MGV Prof Driver Grade in Delivery - (Delivery Sup & 2% PR)

[Martin Walsh]

So are you saying that the CWU went into an agreement when it didn't know what the staff do. That despite the full time release personnel nobody realised that drivers were being used in DOs and advised the negotiators of that fact. Wonder what else slipped through the net because of the ignorance of the facts.

Dvbuk not only the CWU but Royal Mail. of course you have to remember that only a handful of people on both sides were in the talks on the remuneration aspect and off course there was a comms blackout so full time release people or indeed personal managers were not aware of what was included in the deal until it was endorsed.

The area drivers tagged to delivery offices seems to be an issue which effects about 1 per cent of the delivery workforce of over 100 000 people so why it was an oversight it is understandable in the scheme of things. I do thinks it's become a double edge sword as the union may well win the debate to get the supplement paid and maybe backdate but Royal Mail will then simply reduce the number of professional drivers in delivery offices.

[dvbuk55]

So are you saying that the CWU went into an agreement when it didn't know what the staff do. That despite the full time release personnel nobody realised that drivers were being used in DOs and advised the negotiators of that fact. Wonder what else slipped through the net because of the ignorance of the facts.

Dvbuk not only the CWU but Royal Mail. of course you have to remember that only a handful of people on both sides were in the talks on the remuneration aspect and off course there was a comms blackout so full time release people or indeed personal managers were not aware of what was included in the deal until it was endorsed.

The area drivers tagged to delivery offices seems to be an issue which effects about 1 per cent of the delivery workforce of over 100 000 people so why it was an oversight it is understandable in the scheme of things. I do thinks it's become a double edge sword as the union may well win the debate to get the supplement paid and maybe backdate but Royal Mail will then simply reduce the number of professional drivers in delivery offices.

And there's the rub dingo. The comms blackout, the presentation of the fait accompli without a Plan B, the readiness of those in power to accept that there would be winners and losers, the lack of consultation at grass roots level, which I might add is still the case, the huge grey areas which are still being discussed. The fact that Royal Mail didn't take the union members into consideration doesn't surprise me in the slightest, that's not their role dingo, it's the role of the CWU who are actually paid to do just that.

[Martin Walsh]

Dvbuk I was not saying it was Royal Mail's role to look after the union but they have all the staff pay details and know exactly who is on what rate Indivduals are on and exactly how much was in the pot for being used on door to door and the army supplement.

Now in terms of not putting the agreement to the members well I think your off the mark there. For the first time in advance of a national agreement being put to the members there was a regional meeting where all unit reps had the chance to hear what was in the agreement and ask questions. on top of this there were dozens of branch meetings where members had their opportunity to make their point and of course there was delivery office membership meetings. There were national comms as well as Branch comms. Afterwhcih the membership had an indivdual vote.

Now I understand that a lot of people do not like the agreement or change. However do you really believe the CWU could have vetoed the change to automation , the buying of CDVs , Royal Mail want to grow the door to door product. So could the union got a better agreement yes but it would have still meant that all of the above would have still been introduced.

[fishtank]

Now I understand that a lot of people do not like the agreement or change. However do you really believe the CWU could have vetoed the change to automation , the buying of CDVs , Royal Mail want to grow the door to door product. So could the union got a better agreement yes but it would have still meant that all of the above would have still been introduced.

This is the company line...that the members are resistant to change,that we are all stuck in the 90's,that we want to throw our clogs at the machines.
It is utter nonsense.The membership in most areas have delivered more change in the last 5 years than in the 50 before it and what have they had in return...2 broken agreements...5 piss poor pay rises...5 years of job cuts...5 years of increased workload...5 years of bullying, harassment and 5 years of lies.

It's an embarrassment to say that the BTA was communicated to the membership when the majority didn't even see the damm thing before they voted on it.

[dvbuk55]

Well I suppose that I am being slightly unfair because I wouldn't have known diddley squat about the allowances but then I wouldn't be expected to. Would all the changes have taken place anyway? I suppose they would, it's a little like turkeys voting for christmas. However in our case it's like the butcher negotiating whether they will be fresh, crowned or frozen, when they aren't going to be on the plate.

I'm well aware there was a vote dingo but lets face it, there wasn't exactly a balanced argument was there - if you were to be honest there wasn't one negative aspect put forward by the union and any negative views were quickly squashed by the glitterati.

[Martin Walsh]

Fish its easy to shout its the company line and may make you feel good. However everyone recognises that the scale of change not only over the last 5 years as you say but 10 , remember we use to have two deliveries.

The difference is the recent changes have all come from the borrowing of public money, automation and CDVs etc. Now the issue of Door to Door into workload did not just happen during the talks on the Transformation agreement , in fact in the Securing the Future agreement it was agreed to trial different solutions and off course it was in the proposals or wish list in the Pay and Mod agreement which caused the dispute. The CWU did not tackle the door to door issue for close on 15 years when Royal Mail wanted to change the door to door agreement and of course under the Business Transformation agreement they intially did not want to pay anything but the union sercured an improvement in basic pay as a supplement. Of course some may have lost out as the early supplement was lost but how many are starting at the hour now which qualified for the early supplement ? Equally Royal Mail were considering a range of options including a seperate workforce on door to door and even exiting from the market as the levels of comphensation they were paying out was reducing not only the profit they were making on the product but was reducing their market share. Even now with Door to Door into workload the average has gone up by 0.5 in just over 20 months hardly a massive increase and the feared 6 items have not happen in fact the market has reduced in some areas and increased in the markets like the Thames Valley areas.

Now where I think you are guilty of double standards is recently a poster dared to say that the majority of members or posters supported one view of event and you criticised him for saying he spoke for the majority. Yet you then say that the majority of members did not see the agreement. Well you may or may not be right but how do you judge that fact ? Yes the agreement was not sent in the post but I know lots of Branch`s sent copies to units to read but in my exerpeience that some members will choose not to read the detail and even rely on their reps or branch`s judgement on which way to vote or some will read it and make their views known. Remember the agreement was over 60 pages and was complex and dealt with things which needed a fair bit of explianing if you did not know about MTSF.

But hey it is non arguement now , the deal is in , the national talks are on-going and the day of judgement is mid January. The problem is that some have started writing that thay want their money and want to do the revison whereas some me included want to have the delivery section changed. What camp do you sit ?

[fishtank]

The problem is that some have started writing that thay want their money and want to do the revison whereas some me included want to have the delivery section changed. What camp do you sit ?

Would a change in the delivery section mean revisiting the revisions already in place to ensure that we are all working with the same agreement?
Would there be proper safegaurds in place this time to ensure that all members benefit equally from this change in the delivery section?
Or would it be a fudge to allow some areas to continue as they are with little change and screw the rest?
What camp do you sit?

[arnold cheshire]

i myself receive the professional drivers money and i am attached to a delivery office. i do not receive the delivery supplement.

how can royal mail end the professional drivers money and default date as this payment is no longer a non penionable extra,

it is now incorporated into my basic pay

what vehicle do you drive ? why dont you get the delivery supplement ?

[Martin Walsh]

I would think that any changes would mean re-visiting those offices which have had revisions which are not work or are failing quality or did not get the opportunity to introduce the 1 in 4 or are unreasonable duties. But the devil is in the detail as always.

Now you are obviously another who believes that if an office in one part of the country gets stitched up by Royal Mail that every office in the country must get the same treatment as that somehow puts everyone in the same boat. Where I look at it that if an office believes it has been stitched up by Royal Mail well first and foremost what are they going to do about it. if they choose to fight then they should get support from their Branch, Division and wider union.

Now where I sit and have done for some years is that this union has always been a federal union where some sections of the membership will take whatever management asks them too and do nothing to stop them whereas other areas say no and then force management to alter their plans.

For the record I believe that there is nothing in the agreement where it says an office has to accept a revison which they know it's not going to work and is unreasonable and does not have the support of the members in the Unit. That does not mean that you veto the agreement just that management will have to negotiate and that is what's happening in the area I come from. yes there are about 4 offices not working which were introduced in November which in the past you would not have introduced a revison which we are working on changing in the new year.

Now I do believe there are and have been over the years too many offices who have accepted whatever Royal Mail wants to introduce into their offices safe in the knowledge they can blame everyone else. whereas I tend to see in London if something goes wrong we blame ourselves and then try and change it without resorting to the blame game.

[fishtank]

Now you are obviously another who believes that if an office in one part of the country gets stitched up by Royal Mail that every office in the country must get the same treatment as that somehow puts everyone in the same boat.

No,i'm a member that believes that £3.33 should buy you the same level of national representation no matter where you live and members should not be unfairly disadvantaged because they live in areas that are more difficult to organise,have higher part-time ratios or higher non-union density.
They should certainly not be disadvantaged due to the poor quality of Branch and Divisional support or an overall lack of professional representation.

How do you think your vision of a federal union will finally play out dingo?
Do you think the other areas will "man up" and drag themselves up to your level or do you think that they will get weaker and weaker as the membership see more and more a two tier union,with two tier agreements leading to more fragmentation and division.
I know what my money is on.

Your vision of the union is one where only the strong survive which couldn't be further from a trade union if it tried.
It is suicidal isolationism and you're welcome to it.

[dvbuk55]

A house divided against itself cannot stand -- I believe this union cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.
Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) Politician. President of the United States.

Very wise words from a very liberal man.

So how does the present organisation stack up:

Part timers disadvantaged
Agreement failing to be adopted across the whole organisation
Winners and Losers mentality at the highest level
Failure to curb spending

No guesses as to what will happen in the long run, just wonder where the CWUs equivalent of Fort Sumter will be

[Martin Walsh]

Fish everyone gets the same representation for their money at national level. Be that via the legal and medical services or industially. The fact is that the everyone got the same six step process to operate within.

Now in terms of varying degrees of reps well all reps are volunters and have to stand for election. I believe they all do their best but some are better than others.

Its a cheap shot to suggest I believe in only the stong survive and let all the rest go to hell. Thats not my view at all but I do believe that if people within an office believe that what is being proposed is wrong and wont work then they should say no and stop things from happening. If they choose not too then of course they should be asked why blame the wider union if they are not willing to make a stand themselves first.

Now I think its a red herring to suggust that offices become weak because they have higher ratios of part timers or non members. I have heard that arguement for years including the one which says that the old guard has gone and the newer members dont support the union. Well in 2009 London and some offices in Scotland took more action in terms of days in one dispute than since the 1971 dispute.

We had mail centres like the Mount who had the biggest number of part timers of any mail centre in the country and they were out , as were Nine Elms and East London plus there were another 250 part timers in delivery offices who also supported the strikes.

Now Dvbuk part timers get the same terms and conditions as full timers but its based on the hours they are paid. Do you want them to get more per hour than a full timers gets ?

The point of my mention of a federal union is that is what the CWU and other Union most operate within on the basis of local agreements.

[fishtank]

Its a cheap shot to suggest I believe in only the stong survive and let all the rest go to hell. Thats not my view at all but I do believe that if people within an office believe that what is being proposed is wrong and wont work then they should say no and stop things from happening. If they choose not too then of course they should be asked why blame the wider union if they are not willing to make a stand themselves first.

Obviously local management who are paid to implement these things expected it to work and they got it spectacularly wrong.
Obviously the planners who are trained to implement these things expected it to work and they got it spectacularly wrong.
So you're really down to the rep,who is supposed to be supported by his/her Branch who are supposed to have a greater knowledge base and obviously the branch is supported by the divisional rep who is in turn supported by national officers.
So we have...the managers,the planners,the reps,the branch,the divisional rep and the national officers all in the frame to a greater or lesser degree...and you decide to blame the members?
Members with full-time jobs and no release and no working knowledge of the six step process,pegasus,the IWT or the million and one idiosyncrasies involved in this overcomplicated revision process.
It's their fault for agreeing revisions they barely understood or had time to understand?
Of course it is.

[dvbuk55]

"Now Dvbuk part timers get the same terms and conditions as full timers but its based on the hours they are paid. Do you want them to get more per hour than a full timers gets ?"

You see dingo, the union advocated and agreed the delivery supplement. Those part timers on early shift lost that supplement and instead received a lesser amount for delivery supplement.
Now in the interests of fairness, why not make the supplement part of basic pay and thereby part timers and full timers would receive the same amount for hours worked. Was that not simpler and more fair?

No amount of spin will convince a part timer that his interests are held in the same regard as a full timer.

As for offices with a reduced union base and a 50/50 split on employees.............where and why do you think RM push these changes through and in so doing weaken the unions negotiating power. There is simply insufficient support at unit level from those who are supposed to provide the lead in these matters but are far too concerned with the party line, which actually supports and tries to prop up this failed agreement despite the evidence to the contrary.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

If they choose not too then of course they should be asked why blame the wider union if they are not willing to make a stand themselves first.

Because the Union is there is to protect the workers interests, even if they (the workers) are the ones attacking it, and because the BT2010 agreements is so complicated that a single person or rep on his own cannot know everything about it.

In fact in response to one the questions about 2010 I recall someone saying reps don't need to go on these full briefings as the Area and Div Reps will receive more training. I remember when I heard that it was during the Union Road shows when they were advising members about the deal.

Oh and there is a semi confirmation of the last paragraph in this thread http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... ining+reps" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;