dvbuk55 wrote:I hadn't seen this yesterday but I am happy to see its location - I think it is more than fair to this agreement, but the whole point of listening and revisiting the whole rewards issue and the discrimination to part timers is a well formed argument.
This deal is flawed and needs to be looked at again and amendments made.
I personally believe the CWU are on a wing and a prayer with this vote. Areas and Branchs I believe are telling them what they want to hear without the inclusion of the members.
My office in the North West is a complete NO vote but my rep says he is not popular with the Branch secretary because he works in the mailcentre and is there erea rep and they are getting a rise for notheing.
My rep says the branch secretary claims that all postmen are lazy b******s who go home at 12oclock everyday.
dvbuk55 wrote:I hadn't seen this yesterday but I am happy to see its location - I think it is more than fair to this agreement, but the whole point of listening and revisiting the whole rewards issue and the discrimination to part timers is a well formed argument.
This deal is flawed and needs to be looked at again and amendments made.
I personally believe the CWU are on a wing and a prayer with this vote. Areas and Branchs I believe are telling them what they want to hear without the inclusion of the members.
My office in the North West is a complete NO vote but my rep says he is not popular with the Branch secretary because he works in the mailcentre and is there erea rep and they are getting a rise for notheing.
My rep says the branch secretary claims that all postmen are lazy b******s who go home at 12oclock everyday.
Most delivery offices will vote NO, there is absolutely NOTHING in this agreement to benefit delivery officers. They are the ones who are bearing the brunt of the changes, and I'm not speaking of closures, which is a seperate issue, but the day to day implementation of increased workload without any protection whatsoever from revision tools which nobody has yet seen, the Saturday matrix of 1in 4 or 1 in 3 which no one has seen, and the hope that a new understanding will suddenly commence after YEARS of confrontation on the front line.
As for your rep and his poor standing with the branch secretary? He should be commended he is truly representing the members who put their trust in him and unlike many elected to union positions from the bottom to the top HE HAS NOT BETRAYED THAT TRUST. I grow tired of hearing how people have lead strikes, negotiated at high level, stood up for the members BUT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO THE MOST IMPORTANT VOTE FOR THE FUTURE look to their own future and throw their lot in with the snake oil salesmen.
So here's one for your Rep cedric and the same to every rep and branch who have had the guts to stand firm under immense pressure to vote yes.
snoddy wrote:Thought I would share this with RMC members.
It has been shared with the reps of NL&C and is a very honest reflection of how Delivery OPGs view the agreement.
Why I’m still voting no.
I’ve been to the liaison meeting, been to the ‘road-show’, we held a meeting and I listened to our guests, I’ve read the avalanche of paper, and I’m still not convinced.
I can live with the longer Saturdays if we can sort out fewer of them.
I’m ok with the pay rises and the lump sums.
An hour off the working week, brilliant.
Better MTSF terms, obviously that’s good too.
What about door2door?
Safeguards d2d for the future, yes, I understand that.
Built into workload, yes ok.
Guarantees a supplement and builds in early start allowance, I get that.
It allows the company to compete. Get that too.
Takes anything up to a £1000 a year from the typical postman overnight and gives it to people who have never done a d2d and in many cases never will…
No, sorry I don’t get that.
And what’s the rush? Offices that have never done d2d are not going to start tomorrow. Why give 20 quid a week supplement to some but not compensate the lads who will lose up to £1000 a year?
How is that fair?
I’ve worked out that up to 52 postmen and women will be worse off in our office because of this agreement. I cannot believe that this is what the Union and Royal Mail wanted. The more successful an area or office or individual is the more he (or she) suffers.
The Union tell us that ‘there are some losers in regard to current payments’. Yes, thousands of them. Why should some postmen be expected to take a hit whilst others receive extra?
I know for a fact that the CWU is only now checking d2d figures for individual offices and they are beginning to understand that the typical postman who does d2d is substantially worse off. That’s the typical postman not the misleading average, taking out those who do none or very few.
Now, let me be very clear.
I am not looking for a bigger pot of money I am looking for the contents of that pot to be more fairly distributed, a gradual change to payments and an acceptance that there are many people losing out. There are no extra costs involved. None.
A keystone of the agreement is ‘Transforming Relationships’ a paragraph of which states “Having agreed a shared vision of modernisation both parties will focus all our efforts on working together to deliver that vision.” It also states, “The following is our shared vision of modernisation and defines the overriding objectives of this agreement - A successful company that supports ongoing improvements to employee terms and conditions…”
If this is not to be the usual blah blah and is to be the start of a new relationship then the company and the union must prove that by listening to the many thousands of postmen who have been penalised by the d2d money distribution.
It is not good enough for officials to lecture but not listen.
It is not right for officials to state that there is no ‘plan B’.
It is just wrong that officials tell us they have secured a new relationship but to then ignore the views of its own members.
The countdown to the ballot has begun but there is still plenty of time to look at this area again. Why will the Union not look again at this when so many reps and postmen have objected? CWU officials know the scale of the problem but they are not listening.
I don’t want to vote ‘no’ I want the CWU to listen to us and to work with Royal Mail to sort this out. If I vote ‘no’ it will be because Royal Mail and the CWU have refused to listen and the talk of a ‘shared vision’ is bogus.
I accept the need for change.
I accept the need for a fresh approach to d2d.
I am not asking for a bigger pot of money.
I am looking for the contents of that pot to be more fairly distributed.
I am asking for fairness.
I am asking Royal Mail and the CWU to listen to their postmen.
I think we can all sympathise witht the author of this letter,lets just hope that a NO vote is returned.
Perhaps then CWU will begin listening to all its members instead of creating a "them and us" situation in order to get its own way.
snoddy wrote:Thought I would share this with RMC members.
It has been shared with the reps of NL&C and is a very honest reflection of how Delivery OPGs view the agreement.
Why I’m still voting no.
I’ve been t...... cont--
I think we can all sympathise witht the author of this letter,lets just hope that a NO vote is returned.
Perhaps then CWU will begin listening to all its members instead of creating a "them and us" situation in order to get its own way.
The strange thing is it does seem that delivery staff ARE actually fighting on two fronts RM and the CWU.
dvbuk55 wrote:I hadn't seen this yesterday but I am happy to see its location - I think it is more than fair to this agreement, but the whole point of listening and revisiting the whole rewards issue and the discrimination to part timers is a well formed argument.
This deal is flawed and needs to be looked at again and amendments made.
I personally believe the CWU are on a wing and a prayer with this vote. Areas and Branchs I believe are telling them what they want to hear without the inclusion of the members.
My office in the North West is a complete NO vote but my rep says he is not popular with the Branch secretary because he works in the mailcentre and is there erea rep and they are getting a rise for notheing.
My rep says the branch secretary claims that all postmen are lazy b******s who go home at 12oclock everyday.
Well, I'm surprised to hear that! For a start, I would have thought that our Branch Secretary would have read the deal properly. And would have known that it'd mean lots of job cuts (from the closures), WCM being forced in across the board, etc..
But I'm far more surprised (and angry) to hear that he's been saying things like that about our Brothers and Sisters!
Don't knock Insanity
it's just another outlook on Reality!
snoddy wrote:Thought I would share this with RMC members.
It has been shared with the reps of NL&C and is a very honest reflection of how Delivery OPGs view the agreement.
Why I’m still voting no.
I’ve been to the liaison meeting, been to the ‘road-show’, we held a meeting and I listened to our guests, I’ve read the avalanche of paper, and I’m still not convinced.
I can live with the longer Saturdays if we can sort out fewer of them.
I’m ok with the pay rises and the lump sums.
An hour off the working week, brilliant.
Better MTSF terms, obviously that’s good too.
What about door2door?
Safeguards d2d for the future, yes, I understand that.
Built into workload, yes ok.
Guarantees a supplement and builds in early start allowance, I get that.
It allows the company to compete. Get that too.
Takes anything up to a £1000 a year from the typical postman overnight and gives it to people who have never done a d2d and in many cases never will…
No, sorry I don’t get that.
And what’s the rush? Offices that have never done d2d are not going to start tomorrow. Why give 20 quid a week supplement to some but not compensate the lads who will lose up to £1000 a year?
How is that fair?
I’ve worked out that up to 52 postmen and women will be worse off in our office because of this agreement. I cannot believe that this is what the Union and Royal Mail wanted. The more successful an area or office or individual is the more he (or she) suffers.
The Union tell us that ‘there are some losers in regard to current payments’. Yes, thousands of them. Why should some postmen be expected to take a hit whilst others receive extra?
I know for a fact that the CWU is only now checking d2d figures for individual offices and they are beginning to understand that the typical postman who does d2d is substantially worse off. That’s the typical postman not the misleading average, taking out those who do none or very few.
Now, let me be very clear.
I am not looking for a bigger pot of money I am looking for the contents of that pot to be more fairly distributed, a gradual change to payments and an acceptance that there are many people losing out. There are no extra costs involved. None.
A keystone of the agreement is ‘Transforming Relationships’ a paragraph of which states “Having agreed a shared vision of modernisation both parties will focus all our efforts on working together to deliver that vision.” It also states, “The following is our shared vision of modernisation and defines the overriding objectives of this agreement - A successful company that supports ongoing improvements to employee terms and conditions…”
If this is not to be the usual blah blah and is to be the start of a new relationship then the company and the union must prove that by listening to the many thousands of postmen who have been penalised by the d2d money distribution.
It is not good enough for officials to lecture but not listen.
It is not right for officials to state that there is no ‘plan B’.
It is just wrong that officials tell us they have secured a new relationship but to then ignore the views of its own members.
The countdown to the ballot has begun but there is still plenty of time to look at this area again. Why will the Union not look again at this when so many reps and postmen have objected? CWU officials know the scale of the problem but they are not listening.
I don’t want to vote ‘no’ I want the CWU to listen to us and to work with Royal Mail to sort this out. If I vote ‘no’ it will be because Royal Mail and the CWU have refused to listen and the talk of a ‘shared vision’ is bogus.
I accept the need for change.
I accept the need for a fresh approach to d2d.
I am not asking for a bigger pot of money.
I am looking for the contents of that pot to be more fairly distributed.
I am asking for fairness.
I am asking Royal Mail and the CWU to listen to their postmen.
Its goodto see that at le\ast soem have still got principles left enought o realise that this dealis not a fair one. My mate works in the locker and will get tthe supplement money for nothing and even he thinks it s wrong.
I don't know how many hours your mate works dolphin boy but if he is part time and on grandfather rights he will be about 33p better off including the 2% rise and I should know because I DO work in the locker and I am part time and will not lose anything but will gain 33p.
My working life will not change by very much, my start and finish times will change not at all, I won't lose any money, I won't be delivering households, I will lose my dawn shift allowance which is £14 something pro rata and be given the supplement pro rata, my work load will not increase, my relationship with the managers will not change, I will not be bullied or harassed - I will still vote NO, because the colleagues I work with are going to be shafted by this agreement, they WILL lose money, their workload WILL increase, they WILL be bullied and harassed at some point that is inevitable when workload does not match manpower.
No delivery office employee winner or loser should vote anything but NO and every credit to those reps who have the strength to stand by their convictions.
dvbuk55 wrote:I don't know how many hours your mate works dolphin boy but if he is part time and on grandfather rights he will be about 33p better off including the 2% rise and I should know because I DO work in the locker and I am part time and will not lose anything but will gain 33p.
My working life will not change by very much, my start and finish times will change not at all, I won't lose any money, I won't be delivering households, I will lose my dawn shift allowance which is £14 something pro rata and be given the supplement pro rata, my work load will not increase, my relationship with the managers will not change, I will not be bullied or harassed - I will still vote NO, because the colleagues I work with are going to be shafted by this agreement, they WILL lose money, their workload WILL increase, they WILL be bullied and harassed at some point that is inevitable when workload does not match manpower.
No delivery office employee winner or loser should vote anything but NO and every credit to those reps who have the strength to stand by their convictions.
Bloody he'll mate. You ought to be running for PM, you've
got my vote
dvbuk55 wrote:I don't know how many hours your mate works dolphin boy but if he is part time and on grandfather rights he will be about 33p better off including the 2% rise and I should know because I DO work in the locker and I am part time and will not lose anything but will gain 33p.
My working life will not change by very much, my start and finish times will change not at all, I won't lose any money, I won't be delivering households, I will lose my dawn shift allowance which is £14 something pro rata and be given the supplement pro rata, my work load will not increase, my relationship with the managers will not change, I will not be bullied or harassed - I will still vote NO, because the colleagues I work with are going to be shafted by this agreement, they WILL lose money, their workload WILL increase, they WILL be bullied and harassed at some point that is inevitable when workload does not match manpower.
No delivery office employee winner or loser should vote anything but NO and every credit to those reps who have the strength to stand by their convictions.
dvbuk55 wrote:I don't know how many hours your mate works dolphin boy but if he is part time and on grandfather rights he will be about 33p better off including the 2% rise and I should know because I DO work in the locker and I am part time and will not lose anything but will gain 33p.
My working life will not change by very much, my start and finish times will change not at all, I won't lose any money, I won't be delivering households, I will lose my dawn shift allowance which is £14 something pro rata and be given the supplement pro rata, my work load will not increase, my relationship with the managers will not change, I will not be bullied or harassed - I will still vote NO, because the colleagues I work with are going to be shafted by this agreement, they WILL lose money, their workload WILL increase, they WILL be bullied and harassed at some point that is inevitable when workload does not match manpower.
No delivery office employee winner or loser should vote anything but NO and every credit to those reps who have the strength to stand by their convictions.
Why would you lose your dawn shift allowance? ES 1 and 2 allowance are in the supplement - nothing else.
I commend your attitude and spirit Dvbuk with regards to thinking of everyone when you vote etc. I do exactly the same. Sad truth there is that the majority vote solely on how it will affect them.
dvbuk55 wrote:I don't know how many hours your mate works dolphin boy but if he is part time and on grandfather rights he will be about 33p better off including the 2% rise and I should know because I DO work in the locker and I am part time and will not lose anything but will gain 33p.
My working life will not change by very much, my start and finish times will change not at all, I won't lose any money, I won't be delivering households, I will lose my dawn shift allowance which is £14 something pro rata and be given the supplement pro rata, my work load will not increase, my relationship with the managers will not change, I will not be bullied or harassed - I will still vote NO, because the colleagues I work with are going to be shafted by this agreement, they WILL lose money, their workload WILL increase, they WILL be bullied and harassed at some point that is inevitable when workload does not match manpower.
No delivery office employee winner or loser should vote anything but NO and every credit to those reps who have the strength to stand by their convictions.
Why would you lose your dawn shift allowance? ES 1 and 2 allowance are in the supplement - nothing else.
I commend your attitude and spirit Dvbuk with regards to thinking of everyone when you vote etc. I do exactly the same. Sad truth there is that the majority vote solely on how it will affect them.
The sad thing is lovejoy that I am going to have to agree that there may well be a yes vote instead of a NO - people will not vote on the merits of this agreement which you yourself have stated you do not like - and credit to you for that but why then defend it so vociferously. I know your position means that you too will not be affected by this agreement by one iota and nor will I but I am not so far distant from the shop floor that:
a. I don't see the vagaries in the system as it is
b. The genuine hard work that delivery officers do every day - at least here
c. The unpaid hours already put in by many many employees on PT contracts to make the system work
The race is nearly run and as with the 2007 Agreement time itself will tell if there was any lessons learned from that though I have to say looking at this agreement there doesn't seem to have been.
It is Thursday tomorrow the ballot commences on Friday and we still haven't seen the revision tools, or the Saturday matrix duty span proposals and for the majority of the members the whole agreement. Poor Poor performance from the union in its endeavour to look after the interests of those who actually finance the bandwagon. There will be a backlash there is no doubt about that. Is there a Plan B to compensate for the loss of subscriptions from disgruntled punters I wonder.
and the same to every rep and branch who have had the guts to stand firm under immense pressure to vote yes.