What we waiting for???

[BT2010]

When the union hammers out these deals with R/M, do they ever take them away and have them looked over by someone that understands all the legal jargon.

i dont think it was the legal stuff that was the problem in BT2010. it would seem more like people at the top making deals about increased work loads and cash bonus's while they havnt got a clue weather those work loads are acheivable or not. i would say that in the long term they are not.

eg. our area manager came to our DO and was bleating on about delivery spans and he said he had walked "a street" and was he within seconds of what the computer had it down as. no doubt he actually did "walk" the street but did he take SDs, packets, recordeds etc? i doubt he even visited a single letterbox.

if an area manager hasnt got a clue what the job involves what chance is there at boardroom level?

[Martin Walsh]

Typical four answers and none which addrsses the question I posed and this is not just to members but it's a question I have asked of the wider union! Is it going to standby and watch people who want to stay in Royal Mail be forced out of a job. If they do then we might be the first but we won't be the last.

Happy to discuss my views of the past but it should not distract from the fact this union either fights to stop compulsory redundancies as one or it betrays those who face this threat.

You might call me arrogant or worse. Water off a ducks back. This is not about me or whether you hate me or you hate the union , it's about the 3300 workers in the three mail centres who face the threat of being forced to leave against their wishes. Where do you stand on that fact support them or ignore them ?

[hubbahubba]

Maybe if the union hadn't agreed to such a piss poor deal,you might of got a written assurance that there would be no CR made,instead of the vague crap you signed up to!If it came to a strike i would obviously support any action that provided safety for members jobs,but the whole point is the CWU have got us to this crappy crossroads,NOT the members who have always supported any IA taken in the past!!

[fishtank]

Where do you stand on that fact support them or ignore them ?

It doesn't matter where we stand dingo,i've already gone on record to say i would support any attempt to enforce Compulsory Redundancy...but like it or not the union was always going to have to face the repercussions of overselling such a poor deal to the membership and i feel sorry for the ordinary London members who will be caught in that backlash...but like i said,if you are looking for responsibility...you don't need to look too far.

[2old4this]

Typical four answers and none which addrsses the question I posed and this is not just to members but it's a question I have asked of the wider union! Is it going to standby and watch people who want to stay in Royal Mail be forced out of a job. If they do then we might be the first but we won't be the last.

Happy to discuss my views of the past but it should not distract from the fact this union either fights to stop compulsory redundancies as one or it betrays those who face this threat.

You might call me arrogant or worse. Water off a ducks back. This is not about me or whether you hate me or you hate the union , it's about the 3300 workers in the three mail centres who face the threat of being forced to leave against their wishes. Where do you stand on that fact support them or ignore them ?

Straight answer for me is

YES I would and will still support the union if it called for industrial action in a fight over compulsory redundancies.

[Martin Walsh]

I have been wrong before but when you have statement which states that the overarching objective of the transformation agreement is to achieve without recourse to compulsory then that is a pretty strong statement. Yes the union wanted a guarantee of no compulsory redundancies and argued for that just as royal mail argued for a no strike commitment.

In the end we got as good as and they did not get a no strike deal. Royal mail have now broken the most important safeguard it just depends whether the reps around the uk back up by action what most talk about. Let's see .

[2old4this]

I think most will realise it's the mail centres now but who's next.

whats the old saying about first they came for the jews. and I was not jews so I said nothing.

[dvbuk55]

Well I might be wrong, but after the last few years of what deliveries have gone through I would think support for a national strike would be pretty thin on the ground. As I have previously stated this agreement seemed to be the dogs bollocks to some, until the repercussions landed in their back yard and now the recriminations start. The reason deliveries have kept jobs in the face of overmanning is for people to buy down or go part time. Look at the agreement, 75/25% split FT/PT, NATIONALLY - now who did that benefit? At the time of the agreement hundreds of delivery offices were already at 50/50. Full time employment was a pipe dream, some realised it and others thought it could go on forever well quite obviously it cannot and the reality must be faced.

Ask yourselves this question:


Is a national strike going to change anything? Will it make overmanning go away and will it preserve full time jobs when there isn't sufficient work to justify it? If the answer is yes, count me in.

[BT2010]

read your post again dingo and still see no question.

would i come out in sympathy for other members?
every single time.

will we get a majority vote? this is the question that causes me most concern. as you well know dingo, RM will not budge before the result of the ballot is revealed.

[Martin Walsh]

Dvbuk no one in deliveries were forced to leave or buy down hours they made that choice. The difference in this situation is people will be forced to go against their will . Now we can go on about whether the agreement was good etc or deal of the century. The agreement dies on the first complusory redundancy and possibly before on their decision to move ahead. Royal mail knows this so the question for those who hate the agreement and think it gives royal mail everything why are Royal Mail wanting to get out of the agreement ? Because that's is what they want to do ?

[fishtank]

Royal mail knows this so the question for those who hate the agreement and think it gives royal mail everything why are Royal Mail wanting to get out of the agreement ? Because that's is what they want to do ?

The agreement was negotiated before both Moya Greene and the Tories came to power...
It simply doesn't go far enough or fast enough for both their liking.
The fact that Royal Mail want to replace this poor deal with an even poorer one doesn't suddenly make this a good deal....does it?
All that you have proved is that we shouldn't have negotiated and given any ground to an enemy that intended to simply invade at the next available opportunity.

[dvbuk55]

Dvbuk no one in deliveries were forced to leave or buy down hours they made that choice. The difference in this situation is people will be forced to go against their will . Now we can go on about whether the agreement was good etc or deal of the century. The agreement dies on the first complusory redundancy and possibly before on their decision to move ahead. Royal mail knows this so the question for those who hate the agreement and think it gives royal mail everything why are Royal Mail wanting to get out of the agreement ? Because that's is what they want to do ?

Dingo, Hobsons choice is no choice at all - it is merely facing reality, which is something you must do. How many times did you yourself say that workload was falling? Delivery offices up and down the country have accepted more changes than any other disciple in RM - take this latest agreement - "the 3.5 hr delivery has gone by the wayside and there will be no restriction on delivery times which will become an enabler"??????????? Now how do you think that the longer deliveries were to be accommodated and incorporated if part time hours hadn't been "enforced"...............let two people do the delivery so they both had a job? Of course not and so you cannot expect to maintain 100% FT jobs in MCs when the workload is insufficient to justify it.
The agreement didn't say no compulsory redundancies and so RM are not actually reneging on the agreement and that fact WAS pointed out at the time, because the words are the words and that is what the agreement will enforce.

[numan]

You might call me arrogant or worse. Water off a ducks back.

And you see this as an appropriate response to criticism from the members you are supposed to represent?

[hatetheboss]

Royal Mail I believe had this whole thing planned from the start, they knew by allowing the agreement to be introduced the reduction in the workforce would mean the union membership would be weakened.

Having sat in on one of the road shows which toured the country trying to sell the agreement it became quite clear that it was very unpopular. The reason it was voted in was people, those who could be bothered, were not given enough information to make a decision. Those that did vote yes are the, well they will do what they want anyway brigade and the, yes boss brigade.

Having started the revision process recently I have had some feedback from members who moan about, longer Saturday’s, later starts, part time staff moaning their hours have been reduced, not enough time to complete door to doors and the loss of money.
I know by the mood in the office that the majority blame the union and that if asked to support a strike again I would find it hard to convince them otherwise, even if it was to stop compulsory redundancies.

Royal Mail knew if they decided to abolish the agreement that the membership would not be up for it again, I myself would and always would support my fellow workers and the union but, people like me are the minority.

[Danelectro]

Its funny how now at a time when theres never been more anger and frustration in Royal Mail that its also never been harder to win the argument for any IA.somethings gotta give