Looks like redundancies all round then

[Budfrog]

The letter brings up the subject of Management roles in Ops. But what about OPG vacancies?
Surely an OPG Duty is better than compulsary redundancy. Unless of course, they think they're in some way better than us.....

Valid point and this option has been used in the past (I know of at least 2 people who reverted to OPG under Agenda For Leadership). I think the possible effect on pension payments may be an issue rather than the immediate drop in wages which is offset by MTSF payments and older people who have a non ops related career path (accountants/HR specialists/sales etc) may consider the effect that such a move will have on their CV.

As far as Mangers or Support Staff considering themselves better than OPGs if there are any I have never come across them. In fact more often than not these employees value their front line colleagues with comments such as "If it wasn't for OPGs collecting/processing/delivering the mail, we ourselves would not have a job and there would be no Royal Mail".

As more than one person has rightly pointed out managers and support staff have been drafted in during strikes but at least at the last instance there was no pretense from senior management that this was in any way voluntary. The Little Black Book, Bullying and Harassment (which believe me is even more poisonous and subtle amongst management grades) and an inept CMA have left most support managers in a precarious situation ... between a rock and a hard place.

[ronnie6]

Good post. It's not precarious. My understanding is that if these people do not accept VR they WILL be made compulsorily redundant. No questions, no arguments and no union. I'm also told that there are a number of very disenfranchised staff who are waiting promised contact from the CMA and, so far, have been met with deathly silence.

[Budfrog]

Good post. It's not precarious. My understanding is that if these people do not accept VR they WILL be made compulsorily redundant. No questions, no arguments and no union. I'm also told that there are a number of very disenfranchised staff who are waiting promised contact from the CMA and, so far, have been met with deathly silence.

It WILL take a tribunal case to sort this out and it is the CMA that needs to pull its finger out and bring it. Out of over 100 manager who expressed an interest in frontline managerial jobs 6 were taken on ... smell a rat ??

Also there are Vacs on templates throughout the country that simply are not being filled whilst staff are being pushed out the door, if the template is wrong revise it!!!!

There is also the subject of acting managers, I have no doubt that many of these are capable people but whilst a downsizing exercise is taking place they should be reverted to their substantive grades until there is no longer a surplus.

Bumping should also be looked at so that staff who wish to stay on (with retraining if needed) can and those who see their futures outside of RM are allowed the opportunity.

Lastly MTSF2 .... this agreement has NEVER been re-negotiated it is just that Royal Mail chooses to ignore it and offer 'alternative terms' that are less attractive.

Lastly ... Thanks to the Admin of this site, you are doing a great job !!!

[andy2007]

I see your point about the Pensions. I hadn't thought of that. But having said that: if you took VR, or were made redundant. Wouldn't that have a bigger impact?
It seems to me. That the Union is missing a possible solution to the treat of compulsary redundancies, by ignoring OPG duties. Perhaps that's something which should be brought up at the next meeting. I'd hate to see anyone loosing their jobs, and I'd like to think that the CMA would want to avoid that too. Isn't that one of the things you pay your subs for?
To be protected from situations like this?

[ronnie6]

Just been speaking to another old friend of mine who has also been made Compulsorily Redundant. Still no response from the CMA. Looks like the CWU will be next now the precedent has been set.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Just been speaking to another old friend of mine who has also been made Compulsorily Redundant. Still no response from the CMA. Looks like the CWU will be next now the precedent has been set.

But our Union has a bit of a reputation as a fighting Union. The best that could be said about the CMA is - it isn't.

[fishtank]

But our Union has a bit of a reputation as a fighting Union. The best that could be said about the CMA is - it isn't.

...even a union.

[ronnie6]

Be very interesting to see how you fight this one. Doesn't appear to be much sympathy for us as a company in the press. I think the writing is on the wall and I can see much trouble ahead. I hope I'm wrong because I've had a lot of good years and enjoyed most of my time.

[fishtank]

Be very interesting to see how you fight this one. Doesn't appear to be much sympathy for us as a company in the press.

Nothing new there ronnie.
The question is...why would there be a need for compulsory redundancies?......when the business and union have agreed 24,000 voluntary and by all accounts most preference exercises were oversubscribed.

Now if a newly privatised Royal Mail were to unilaterally scrap the very expensive MTSF agreement....then we might be in the brown sticky stuff.

[Budfrog]

Now if a newly privatised Royal Mail were to unilaterally scrap the very expensive MTSF agreement....then we might be in the brown sticky stuff.

Or as in the case of support staff simply ignore the fact that MTSF exists and simply offer alternative terms.

[fishtank]

Now if a newly privatised Royal Mail were to unilaterally scrap the very expensive MTSF agreement....then we might be in the brown sticky stuff.

Or as in the case of support staff simply ignore the fact that MTSF exists and simply offer alternative terms.

This would hopefully be where the difference between a management association and a union became apparent.
I say hopefully but what i really mean is it had better be.

[worrieddave]

Now if a newly privatised Royal Mail were to unilaterally scrap the very expensive MTSF agreement....then we might be in the brown sticky stuff.

Or as in the case of support staff simply ignore the fact that MTSF exists and simply offer alternative terms.

This would hopefully be where the difference between a management association and a union became apparent.
I say hopefully but what i really mean is it had better be.

If you want to see which way it will go read the threads under "Compulsory Redundant". Under the Central Functions SAE process one guy applied for a "bookroom" job and was rejected despite him having done the job in the past and having a clear operations background. Whilst the CWU may be a "fighting" union the precedent has now been set and RMG will "pick off" operational managers first before CWU grades are affected. It will happen though as the appropriate legislation goes through the Commons thus reducing the need for the numbers of staff and the only way it will be achieved will be by compulsory redundancy. Do a google search for the MD and see what she did to both Canada Railways and Canada Post. Comment from someone at a UPU meeting "So you've got Moya - God help you!"

[vanman]

Now if a newly privatised Royal Mail were to unilaterally scrap the very expensive MTSF agreement....then we might be in the brown sticky stuff.

Or as in the case of support staff simply ignore the fact that MTSF exists and simply offer alternative terms.

This would hopefully be where the difference between a management association and a union became apparent.
I say hopefully but what i really mean is it had better be.

This difference was confirmed in the agreed Joint Statement published at the start of the Central Functions Review for Admin grades:

"CENTRAL FUNCTION REVIEW: CWU CONSULTATION UPDATE

Royal Mail Group is undertaking a major review and reorganisation of its central support functions within Group, Letters and PFW. The main focus of the review, which is designed to address the financial imperative facing the business, to date has been on managerial roles but formal consultation with the CWU has just started. The proposed changes mainly affect CWU members within the following functions: HR (which includes HR Services), Commercial (which includes Customer Services), Finance (which includes Finance Services), Legal and Communications.

The Managing the Surplus Framework (MtSF) will apply in full and is supported by the following statement from the Job Security/Managing the Change Section of the Business Transformation 2010 and Beyond Agreement: "In addition to the job security commitments contained in the MTSF Agreement - Royal Mail and CWU confirm that the overarching objective is to deliver the transformation without recourse to compulsory redundancies."

Both parties are conscious that the publication of details of the new management structure may cause concern amongst the CWU admin community and we wish to reassure individuals that consultation is at a very early stage. The mechanics of undertaking a VR expression of interest exercise amongst central function CWU represented colleagues is being discussed and we hope to be in a position to share ‘next steps’ shortly.

The RMG and CWU are meeting regularly and we will keep you updated on progress.

On behalf of RMG: On behalf of the CWU:
Gillian Alford Andy Furey
Director of Group IR/ER Assistant Secretary
08 November 2010

[sentpacking]

Good luck with this. Remember the press statements in September where it was stated that the management reorganisation had been agreed with Unite and that there would be no compulsory redundancies? Do you really think the business won't walk away from MTSF if they don't get their way? and then what will you do, strike? All that will do is play into the hands of the government who will come back with 'look at the mess RM is in, we're trying to help it but the nasty union want to strike. Looks like we are right to privatise it ' and don't expect any sympathy from the public.
I wish the CWU all the best but I have a feeling the writing is on the wall.

[vanman]

I'm sorry to say this, but there is a big difference between "press statements" and the joint statement agreed between the CWU and RM.

More importantly the big difference is the CWU MTSF agreement covers all CWU grades from admin through to Ops. RM is not going to tear it up just to deal with a few Admin staff when they need it to deal with thousands of Ops grades.

As for what happens with any future owners - I've more chance of winning the lottery than forecasting that one!

In the end - CMA members were shafted by RM with their review. It's not the same for CWU grades.