What happens If its a No Result

[MinisterofCucumber]

What happens if its a 'no' result?

The operational thinking behind this proposal is to set things up so that RM can be the main deliverer of D2D as it is hoped that this product will replace the volume of letters lost to electronic communication.

However, this proposal contains far more than is necessary to achieve this operational aim. Why have the CWU agreed to a top 10% workrate and an effective no strike clause?

We have been told that the consequences of a 'no' vote would be dire but have not been told why. There is a reason for this. The consequences would be more dire for the union and management bureaucrats than for the workforce. Look at who the people are who are trying so hard to sell this idiotic deal. The bureaucrats have joined forces to keep their cushy numbers by making the workforce slave for them.

Our union does not provide effective support for its members. It needs an overhaul. The bureaucracy needs to be cut out. The links with the Labour Party need to be severed. There also needs to be a massive cull of managers. Real modernisation means ridding us of the overpaid, ignorant and sometimes criminal bureaucrats that we are carrying.

A 'no' result will mean that the CWU will have to start listening to its members.

[Martin Walsh]

What happens if its a 'no' result?

The operational thinking behind this proposal is to set things up so that RM can be the main deliverer of D2D as it is hoped that this product will replace the volume of letters lost to electronic communication.

However, this proposal contains far more than is necessary to achieve this operational aim. Why have the CWU agreed to a top 10% workrate and an effective no strike clause?

We have been told that the consequences of a 'no' vote would be dire but have not been told why. There is a reason for this. The consequences would be more dire for the union and management bureaucrats than for the workforce. Look at who the people are who are trying so hard to sell this idiotic deal. The bureaucrats have joined forces to keep their cushy numbers by making the workforce slave for them.

Our union does not provide effective support for its members. It needs an overhaul. The bureaucracy needs to be cut out. The links with the Labour Party need to be severed. There also needs to be a massive cull of managers. Real modernisation means ridding us of the overpaid, ignorant and sometimes criminal bureaucrats that we are carrying.

Dream on !! For someone who didt lose a penny last year and didt have a one day strike you talk a good fight.

The so called bureaucrats you refer to persuming me , lovejoy do more for the members then you will do in a lifetime. We reprsent them at appeals , ETs , we meet them and we attempt to resolve their issues. We are entitled to our opinion as much as anyone else but we like everyone else have just one vote.

This agreement was never about just door to door . Royal Mail under this labour govenment had to introduce deregulation into the industry years before any other european country. Downstream access by passes the outward mail centre and has meant that the number of mail centres could be reduced. In additon a lot of companies have down traded their mail to save money. Obviously the recesssion has hit the postal market. Your right that E subsitution has also had an effect as some banks no longer send out statments and insist on emails.

Some posters will dispute this but traffic levels have gone down , I come from an office where we used to have 300 K in 1988 on the old first delivery now that office has just over 90 000 . Of course that office now has a lot less jobs doing that work.

Royal Mails business plan is to achieve 300 million profit after year 3 . Last year they achieve 50 million profit in Royal Mail letters. But just a small traffic drop will mean that plan does not achieve that.

Now in terms of listening to the members we do , the union meets with members , we have feed back from reps , there are committee meetings and there are Branch AGMs and of course there are conferences.

I have no problem with people voting no , providing they have an alternative as some on here have surrendered their terms and conditions in their office long before this agreement was up for voting .

If you really believe that members can leave a union and rely on the use of Royal Mail`s intrenet and the grivence procdure then you should come and work in Royal Mail letters and see how far you get with those two pieces of equipment. In post office LTD or cash handling etc your in a totally different world.

[dvbuk55]

As usual dingo points to others failings in order to justify what is truly a disciminatory agreement.

The surrender of terms and conditions is bullcrap.

Most offices have agreed changes under the auspices of the CWU under the buy down procedure and the 50/50 share agreement which dingo so conveniently ignores.

You are being told you were weak and they were strong but in truth most offices were implementing the 2007 Pay and Modernisation Agreement and instituting local agreements as advised and advocated by the CWU. You cannot go two years and more down the line and say "well you shouldn't have done that" - that might be very true - hindsight is the excuse of the bewildered.

The 2007 agreement was a disaster and this one is worse.

As you say those who are advocating this agreement stand to lose nothing and gain much.

[andy2007]

What happens if its a 'no' result?

The operational thinking behind this proposal is to set things up so that RM can be the main deliverer of D2D as it is hoped that this product will replace the volume of letters lost to electronic communication.

However, this proposal contains far more than is necessary to achieve this operational aim. Why have the CWU agreed to a top 10% workrate and an effective no strike clause?

We have been told that the consequences of a 'no' vote would be dire but have not been told why. There is a reason for this. The consequences would be more dire for the union and management bureaucrats than for the workforce. Look at who the people are who are trying so hard to sell this idiotic deal. The bureaucrats have joined forces to keep their cushy numbers by making the workforce slave for them.

Our union does not provide effective support for its members. It needs an overhaul. The bureaucracy needs to be cut out. The links with the Labour Party need to be severed. There also needs to be a massive cull of managers. Real modernisation means ridding us of the overpaid, ignorant and sometimes criminal bureaucrats that we are carrying.

Dream on !! For someone who didt lose a penny last year and didt have a one day strike you talk a good fight.

The so called bureaucrats you refer to persuming me , lovejoy do more for the members then you will do in a lifetime. We reprsent them at appeals , ETs , we meet them and we attempt to resolve their issues. We are entitled to our opinion as much as anyone else but we like everyone else have just one vote.
I can't speak for MinisterofCucumber. But I've never had a problem with my local, or area Reps, and I have a great deal of respect for them. However: I also believe that the "higher ups", including the negotiators, have spent too long away from the jobs we all do. I realise that you, and others believe that this is a good deal, and I respect you for standing up for it. But the fact is, that many of us believe that you're wrong. Which is why there are just as many threads against the deal, as for it (approximately).

I suspect it may be a case of "shooting the messenger".

This agreement was never about just door to door . Royal Mail under this labour govenment had to introduce deregulation into the industry years before any other european country. Downstream access by passes the outward mail centre and has meant that the number of mail centres could be reduced. In additon a lot of companies have down traded their mail to save money. Obviously the recesssion has hit the postal market. Your right that E subsitution has also had an effect as some banks no longer send out statments and insist on emails.
You're right about it not just being about door to door. There's far more trouble in store from it. But I believe that the emphasis of the negotiations was all wrong. I realise that it's been the aim of the CWU to get us better wages, for a long time. But the cost, is simply too high. There are vague promises, and harmful concessions. And even the money aspect is poorly thought through, as it means that many will be taking home less, than they do now!

Some posters will dispute this but traffic levels have gone down , I come from an office where we used to have 300 K in 1988 on the old first delivery now that office has just over 90 000 . Of course that office now has a lot less jobs doing that work.
Traffic LEVELS have been noticably less since the Credit Crunch. But what about the amount of WEIGHT to carry?
More parcels and less letters = more to carry. That doesn't seem to have been taken into account.

Royal Mails business plan is to achieve 300 million profit after year 3 . Last year they achieve 50 million profit in Royal Mail letters. But just a small traffic drop will mean that plan does not achieve that.

Now in terms of listening to the members we do , the union meets with members , we have feed back from reps , there are committee meetings and there are Branch AGMs and of course there are conferences.
But because of the secrecy clauses, we weren't able to provide useful feedback until it was too late to change the deal. Now we have to wait for a no vote, and face further delays, whilst the negotiators re-negotiate, in the full knoweledge of what we really want. That doesn't help us, OR Royal Mail, does it?

I have no problem with people voting no , providing they have an alternative as some on here have surrendered their terms and conditions in their office long before this agreement was up for voting .
Several of us already HAVE offered alternatives, both on here, and to our Reps. Although I admit, there ARE some who are from weaker offices, who've already given in.

If you really believe that members can leave a union and rely on the use of Royal Mail`s intrenet and the grivence procdure then you should come and work in Royal Mail letters and see how far you get with those two pieces of equipment. In post office LTD or cash handling etc your in a totally different world.

You're spot on with that last bit. Which is why I've tried to convince people to either stick with the CWU (as I will), or at the very least, join another Union. Although as the CWU is the only recognised Union for our grades, they will be at a major disadvantage if they join a different Union.

[Postal1]

Some of the reps here talk about some offices already giving up terms and conditions long before this agreement.
Well i for one would like to say, as we were one of the first offices to do van sharing we went out under unofficial strike as it was being pushed through without agreement and one member being threatened on day one with the sack for not pairing up with someone he hated. We went out for three days and got ZERO support from anyone.

Now we are left with this agreement where lots of it is going to be agreed locally. For example, indoor and outdoor workrates.
Now we have a complete **** as a area manager who listens to no one. He will just force things through, and give us totally unfair workrates. We've already lost 18% of our workforce in one year. We begged our area manager to come over for a week and sort out our issues as local rep is still new and green in areas.
The area rep agreed that we are being screwed by our manager and are far worse than other areas he covers. He however was plugging the part line about voting YES.
I say, why does he shud our crys for help and get fairness in our office. Because one thing is for sure, some offices IMO are going to get shafted if this agreement goes through.

[Big Daz]

Now we are left with this agreement where lots of it is going to be agreed locally. For example, indoor and outdoor workrates.

The only rates that should be used under the terms of this proposed agreement are national, if any managers tries to do otherwise they are in clear and uneqivcoal breach of the proposed agreement.

The proposals state


Planning for operational change in delivery units will be done using national planning and measurement systems, and revision tools

[fishtank]

Now we are left with this agreement where lots of it is going to be agreed locally. For example, indoor and outdoor workrates.

The only rates that should be used under the terms of this proposed agreement are national, if any managers tries to do otherwise they are in clear and uneqivcoal breach of the proposed agreement.

The proposals state


Planning for operational change in delivery units will be done using national planning and measurement systems, and revision tools

Sorry Daz.

]dingo wrote
I really do think some of you believe that planning values should all be the same , well clearly if you said that everyone had to sort at 800 items per hour then you would have to understand whether the mix of mail for each office was the same as flats and packets have a lower planning value then letters and of course some do have a secondary sorting ( a further sortation ) or if an office has alpha.
Equally you cannot have one prep rate as the prep includes clearing in and if your a small office you only have maybe 10 or 20 frames to clear in from whereas if your in a big office you might have an hundred frames to clear in from.

So they will be diferent planning values for different siturations , but once they are fair they can be applied to suit an office.

[Steviea34]

Now we are left with this agreement where lots of it is going to be agreed locally. For example, indoor and outdoor workrates.

The only rates that should be used under the terms of this proposed agreement are national, if any managers tries to do otherwise they are in clear and uneqivcoal breach of the proposed agreement.

The proposals state


Planning for operational change in delivery units will be done using national planning and measurement systems, and revision tools

Sorry Daz.

]dingo wrote
I really do think some of you believe that planning values should all be the same , well clearly if you said that everyone had to sort at 800 items per hour then you would have to understand whether the mix of mail for each office was the same as flats and packets have a lower planning value then letters and of course some do have a secondary sorting ( a further sortation ) or if an office has alpha.
Equally you cannot have one prep rate as the prep includes clearing in and if your a small office you only have maybe 10 or 20 frames to clear in from whereas if your in a big office you might have an hundred frames to clear in from.

So they will be diferent planning values for different siturations , but once they are fair they can be applied to suit an office.

You are of course right, but a box of flats should have the same planning value attached , be it in westminster or john o groats

[Big Daz]

Now we are left with this agreement where lots of it is going to be agreed locally. For example, indoor and outdoor workrates.

The only rates that should be used under the terms of this proposed agreement are national, if any managers tries to do otherwise they are in clear and uneqivcoal breach of the proposed agreement.

The proposals state


Planning for operational change in delivery units will be done using national planning and measurement systems, and revision tools

Sorry Daz.

]dingo wrote
I really do think some of you believe that planning values should all be the same , well clearly if you said that everyone had to sort at 800 items per hour then you would have to understand whether the mix of mail for each office was the same as flats and packets have a lower planning value then letters and of course some do have a secondary sorting ( a further sortation ) or if an office has alpha.
Equally you cannot have one prep rate as the prep includes clearing in and if your a small office you only have maybe 10 or 20 frames to clear in from whereas if your in a big office you might have an hundred frames to clear in from.

So they will be diferent planning values for different siturations , but once they are fair they can be applied to suit an office.

You are of course right, but a box of flats should have the same planning value attached, be it in westminster or john o groats[/quote]


Which is exactly what the 2010 proposals mean, individual performance standards agreement allready has differing rates for different types of frames.


It means (in theroy) that we wont have mangers such as Linda Lawrence who named the system she came up with after herself makin up their own weird and wacky work rates and planning values that bear no resemblance to reality.

[MinisterofCucumber]

Dingo,

Thanks for saying I talk a good fight. I stood up to management in my workplace and recovered about £50,000 for my workmates without the help of the union and without the extra protection that union reps have. Management keep trying to get rid of me but I am still there.

If anyone needs any help in drafting grievances, it would be my pleasure to help and I don't charge.

The management briefing on the proposed agreement states there will be "no enforced change to current contracted hours". However, duty revisions need to take place and the proposed agreement states "all employees will need to recognise that in order to provide innovative attendance patterns and duty structures they will need to embrace change which may mean an alteration to attendance times".

Does the CWU involvement in the revisions process mean that duty revisions will no longer be 'management-led initiatives' and so pay protection won't apply?

[dvbuk55]

Dingo,

Thanks for saying I talk a good fight. I stood up to management in my workplace and recovered about £50,000 for my workmates without the help of the union and without the extra protection that union reps have. Management keep trying to get rid of me but I am still there.

If anyone needs any help in drafting grievances, it would be my pleasure to help and I don't charge.

The management briefing on the proposed agreement states there will be "no enforced change to current contracted hours". However, duty revisions need to take place and the proposed agreement states "all employees will need to recognise that in order to provide innovative attendance patterns and duty structures they will need to embrace change which may mean an alteration to attendance times".

Does the CWU involvement in the revisions process mean that duty revisions will no longer be 'management-led initiatives' and so pay protection won't apply?

I honestly believe they don't know what the half of this agreement entails - you only have to read their posts to see that!

[Martin Walsh]

Dvbuk I know the agreement and i know why things have been agreed and why they have been worded in that way. I dont think you do. But your entitled to your opinion.

Minster no pay protection applies we have had MTSF for a number of years and every revison which has been agreed includes union involvement to varying degrees.

This revision process however puts the CWU in at every level of the process. Last year in Royal Mail first proposals they only wanted the union involved at stage 6 when the number of jobs which were gong had to be discussed.

[Big Daz]

dingo, lets say somebody was getting driving money and their duty incurs major change and they dont get back onto a driving job in the resign, then should pp apply?

[dvbuk55]

Dvbuk I know the agreement and i know why things have been agreed and why they have been worded in that way. I dont think you do. But your entitled to your opinion.

Minster no pay protection applies we have had MTSF for a number of years and every revison which has been agreed includes union involvement to varying degrees.

This revision process however puts the CWU in at every level of the process. Last year in Royal Mail first proposals they only wanted the union involved at stage 6 when the number of jobs which were gong had to be discussed.

Then answer the third paragraph dingo - it is the second time you've dodged that particular question - and exactly what way have they been worded - plain english as agreed at conference or in a manner to confuse?

[MinisterofCucumber]

Dingo,

Is that, "no pay protection applies", or is it, "no, pay protection applies"?

Will the duty revisions be classed as management-led initiatives?