get us more money. Instead of using the potential for a pay increase, as a bargaining tool, to protect our terms and conditions.

2) Nobody is asking people to lose out to pay for others gains. Nobody has hidden from the fact that in the short term some members will lose financially against what they currently earn. The fact is though that the negotiators faced the following deicison (a) keep things as they are, see jobs lost through lack of workload and let RM continue to turn work away - shameful in the current economic circumstances or (b) put the product into workload, protect jobs and take more work into the industry. When logic is applied to this argument it is a no brainer.
Then why not have a larger wage rise in the first year, to allow everyone to at least break even, and lower ones for the remaining years?

3) People worried that RM will carry on with unachievable workloads should note that they have agreed to implement no revisions until this is sorted. This puts their finances under pressure and meetings are taking place this week to finalise the details with ACAS work measurement experts involved.
I take it you've not had any experience of these so-called experts then. We've had them in several times, and it's invariably a disaster! Here are 2 examples:
i) They decided that it would be more efficient to use FLTs to run the Segs. Instead of running them with Scuds, and using a FLT to drop the Mail, and take the sorted Mail to the lines. That was an utter disaster, as when we had all the Segs up and running, there wasn't enough room to manuver. Which caused several near misses and a couple of accidents.
ii) They came in to set the first proper work rate for Segging. But they didn't take into account the varying amount of Mailbags in an RSC. So although at first it seemed incredibly difficult (before they came in, it was p**s easy). Within Months, we were finishing long before the end of the shift, because there was a high quantity of difficult cages, when they were in.

In case you're wondering. It was changed later, to a more realistic work rate. And more recently, has beein increased again. Now it's reached the point, where people are injuring themselves, in order to hit it regularly.

So based on those examples (sadly, I have more), do you really think they'll get it right?
Particularly if they use the average figures quoted on here, when there are many who do far more in Deliveries?

4) Nobodies H&S will be put at risk as long as the reps are doing the business. The ASRs are able to risk assess every walk! Also the new methods will take weight off the shoulder. Add this to the agreed standards and the job will be far more reasonable than it currently is.
I hope you're right. Because there are already people getting shoulder, and in rare cases, back injuries, through carrying too much weight. And that's even where there are good H&S Reps. They can't be everywhere.

People feel pressured to reach these workloads. And it's even more dangerous, where driving is involved.

5) You are right on WCM. It is just a cost cutting scheme. The CWU had 2 choices. Stay away from it and let RM bribe people to become involved (they have even been taking people on holiday) or get in amongst it and do what we have done with every scheme of this type - kill it off.

Why not try to force RM to use it properly?
If it's used properly (which it currently isn't), it would be a fantastic system. It would involve those of us who actually DO the job, in deciding how to improve quality, H&S, etc.. Just look at what's happened in the Companies who HAVE used it properly. True, they've all had job cuts. But that's going to happen to us anyway. But at least those who remain, have better jobs, than they had before.

[Martin Walsh]

OK thanks POSTMAN it can get heated on here but i never resort to personal abuse of any member on here.

I should have read the post more carefully and offer an apology to K979a.

[dvbuk55]

Myths about the agreement - here's what the CWU had to say to part time members before the strike:


PART-TIME IN ROYAL MAIL? HOW THE DISPUTE AFFECTS YOU AND WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE YES!

CWU members who are part time workers have a big say in this dispute and the changes that Royal Mail want to introduce by executive action have a major affect on your day-to-day terms and conditions. The CWU have been trying to negotiate new fair terms and conditions for part time workers in our industry however, because of Royal Mail’s announcement on a pay freeze they are refusing to discuss the following points that have a major affect on our part time members.

VOTE YES TO SECURE A PAY DEAL
Shift allowances:-Royal Mail at present only pays part time workers pro-rata of any shift allowance they might get for working unsociable hours. This is the case even though you could be working right next to a full time worker doing the same unsociable hours they receive 100% of the allowance for a 40-hour week and you receive pro-rata of the allowance depending on the hours you work. In a “nutshell”, if you are on a 20-hour contract and work 6pm – 10pm, which goes into a shift payment, you will only get half of what a full time worker gets even though you are working alongside them for the 4 hours!

Holiday pay;- If you have a part time contract for 20 hours but continually work over those hours on a weekly basis when it comes to your annual leave you are entitled to be paid an average of the hours you have worked over the previous 12 weeks up to 40 hours whilst you are on annual leave based.

Share in the success of the industry; - We want you to have a fair share of the success of the industry and receive a share of any savings made in your offices through improved efficient working.

If you believe Royal Mail are discriminating against you, and would like some advice on what to do next. Please contact us on the e mail below so we can expose Royal Mail and ensure you get fair and equal treatment, which is what the CWU are fighting for in this campaign.

Now of course their terms and conditions are even worse - so that's one myth gone to the wall.

[Glenno]

DVB where did you find this littke nugget... tou must of had your spade out all Easter

[gb93]

Yeah good post dvb would sure like to hear that one explained.

[dvbuk55]

There's more but I thought this was particularly relevant under the terms of this new agreement and the myth that the CWU really are looking after each and every one of us.

We should all be under no illusion exactly who benefits most and who benefits least.

[drb]

I have to agree that the (executived action by the way of introducing part timers), part timers are getting crapped on. Ideally,as they are now here,(and I mean that they have filled full time vacancies without any agreement). The idea was/is is that they come in and bag up and go. This is not the case and we know it.

Some come in and have to prep

Some work well over their time and don't get paid

The indoow workload tool is flawed.Fact.

This mixed bag of 20/25/1 hour contracts was with the intent of making us a predominantly part time workforce.It just would not work with the current calculations.

If the proposed 75/25 split is able to work then your part timers should be able to apply for any full time vacancies as per The Way Forward.There should only be an agreed amount of part timers in any one office.
Yes.Now that it is here,the new deal should give them an hour less of working,working out in real terms as about over a fiver a week.

However do we trust the business to stick to these terms? Is the agreement "water tight" to imposition. Do we vote No to this issue,because this is where the main point is.Trust.

[Wiggins79]

We had area reps out this morning out our spdo, neither of whom anyone in the office had ever heard of or seen before, to try and sell the deal. We got all the usual that everyone esle seems to have been getting (no other deal on the table, there is not enough mail to keep us all in work etc. etc.- this in an office that has an average of 2.5 hrs overtime per person every week since they collapsed a duty 3 months ago with our local reps full compliance). One new thing we got told (or I got told as I was the only part-timer in the office ths morning) is that instead of a shorter working week, us part-timers will be getting an extra 2% pay rise. When I asked for this to be repeated just to make sure I heard right, it was said again. So, I asked, that means I will get a 8% pay rise by year 3 then? Yes, was the answer. Now, I've tried and tried to go through the 80page "agreement" document over the last few weeks, but nowhere did I see this mentioned. Can anyone please tell if it is true, or was it a porky-pie. If it turns out to be a load of bs, then I shall be phoning the branch to cancel my membership forthwith, explaining that I am doing so cos they are lying gits. Any help, please?

[lovejoy]

We had area reps out this morning out our spdo, neither of whom anyone in the office had ever heard of or seen before, to try and sell the deal. We got all the usual that everyone esle seems to have been getting (no other deal on the table, there is not enough mail to keep us all in work etc. etc.- this in an office that has an average of 2.5 hrs overtime per person every week since they collapsed a duty 3 months ago with our local reps full compliance). One new thing we got told (or I got told as I was the only part-timer in the office ths morning) is that instead of a shorter working week, us part-timers will be getting an extra 2% pay rise. When I asked for this to be repeated just to make sure I heard right, it was said again. So, I asked, that means I will get a 8% pay rise by year 3 then? Yes, was the answer. Now, I've tried and tried to go through the 80page "agreement" document over the last few weeks, but nowhere did I see this mentioned. Can anyone please tell if it is true, or was it a porky-pie. If it turns out to be a load of bs, then I shall be phoning the branch to cancel my membership forthwith, explaining that I am doing so cos they are lying gits. Any help, please?

You won't get 2% but your hourly rate will increase when the FT staff move to a 39hr week and the cash value of this to you will be dependent on how many hours you are contracted for.

[Wiggins79]

Thanks for the reply lovejoy- but I'm still not really any the wiser. How exactly will full-time staff's hours being reduced by 1 hour (there are only 2 people in our office on 40hr contracts) lead to an increase in my pay- unless I have to do the extra hour for them each- in which case I should hope I would get a "pay-rise " for doing this as I would certainly have no intention of doing it for free on top of my own contract. Not sure if it helps, but my contract is 28hrs per week, but that is across 4 days doing day-off cover. This means I do the exact same job as the regular (eg arrive at the same time as everyone else, primary sort, prep and deliver).

[fishtank]

Thanks for the reply lovejoy- but I'm still not really any the wiser. How exactly will full-time staff's hours being reduced by 1 hour (there are only 2 people in our office on 40hr contracts) lead to an increase in my pay- unless I have to do the extra hour for them each- in which case I should hope I would get a "pay-rise " for doing this as I would certainly have no intention of doing it for free on top of my own contract. Not sure if it helps, but my contract is 28hrs per week, but that is across 4 days doing day-off cover. This means I do the exact same job as the regular (eg arrive at the same time as everyone else, primary sort, prep and deliver).

A full time members basic pay will be divided by 39 instead of 40 to produce a higher hourly rate.
That will be your hourly rate as well but as you will still work the same number of hours your basic pay will increase.

[Steviea34]

Thanks for the reply lovejoy- but I'm still not really any the wiser. How exactly will full-time staff's hours being reduced by 1 hour (there are only 2 people in our office on 40hr contracts) lead to an increase in my pay- unless I have to do the extra hour for them each- in which case I should hope I would get a "pay-rise " for doing this as I would certainly have no intention of doing it for free on top of my own contract. Not sure if it helps, but my contract is 28hrs per week, but that is across 4 days doing day-off cover. This means I do the exact same job as the regular (eg arrive at the same time as everyone else, primary sort, prep and deliver).

F/T - reduced workload, decline etc, 30 mins less on Mon & Tue the DOM says - SIMPLES

[rockytony67]

Myths about the agreement - here's what the CWU had to say to part time members before the strike:


PART-TIME IN ROYAL MAIL? HOW THE DISPUTE AFFECTS YOU AND WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE YES!

CWU members who are part time workers have a big say in this dispute and the changes that Royal Mail want to introduce by executive action have a major affect on your day-to-day terms and conditions. The CWU have been trying to negotiate new fair terms and conditions for part time workers in our industry however, because of Royal Mail’s announcement on a pay freeze they are refusing to discuss the following points that have a major affect on our part time members.

VOTE YES TO SECURE A PAY DEAL
Shift allowances:-Royal Mail at present only pays part time workers pro-rata of any shift allowance they might get for working unsociable hours. This is the case even though you could be working right next to a full time worker doing the same unsociable hours they receive 100% of the allowance for a 40-hour week and you receive pro-rata of the allowance depending on the hours you work. In a “nutshell”, if you are on a 20-hour contract and work 6pm – 10pm, which goes into a shift payment, you will only get half of what a full time worker gets even though you are working alongside them for the 4 hours!

Holiday pay;- If you have a part time contract for 20 hours but continually work over those hours on a weekly basis when it comes to your annual leave you are entitled to be paid an average of the hours you have worked over the previous 12 weeks up to 40 hours whilst you are on annual leave based.

Share in the success of the industry; - We want you to have a fair share of the success of the industry and receive a share of any savings made in your offices through improved efficient working.

If you believe Royal Mail are discriminating against you, and would like some advice on what to do next. Please contact us on the e mail below so we can expose Royal Mail and ensure you get fair and equal treatment, which is what the CWU are fighting for in this campaign.

Now of course their terms and conditions are even worse - so that's one myth gone to the wall.

As much as I often disagree with dvbuk, especially his views on London, I do think some of those who are pro-agreement should answer his post, the shift allowances paragraph could be easily substituted with the new D2D supplement