ramone wrote:
Who would take over the business in the current climate? Most of companies who are potential purchasers of the company use the service and make a good profit from downstream access. Which of them are going to take on the pension deficit or pump in the investment funds required for the business and risk their own companies viability? They’re many examples of mergers not working out for either party.
Anyone got any answers to these questions?
IPO (initial public offering)....the goverment gets the pension....and the assets.
soooo the government offer the general public, us and the markets shares in the company - they take on the pension defiect (alot of tax payers money I summise!) - then instead of taking 100% of the profits they then take a reduced 40% tax share of the profits - take a smaller intake of PAYE as pay reduced and smaller work force. Then try and sell off all those assests in a stagnant market..........Am I missing something here????
I Swore after the last cock up the union made I would never strike again, in fact I was inches away from leaving the CWU,I will not go on on strike, I'm thinking of myself this time, spoke to 75% in my office this week and they say they lost enough money last time and it won't happen again.... wonder if this will have any effect on the revisions coming up, does anyone not think the RM has run the business into the ground on purpose so this would happen...
Or to put it another way and leaving the pension fairytale out of it for simplification,
Let's say you are a billionaire fat cat looking to invest in a money spinning scam. How prepared would you be to sink your ill gotten gains into a concern that is forced to deliver your competitors mail for a loss
So DSA would need to die a death But without DSA ,RM would be relatively healthy and there would be no need for massive job cuts or an excuse for a sell off. f***ing lying crooks the lot of them
Don't back the union on this one!!!
Wtf,things are so bad in this thread there are people agreeing with Nighty,including me ffs!!
Although apparently (can we have a double conformation) we are not allowed to strike over this,this is not about being pissed off with the union ect as per my other post somewhere.
This is bigger than that,if the CWU balloted and there was a feeling we could get something out of it,i would be out like a shot,and so should you lot!
I Wrote-During Covid-Which is still relevant now
It's good to get these types of threads, the ridiculous my manager said bollox, so we can reassure ourselves that while the world is falling apart, Royal Mail managers are still being the low-life C***S they have always been. My BFF Clash The daily grind of having to argue your case with an intellectual pigmy of a line manager is physically and emotionally draining.
In respect of what can trade unions currently call for lawful strike action?
Lawful strikes must be based on a 'genuine trade dispute' between employees and their employer (not somebody else's employer).
The definition of trade dispute can be wide, usually relating to issues such as pay, terms and conditions, redundancies or trade union issues.
What is not allowed is action based on political issues or the actions of another employer.
Difficulties can arise, for example, in the public sector around the issue of outsourcing. The distinction between union action motivated by the general opposition to outsourcing or outsourcing to a particular provider (which would be unlawful), and action motivated by the impact of a particular situation on union members' terms and conditions (which would be lawful), is often difficult to see.
All post by me in Green are Admin Posts. Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility. If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
What is not allowed is action based on political issues...
Cheers teebs.
I know the belgies striked though didn't they over this,or was it the french,different laws different countries i suppose.
I Wrote-During Covid-Which is still relevant now
It's good to get these types of threads, the ridiculous my manager said bollox, so we can reassure ourselves that while the world is falling apart, Royal Mail managers are still being the low-life C***S they have always been. My BFF Clash The daily grind of having to argue your case with an intellectual pigmy of a line manager is physically and emotionally draining.
A trade dispute was defined by TULRA 1974 as a dispute between workers and employers which is "connected with" one or more of the following: terms and conditions of employment, engagement or non-engagement or termination or suspension of employment of workers, allocation of work, discipline , membership or non- membership of a union, union facilities, and management-union procedures relating to the above. The statutory immunities depend on a trade dispute being contemplated or furthered by the action, the so-called "golden formula" , and constitute the right to strike in Britain.
This definition of trade dispute was narrowed by the Employment Act 1982 . This Act restricted the definition of a trade dispute to being a dispute between workers and their own employers and it must now relate "wholly or mainly" to the above list. These changes effectively excluded from the immunities disputes between workers and workers; action in support of other workers; and industrial action which might be "connected with" one of the areas listed but which does not "relate wholly or mainly to it". For example, a strike arising from a decision to privatise part of the public sector may be connected with fears of job loss but be held not to relate mainly to that but rather to be concerned to affect government policy, and thus fall outside the definition of trade dispute.
lovejoy wrote:
Yeah I've seen the judical decisions but don't forget the CWU was the last Union to defeat an injunction.....
Well it was actually Unite and the BA injunction but let's not split hairs.
The fact is industrial action is not a valid option for many reasons so it's time for a proper plan b....we can do those can't we?
I wouldn't get too hung up on "oh dear we must obey the rules" if you gain enough support to defy the fat cats agenda they tend to back down for fear of losing the game set and match
But without DSA ,RM would be relatively healthy and there would be no need for massive job cuts 
