Tamsky wrote:Hi Dvb - the figures given at the national briefing showed that compulsory redundancies wil be inevitable if the London closure plan goes through. As yet there has been no 90 day notice issued that I am aware of. In contrast the 90 day notice has been given to Operational managers.
You see Tamsky, I see no difference in compulsory redundancy and the situation that occured in other areas where work was offered but was not feasible. Those circumstances must have been known at the planning stage of closure but did it engender the same reaction from the CWU. To say that the situation could spread.........well it has, but didn't receive the same publicity even though the end result is virtually the same.
I do notice a Caesar complex from those "in the know", the washing of the hands ipso facto.
Of course you are right that offers of alternative work that is not suitable could be classed as compulsory redundancy. It is unacceptable wherever it happens.
For whats it worth , the figures in London is that there are 1129 jobs less than the the current number employed in the three mail centres.
However when you get beneath that number the figures are even more stark. What makes the London Changes different is that unlike other mail centres you cannot move with the work. For example the Mount who is the only mail centre left in London is reducing its full time staffing level by 57% that equates to 500 jobs less than present/
In South London`s case there are only 220 processing jobs at Jubilee and Croydon meaning that 60% of the workforce is surplus.
In East London`s case they only have 69 processing jobs in Romford that 80% less than they have currently.
There are 589 VRs within the package but they would need to remove one in every 3 people on VR. Royal Mail struggle to do 1 in 10 now who apply.
On part timers the surplus is 90 but the travelling is greater.
In terms of drivers than in most cases there is no surplus as you still need to collect the mail etc. However if you work on the lobby , bookroom , keys and tab etc there is a reduction .
Now there is a greater distance of mileage moving for the closing mail centres ie Crewe to Warrington. However the travelling time in London due to public transport, where people live around London and congestion can be greater. Especially if you live in Dartford and do not drive and opt to move to Croydon and you dont drive you have to travel into Central London to London Bridge and then travel out again to Croydon taking over an hour if you get connecting trains longer if you dont. There are no jobs in deliveries as Royal ail are looking at intrroducing revisions.
Now Royal Mail are hardly going to come out and say they are going to make complusory redundancies as it would open an hornets nest. Instead they will hope to introduce the closing on a phase basis and then when they run out of jobs then annouce it as by then some people are placed and they have broken up the unity in the offices.
Now as was heard in the briefing its not Just a problem in London, there are now real concerns in Kent and the North East where management have changed the plan and there are less jobs available than in their orginal plan.
The figures quoted would indicate that there is, under the current traffic flow, overmanning and I would be interested to see exactly what other alternative there is to CR if there are insufficient volunteers.............how about part time? That has worked in other areas and although it doesn't preserve full time jobs it does preserve jobs..................many areas are running at 50/50, some even more it isn't ideal but it is work.
The figures coming out of London can mean nothing but bad news for all concerned in Royal Mail. There is a continuing trend of Royal Mail failing to deliver true statistics to people involved in these worrying mail centre closures. I am currently based at Canterbury and we are earmarked for closure early 2012 to merge into the new Medway mail centre(Kent) along with Dartford, Tonbridge and Maidstone. None of us have seen figures in black and white but there is something along the lines of just under 1200 staff to be reduced down to 700, although i fear that even this may have been revised. The first wave of VR's are set to leave in May with no more than 30 takers in CT, even saying a max of 200 with the other mail centres this still leaves a surplus of 300+staff. There is no way in my opinion that these numbers are manageable, we have been told that staff won't be carried surplus in any offices so it begs the question where will everyone fit in.
We have recently had a notice go up stating along the lines of the company knowing that not everyone will be able to work at Rochester, this is somewhat open ended as it could be from the companies view or for personal reasons. However, anyone wishing to go to CT deliveries to notify immediately and be transferred under mtsf when processing work goes but will not be able to be included in new mail centre. There is no indication as to where you will be based in the ct AREA or a specific timeline for this. I was also under the belief that no decision you made was binding until you actually left the office and even then you have a trial period, it looks as though they are taking you out of the equation as soon as you show an interest in deliveries.
In case you did not notice there is a surplus of part timers of 96. Equally that assumes that the part timers can travel the extra distances to Greater London. The Mail Centres were not overmanned as such but Royal Mail do based the amount of jobs available are based on the productivity level of the recieving offices.
perstop tray wrote:no its still open but under threat
thank you so much belle i will suggest their mp
Prestop There is a limited amount that there MP can do as well, They wont for example be able to stop the clousure of their MC.
They may stand a better chance of being granted family frendly hours though if their MP writes a letter backing their request, but it is only may, and they would still have to do the traveling.
I am the unions worst critic because I believe they should have been more proactive in dealing with RMs duplicitous management instead of the appeasement that has been evident for a number of years. That has weakened the unions position and it is now critical that they make a stand, not over colleague shares, but over the callous way that RM have treated its workers across the land. If the CWU call a ballot I will rejoin immediately I am certain that this time it's for real, no interim agreements, no lip service to terms and conditions but a concerted attack on what has became a vicious managerial structure.
Well said Dvb, Leadership have given RM until end of April to respond to all the issues. As far as I know PEC has already agreed to ballot London membership. I know of one unit being ballotted in Scotland over non filling of vacancies.
I would support a ballot, not for strike action, but for an overtime ban if RM response not acceptable.
Every trade union needs it's critics. Blind loyalty does not serve the membership.
Tamsky wrote:
I would support a ballot, not for strike action, but for an overtime ban if RM response not acceptable.
Do you honestly think an overtime ban is sustainable?...or fair on the part-time members?
TBH ft, I agree with you, an overtime ban is neither practical nor sustainable though you could say no more than 40 hours to encompass PT colleagues............. But I think this time it has to be all or nothing at all. Might as well go for broke because it will do two things..........enforce the unions position on what has turned out to be a bad agreement and a warning to anyone unwise enough to buy that this is not going to be an easy passing into privatisation................might as well kill two birds with one stone. I believe that the mainstay of the membership can be relied upon to support action IF the union can show that they really are up for the fight and not a sham showing like last time.
In visiting units and speaking to members I do not detect much support for an all out strike at this stage, even amongst two income households. We went on strike in 2009 and I expect the Leadership to deliver on their National Agreement, without further strike action.
An overtime ban would be more sustainable over a longer period and would bring delivery offices crashing. Part time staff would work their contracted hours as would full time staff. But you are right that part time staff who depend on OT would suffer.
In contrast the massive turn out last Saturday showed that the Labour movement still has some fight left.
Of course If the issue becomes one of compulsory redundancy then I would support strike action.
dvbuk55 wrote:I believe that the mainstay of the membership can be relied upon to support action IF the union can show that they really are up for the fight and not a sham showing like last time.
I think this is the key DV.
If the union can show that it is willing to support the membership first,at the possible detriment to it's own position...then the membership will follow...but it has to be believable and i'm not convinced that the present leadership can carry that off...i'll be happy to be proved wrong though.
Edit..thanks Tamsky your opinion is,as always highly valued in these parts.
Tamsky wrote:
I would support a ballot, not for strike action, but for an overtime ban if RM response not acceptable.
Do you honestly think an overtime ban is sustainable?...or fair on the part-time members?
i do,,,even the ex lino said if we had done that the last time we were at loggerheads with them, our office would have been crippled in less than a week. will it be fair on part timers? no. it would not. neither would being out 2 days a week. they have less money so lose more. but all the p/t i have spoken to are in favour of an overtime ban rather than all out action. there is always going to be this kind of situation in these circumstances. if we are balloted, im not sure the vote would be yes for i.a, the union will have to test the water on that one, which im sure they,ll do. also, someone mentioned they think a strike is exactly what they want, as it would strengthen their case for privatisation. and if we dont, then they will steamroll all their new plans through. so its a 'damned if we do, damned if we dont' situation.
