Steve Cameron's letter

[dvbuk55]

No RTP what dingo is talking about is his little patch - and I know it's easy from his tone to think that it is agreement for the whole of the movement sadly it isn't. Now what do you think would happen to an office who has had a revision and wanted to apply the agreement dingo is referring to? "RM would know they wouldn't get another revision" wonderful - but what about those revisions that have gone in, failed and have people bullied and harassed ad infinitum.

[fishtank]

Fish I can understand the question and statement will this just be another agreement that Royal Mail will break. However we have something which they need and that is agreement on revisons and if they break this one then they will not get another revison. This has forced Royal Mail to agree to honour the national agreement. What other alternative was their do nothing and allow Royal Mail to do what they want ? Well we were not prepared to do that.

I can understand the need to do something dingo but...if you continue to make agreements,see them broken,pull out of involvement,take your members to the brink,make agreements,see them broken,pull out of involvement etc...each time you do it your position gets weaker and weaker,your members get tired of not knowing whether they are coming or going and at some point when the employer thinks you're weak enough they'll call your bluff.I know i don't need to tell you that but indulge me anyway.
It's not a sustainable long term strategy in my opinion but i genuinely wish you the best of luck..

[RTP]

No RTP what dingo is talking about is his little patch - and I know it's easy from his tone to think that it is agreement for the whole of the movement sadly it isn't. Now what do you think would happen to an office who has had a revision and wanted to apply the agreement dingo is referring to? "RM would know they wouldn't get another revision" wonderful - but what about those revisions that have gone in, failed and have people bullied and harassed ad infinitum.

They would be told that it's been signed and sealed. That's the end of it.

I'll let dingo reply to my last post before I judge this any further though.

He's thinking about it....

[Cut Off King]

DINGO :

This is a weird debate. We have pulled away from any revisons talks or activity and forced Royal Mail into agreeing to abide by the terms of the agreement and various other issues and yet we get criticism for standing our ground and not allowing Royal Mail to bully us or break the national agreement.

Your taking flack from members because you want to stick to a national agreement that the vast majority of members consider to be a crock of s*** !

Sure they voted for it, thats because most members never read the agreement, they didn't understand what they were voting for. Many now have first hand experiance of what the wording actually means for them, and they don't like it. Some voted for the cash incentive, some because they didn't want to lose money in continued strike action, others because after they're unit rep had been to "billys rep roadshow" were told to by him/her. Whatever the reason, it was voted in.

But just because it was voted in, doesn't mean that its a good agreement !

BT2010 is the funamental reason that members have so little faith in the union.

Strenthen the UNION by getting an agreement that looks after the members, not one that helps RM to devide us.

comments please.........

[fishtank]

comments please.........

We have started discussions with CWU to reach an agreement to build on the Business Transformation Agreement 2010.
Moya Greene.

[Cut Off King]

comments please.........

We have started discussions with CWU to reach an agreement to build on the Business Transformation Agreement 2010.
Moya Greene.

My point is that BT2010 is the problem, instead of building on it, we should kill it off.

A new agreement is needed.

Moya wants to build on it because it gives her a platform to devide the CWU.

[dvbuk55]

comments please.........

We have started discussions with CWU to reach an agreement to build on the Business Transformation Agreement 2010.
Moya Greene.

I don't think we should be building extensions, I think we should demolish it and start again using genuine experience to build a future not some washed out computer program that very few actually understand and can be so easily manipulated to the detriment of the delivery officers.

[fishtank]

No-one has any confidence in the IWT version whatever+1.
Not reps,not members,not managers and not even planners.
It is universally ignored in my office.
The delivery forecast tool is as credible as reading tea leaves.
Pegasus/Georoute took reasonably sensible delivery routes and turned them into unintelligible nonsense.
The PSP system seems to have a mind of it's own.
Are Royal Mail sourcing all of this crap from Alan Sugar?

[Cut Off King]

Are Royal Mail sourcing all of this crap from Alan Sugar?

No, they have a more cost efective IT solution......

[Glenno]

No I don't believe Royal Mail will put in hours to bring someone down from say 100 on the indoor as their next step is to move to the upper decile

And this concerns me what incentive is there for ottices to be in the upper decile? Give me the 2013=15 agreement

[Martin Walsh]

RTP you say we are only delaying the inevitable , I have been in the job for 28 years and I have seen the following revison process Improved Working Methods , Real Unit Labour Costs , Delivery Remuneration , 5% cuts , performance bonus scheme , CADR , DPMS revisons , Interim delivery fit to deliver revisons , Pay and Major Change Revisons , Pay and Mod revisons and now Business Trnasformation revisons.

I have heard managers and members saying we are just delaying the inevitable but after all those revisons we still have offices which are meant to be at 50 or 60 or 70 or is that Royal Mail have never really had a clue on introducing productivity improvements.

Is this why Royal Mail believe that business transformation has failed cause they can't take the hours out of offices as clearly they never really existed in the first place. Royal Mail believed they would take 400 million savings in delivery alone on the back of BT 2010 and they have not even got a quarter of that as yet.

So I look at things on a different basis them maybe you , I believe that our job is to challenge what Royal Mail are doing and ensure our members have the best conditions they can for as long as they can and as long as you explain that to members they will generally support you.

[RTP]

RTP you say we are only delaying the inevitable , I have been in the job for 28 years and I have seen the following revison process Improved Working Methods , Real Unit Labour Costs , Delivery Remuneration , 5% cuts , performance bonus scheme , CADR , DPMS revisons , Interim delivery fit to deliver revisons , Pay and Major Change Revisons , Pay and Mod revisons and now Business Trnasformation revisons.

I have heard managers and members saying we are just delaying the inevitable but after all those revisons we still have offices which are meant to be at 50 or 60 or 70 or is that Royal Mail have never really had a clue on introducing productivity improvements.

Is this why Royal Mail believe that business transformation has failed cause they can't take the hours out of offices as clearly they never really existed in the first place. Royal Mail believed they would take 400 million savings in delivery alone on the back of BT 2010 and they have not even got a quarter of that as yet.

So I look at things on a different basis them maybe you , I believe that our job is to challenge what Royal Mail are doing and ensure our members have the best conditions they can for as long as they can and as long as you explain that to members they will generally support you.

I didn't say you were delaying the inevitable, I asked you if that's what you were doing and from your reply I can draw my own conclusions now. Fair play to you.

It may come across that I'm being anti union, but nothing is further from the truth. If we had no union then we would all be a lot worse off and people need to remember that, but what we can do is all learn from our past mistakes.Lets hope that happens.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

I believe that our job is to challenge what Royal Mail are doing and ensure our members have the best conditions they can for as long as they can and as long as you explain that to members they will generally support you.

Isn't that approach eventually self defeating. All it does is delay the inevitable. For instance RM want 10 of something so they ask for 20. The Union know they wont get 1 and probably would accept 10 so they ask for 5. A lot of discussions later the Union come back saying this is the best we can get and agree with Royal Mail that 10 is okay. So we end up where RM wanted to be in the first place.

Yes the Unions job is to challenge Royal Mail, but it is there to also try to improve the T&Cs of its members, not just to mitigate the damage. Its there to represent the members views, a consultative ballot gets the views on a narrow set circumstances/positions.

The Union should be there to respond to members concerns not decide what those concerns should be. This is where I think there is a huge hole in the way the Union approach/deal with members concerns. At the moment if a problem is being encountered at Unit level, the rep reports it to branch and gets guidance or help, he passes that on or with the help of the branch its all dealt with. The problem is if the rep is in bed with management, or there is no unit rep then the Union has to rely on someone contacting them, which is when they are probably desperate and the situation is dire.

The Union needs to be pro-active and EVERY area rep should arrange a work place meeting at EVERY unit in their area at least once per year,and IMHO it should be written into an agreement so that a rouge manager can't refuse it. Also every Divisional rep should have a target of visiting every unit in their catchment area at least once between election cycles. At the moment you have to go to branch for anything, how about the branch coming out to its members.

You mention sometimes that officers are willing to attend meetings which is good news, if you are a member of an active branch. But what happens when you are with a Branch that rarely interacts with its members, or perhaps one that is geographically extensive. Perhaps a member of a unit decides to chance his arm and ask if Dave Ward can come to a meeting with him and his colleagues, what do HQ do. They contact branch and make them aware of the request. In a good branch with a wide area to cover they may indeed arrange a meeting but it will probably be at Branch HQ where travel is difficult for some. If its a poor Branch then they'll sit on the request hoping it will slowly fade away or perhaps they'll report back and say that their is no need or appetite for a meeting.

I'll give the Union their due, the current set up is excellent if you have active members, a pro-active branch, a relatively small area to cover with a high concentration of members and if your perceived as a militant. But in offices and branches that aren't then you'll feel isolated, ignored and vulnerable. The Union needs to do something to galvanize the membership, and it needs to modernise/review the Branch structure or system. The problem is the current system relies too much on the Branch system and I can't see Branches supporting motions that may weaken or bypass their control.

[Martin Walsh]

TBT no I don't think it is self defeating , the reality is that Negotations itself is often about compromises as there is no such think as a one sided agreement. The challenge is often making the right call on whether the deal is worth doing and when to say yes or no.

It is an easier call if your looking after one office or an area then it is to make that call nationally as the union for decades been stronger in some urban areas not just in London.

Prior to 1992 most local offices were their own Branch and had a rebate to organise their own office or mail centre. They all attended conferences and did exactly what some are suggesting happens now. The union back then was weaker for this praticise , lots of offices were weak at a time when it was easier to be strong , there was a lot of misuse of the unions money and many a conference delegate never stepped foot into the conference hall. Branch's within the same postcode never got on and even in mail centres where there was a seperate PHG Branch and a Postman's Branch there was arguments. I don't accept the members were better informed then , yes in some Branch's meetings were held but some Branch's are doing that now.

Royal Mail cut facility time in 1992 by millions per year when they introduced the IR Framework and as a union we reorganise the Branch structure. The Central point of Royal Mail's attack was to stop the Branch secretary being the main negotiator for the Branch. Remember Branch's were often one office or a collection of smaller offices.

Since then I believe the union got stronger from 1992 , the 1996 employee agenda dispute was a good case in pont.

However in recent years some Branch's have got bigger due to further amalgamtions and some offices have become less represented which needs changing. Motion 61 is seeking to ensure that every office is visited at least twice per year to have meetings with the members and not just when there is a problem.

Of course it is important to listen to the members. But it is also important that the members know we are in the most challenging times in the history of Royal Mail and that things like , scrapping d2d , stopping later Saturdays , stopping CDVs , stopping revisons , stopping automation , scrapping CDVs and finishing early are not going to be realistic requests.

I would challenge you on improvements in terms and conditions, since 2003 basic pay and pensionable pay has grown faster then in any decade in the history of the Post Office. This is has been achieved against the background of the biggest challenges ever faced by the Post Office.

Those who believe the CWU can veto change especially when paid by the Tax payer and then endorsed by the Euopean Commission when giving state aid live in a parallel universe free from responsibility.

I agree we have to reconnect with the members in all workplaces. However you should not believe that we have not got members who are still fully in support of the CWU and have been kept informed.

[dvbuk55]

I agree we have to reconnect with the members in all workplaces. However you should not believe that we have not got members who are still fully in support of the CWU and have been kept informed.

Are they the ones who pay more subs? - because I thought we all paid the same and so should be treated the same.