ENCOURAGING SIGNS FROM THE CWU

[dvbuk55]

If the deal was honoured properly by Royal Mail and not twisted out of all recognition we would be in a lot better place than millions of other people in the UK. £1000 lump sum and 6.9% pay rise over 3 years, more Saturdays off etc etc The big problem, as always is that Royal Mail never stick to these agreements and try to worm a way out of it.

When an "agreement" is not honoured in the way Royal Mail has shown strike action should be called. Its the best time of year to do it. Its the only weapon we have to show our feelings about how we have been conned, cheated and lied to. :dcfo

The problem was the original strike was about RM not adhering to agreements, bullying, instituting pegasus changes by executive action etc and a National Ballot was called and voted in - what happened next is history - the reason why it happened is a mystery. Here you had a workforce on strike at the most beneficial time of the year heading in to Christmas, two days later and hey presto there was an "Interim" agreement of indeterminate value to the membership and it was back to work we go and back to business as usual but with less money.

There are two lessons to be learned from this episode:

1. is you cannot trust Royal Mail - something the union should have realised after years of negotiating
2. is the fact that the unions agenda bears little relationship to the NATIONAL aspirations of the membership

[teletubby]

Does this mean there might be new hope for the colleague share scheme being honoured?

[Cheetah]

Yes Vigalanty you do put some good points in my opinion, most of all the failure of some members not to use the aprooved equipment e.g trollies etc. They might not be as quick as running about with a bag on your back but we will reep rewards in 5 to 10 years time when we still have a sound back

Sorry though I disagree with you regards Knocking the union chiefs..... Like I said, they negotiated the deal, they promoted it and they should have been responsible in ensuring it was adhered to. I'm sure I don't need to point out to you how difficult it is for you reps to get members to stand up and be counted, and not take shortcuts to finish early / ghost still . It was their baby and they could see from the start it was being ignored daily by DOM's and ruber stamped by RM chiefs when they could see their P&L nonsence was a loss maker. Employees were encouraged even bullied into still using their own cars, coming in early, not using the agreed equipment and method . They should have via ACAS put RM under constant pressure from the start to adhere to the agreement, they are our only proper avenue for something like this, but no they just ignored RMs activities.

Like dvbuk 55 points out the original dispute was around RM not adhering to agreement, management bullying etc, this in my opinion has actually got much worse under BT 2010, Yet they did nothing the whole crooks of the dispute was still going on, why has it took so long for them to do something !!!!! I also must say I do not envy the union chiefs because like you say, RM can just not be trusted to implement any deal they AGREE to

Telytuby, colleague share does get a mention in the unions document, we all wait with baited breath to see where they go from here though

Sorry telytuby after reading the statement again there is nowt re. colleague share specifically

[MinisterofCucumber]

They should have via ACAS put RM under constant pressure from the start to adhere to the agreement

Roger Poole?

[vigilante]

They should have via ACAS put RM under constant pressure from the start to adhere to the agreement

Roger Poole?

Yea he was as handy as a chocolate fire guard!!

[vigilante]

Yes Vigalanty you do put some good points in my opinion, most of all the failure of some members not to use the aprooved equipment e.g trollies etc. They might not be as quick as running about with a bag on your back but we will reep rewards in 5 to 10 years time when we still have a sound back

Sorry though I disagree with you regards Knocking the union chiefs..... Like I said, they negotiated the deal, they promoted it and they should have been responsible in ensuring it was adhered to. I'm sure I don't need to point out to you how difficult it is for you reps to get members to stand up and be counted, and not take shortcuts to finish early / ghost still . It was their baby and they could see from the start it was being ignored daily by DOM's and ruber stamped by RM chiefs when they could see their P&L nonsence was a loss maker. Employees were encouraged even bullied into still using their own cars, coming in early, not using the agreed equipment and method . They should have via ACAS put RM under constant pressure from the start to adhere to the agreement, they are our only proper avenue for something like this, but no they just ignored RMs activities.

Like dvbuk 55 points out the original dispute was around RM not adhering to agreement, management bullying etc, this in my opinion has actually got much worse under BT 2010, Yet they did nothing the whole crooks of the dispute was still going on, why has it took so long for them to do something !!!!! I also must say I do not envy the union chiefs because like you say, RM can just not be trusted to implement any deal they AGREE to

Telytuby, colleague share does get a mention in the unions document, we all wait with baited breath to see where they go from here though

Sorry telytuby after reading the statement again there is nowt re. colleague share specifically

Fair point cheetah,and I did say in the reply that they are to blame as well.
ACAS were a waste of space in all this and have'nt done anything to make RM abide by the agreement.

[Cheetah]

Tell you what when you read that document over again it becomes apparent that RM are sticking to absolutally nothing in BT 2010 they are just laughing in our faces . There are also some strong words from the union. If it is so apparent that RM are breaking the rules during the revision stages as well as post revision, a real help would be for an official of high ranking who is fully ofey with the agreement and the games RM are playing to sit in on the next few P&L revisions taking place and set the standard....

It's all well and good putting the responsibility just on the local reps and giving them some document telling them what to do, but i'm sure if they were to take an active part like that it would be well received by members and would be a real show of support from the union at national level . At the very worst they should offer a dedicated official for the unit rep to contact throughout the process.....

[dvbuk55]

Tell you what when you read that document over again it becomes apparent that RM are sticking to absolutally nothing in BT 2010 they are just laughing in our faces . There are also some strong words from the union. If it is so apparent that RM are breaking the rules during the revision stages as well as post revision, a real help would be for an official of high ranking who is fully au fait with the agreement and the games RM are playing to sit in on the next few P&L revisions taking place and set the standard....

It's all well and good putting the responsibility just on the local reps and giving them some document telling them what to do, but i'm sure if they were to take an active part like that it would be well received by members and would be a real show of support from the union at national level . At the very worst they should offer a dedicated official for the unit rep to contact throughout the process.....

Words of wisdom indeed Cheetah BUT have you ever tried to get a full time release official involved in the revision? Our Rep refused to sign ours off, the Area guy put some slight pressure on to accept it "so that the members could get the money" - cut a long story short the Area Rep signed it off. We have still to receive our £600 & £200 and when I emailed the Area Rep for an update and for some pressure on RM to look at the problem - the silence was deafening.

[Cheetah]

Tell you what when you read that document over again it becomes apparent that RM are sticking to absolutally nothing in BT 2010 they are just laughing in our faces . There are also some strong words from the union. If it is so apparent that RM are breaking the rules during the revision stages as well as post revision, a real help would be for an official of high ranking who is fully au fait with the agreement and the games RM are playing to sit in on the next few P&L revisions taking place and set the standard....

It's all well and good putting the responsibility just on the local reps and giving them some document telling them what to do, but i'm sure if they were to take an active part like that it would be well received by members and would be a real show of support from the union at national level . At the very worst they should offer a dedicated official for the unit rep to contact throughout the process.....

Words of wisdom indeed Cheetah BUT have you ever tried to get a full time release official involved in the revision? Our Rep refused to sign ours off, the Area guy put some slight pressure on to accept it "so that the members could get the money" - cut a long story short the Area Rep signed it off. We have still to receive our £600 & £200 and when I emailed the Area Rep for an update and for some pressure on RM to look at the problem - the silence was deafening.

Know what you are saying.... We have had area officials signing off against the members wishes.So bl..dy madening who do they think they are.

I was just saying I believe that is what they SHOULD be doing but like you say we know that ain't going to happen..... Sadly

[Martin Walsh]

Dvbuk your wrong about the central cause for the dispute in 2009 , it was not about the breaking of national agreements.

Royal Mail declared when the 50/50 bonus scheme ended that Royal Mail would no longer pay for change. In fact Royal Mail said that their new business plan which included the delivery best paticise would be introduced with no payments for staff for introducing the biggest change in British industry.

The CWU declared a national policy of no savings until we forced Royal Mail into a national agreement which had safeguards and payments for the introduction of Royal Mail business plan.

Some areas still agreed revisons , but others held the line and Royal Mail then took executive action which led to local strikes in places like Scotland , Bristol and London. Some of our members were out 18 days before the national strike took place.

The policy was always to reach a national agreement on the new business plan which included safeguards and payments which it did. Now the membership voted for the agreement.

However I do believe there is a need for a re-negotation on both the delivery best practise revison process and the mail centre closure.

Now considering we had 300 odd local office ballots in 2009 , it does surprise me that we have only had a couple of ballots for delivery revisons. That tells me there are some failed revisons where members are happy to work with it failing as overtime is on tap , others which are being put right , some where the members are simply being bullied to make it work. Each revison has a Post Implemantion Review and if the revison is still failing well lets flag it up to area , divisional and national.

it is bizarre we have loads of posters wishing to put it up on this site as they are anonymous, but do not seem to flag it up to CWU HQs. I know that there will be visits to sites and it would help all if reps or members who work in a unit which is failing then detail what is happening in that unit and send it to the Branch , Divisonal and National Headquarters.

[fishtank]

I wouldn't use the number of disagreements reaching HQ as a barometer for member opinion dingo....or use it to tell how many revisions are failing.
Nationally there was active encouragement for local IA ballots in 2009...it was part of a national strategy to build a head of steam.
Nationally up to now there has been active discouragement of local IA ballots over BT2010...it was part of a national strategy to keep a lid on local tensions while there was a need to show modernisation was working.
I wont even go into the part Branches play in blocking or discouraging local action.

[Martin Walsh]

Fishtank so what can we rely on ? We simply rely on the posts on here as most don't even work in the units they say are failing.

Now Bob Gibson has put out two versions of the delivery issues and he has given advice to go to disagreement. Now if that does not result into more disagreements then what else will do ?

Now in terms of ballots well Kilburn has requested one and they have the support of the London Division.

[vigilante]

it is bizarre we have loads of posters wishing to put it up on this site as they are anonymous, but do not seem to flag it up to CWU HQs. I know that there will be visits to sites and it would help all if reps or members who work in a unit which is failing then detail what is happening in that unit and send it to the Branch , Divisonal and National Headquarters.

[/quote]


Don't worry when our revision goes t's up I'll be straight on to area command!!
I flag every discrepency up but RM treat disagreements with contempt especially DSM's

[fishtank]

Fishtank so what can we rely on ? We simply rely on the posts on here as most don't even work in the units they say are failing.

Now Bob Gibson has put out two versions of the delivery issues and he has given advice to go to disagreement. Now if that does not result into more disagreements then what else will do ?

The revisions are on the whole...a mess...it doesn't take a genius to work that out.
It doesn't matter exactly how many or exactly which ones because it is the overall picture we are interested in,not specifics.
The overall picture is that Royal Mail senior management have no control over local management or in some cases whole areas...or Royal mail senior management are driving this attack.
Either scenario is unacceptable to our members.
It must be made clear that real change has to happen and be seen to happen in the structure and direction of management or...there will be consequences.
Leaving it up to individual units to struggle through the IR framework is no longer acceptable.

[dvbuk55]

Dvbuk your wrong about the central cause for the dispute in 2009 , it was not about the breaking of national agreements.

Royal Mail declared when the 50/50 bonus scheme ended that Royal Mail would no longer pay for change. In fact Royal Mail said that their new business plan which included the delivery best paticise would be introduced with no payments for staff for introducing the biggest change in British industry.

The CWU declared a national policy of no savings until we forced Royal Mail into a national agreement which had safeguards and payments for the introduction of Royal Mail business plan.

Some areas still agreed revisons , but others held the line and Royal Mail then took executive action which led to local strikes in places like Scotland , Bristol and London. Some of our members were out 18 days before the national strike took place.

The policy was always to reach a national agreement on the new business plan which included safeguards and payments which it did. Now the membership voted for the agreement.

However I do believe there is a need for a re-negotation on both the delivery best practise revison process and the mail centre closure.

Now considering we had 300 odd local office ballots in 2009 , it does surprise me that we have only had a couple of ballots for delivery revisons. That tells me there are some failed revisons where members are happy to work with it failing as overtime is on tap , others which are being put right , some where the members are simply being bullied to make it work. Each revison has a Post Implemantion Review and if the revison is still failing well lets flag it up to area , divisional and national.

it is bizarre we have loads of posters wishing to put it up on this site as they are anonymous, but do not seem to flag it up to CWU HQs. I know that there will be visits to sites and it would help all if reps or members who work in a unit which is failing then detail what is happening in that unit and send it to the Branch , Divisonal and National Headquarters.

You'll forgive me for splitting hairs here Dingo but the changes implemented prior to the agreement - are they worse than the ones agreed after the revision? The 75/25 ratio on FT/PT is on paper but has it been adhered to on a National basis and are there any figures to support it. Under the pre agreeement people were still being paid for D2D, the delivery times still adhered to the 3.5 hr span, after the agreeement most delivery officers took a pay cut and an increase in delivery time. We have gone into disagreement a number of times to no end and are currently still in disagreement to no end and you say flag it up to CWU HQ: they will come back down the same chain that is failing.

I don't doubt for one minute that your experience of union procedure is correct for your location BUT it is far and away from the norm. I do wish you'd stop saying the members voted for it as though they had any choice in the matter given the circumstances - NO PLAN B and THE LETS VOTE YES ROADSHOW, the take up on the vote was hardly resounding despite the circus. As for renegotiating, is there any point when whatever is agreed isn't adhered to anyway.

The union is failing its members by not policing the organisation properly to ensure that all matters pertaining ARE dealt with. RM managers are disciplined for stating that offices are clear when they are not, now what happens to Branch Offices that state everything in the garden is rosy when it is not and clearly not.