To those that don't believe our terms are under threat

[fishtank]

it makes far more sense to dump the rowing boat and get a bigger motorised version with a 50mm cannon on the front and to stop pretending you're making a difference with a leaky boat and one oar.

I'll go along with that DV and so would you and some others on here but given the fact that the captain of the boat is too timid possibly because he believes half the crew are mutinous or alternatively depending on your perspective half the crew are mutinous because they believe the captain is too timid I think we're stuck with the rowing boat.

[cloherty1976]

it makes far more sense to dump the rowing boat and get a bigger motorised version with a 50mm cannon on the front and to stop pretending you're making a difference with a leaky boat and one oar.

I'll go along with that DV and so would you and some others on here but given the fact that the captain of the boat is too timid possibly because he believes half the crew are mutinous or alternatively depending on your perspective half the crew are mutinous because they believe the captain is too timid I think we're stuck with the rowing boat.

Let's all have a party and all go down together as happy family..

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Let's all have a party and all go down together as happy family..

[Brain Fury]

Before everyone gets too excited by the OP, it's worth remembering that this was part of TNT's submission to a consultative exercise carried out by Ofcom in which 14 other organisations including RM, the CWU and Unite submitted responses. The consultation was to establish how Ofcom would assess the positive and negative impacts on the provision of the USO of competition in end-to-end postal services and when it might need to intervene with additional controls.

Of course TNT is going to attack anything that they think helps RM and hinders them in doing what they want. However, despite the assertion in the OP that "Ofcom,Royal Mail and a Tory government are unlikely to put up much of a fight' there is no evidence that TNT is going to get all its own way. Indeed, as you would expect the responses from RM, the CWU and Unite were substantially different from TNTs and all, in one way or another, defended the position of RM and its employes and sought to put more restrictions on TNT. Ofcom has accepted some ideas, rejected some and withheld judgement on others but nobody, not even TNT got agreement to everything they suggested and that included their comments on RM's business model and labour costs.

It's also worth noting that TNTs comments about considering potential future changes to the USO was not accepted. Principally TNT were arguing that competitors i.e. them should not be asked to provide a service that exceeds the minimum standard required by the EU irrespective of the USO that applies in this country. They were not arguing that the USO should be reduced for RM (why would they).

[fishtank]

It's also worth noting that TNTs comments about considering potential future changes to the USO was not accepted. Principally TNT were arguing that competitors i.e. them should not be asked to provide a service that exceeds the minimum standard required by the EU irrespective of the USO that applies in this country. They were not arguing that the USO should be reduced for RM (why would they).

What they were actually arguing was that they would not be prepared to pay into a compensation fund for the USO while the USO was being provided at a higher specification than legislation requires.
This is a position that most including Ofcom understand.It will be impossible to maintain the argument that the USO is not financially viable if it contains unnecessary additions to its service obligations.
If at some point in the near future E2E has such an impact on the USO that it requires competitor subsidy it will have to be stripped back to the bare legislative bones.It's what you would call a "no brainer" legally.You can't expect competition to subsidise anything other than what's necessary.

What they were also arguing was that the impact of End to End competition on Royal Mail could not be judged fairly while Royal Mail had such high Labour costs,This is also a painfully strong argument given TNTs low cost,flexible labour model.

These arguments are not going away and now that TNT has expanded out of London into Manchester the clock is ticking on Ofcom making good its promise to revisit the issue of E2E if and when it had a material impact on the financial viability of the USO.

These arguments will be used again by TNT to defer any real move by Ofcom to secure the USO using competitor subsidy and any other type of punitive action to force TNT or others to adhere to any of the USO conditions would almost certainly be unlawful so the question is how unprofitable does the USO become before something gives?

In my opinion in order to secure competitor funding the USO will have to be stripped back to the legal minimum,Whether RM continues to provide those other services outside the scope of the USO if they are unprofitable is doubtful.

I also believe that reducing labour costs to a level that Ofcom believes is closer to the industry norm will also part of the future plans of the business although perhaps a more longer term strategy.
I mean let's be honest BF can you really see a private business paying a machine operator extra to clean his machine?..Or a delivery officer a supplement to deliver?

[Lincox]

Neville Chamberlaine always maintained that Hitler would never attack Poland. He thought he had signed a deal with Hitler and that would save Gt Britain from having to take up arms. How sadly wrong he was and when we were forced into declaring war against Germany, this country was ill prepared for the fight ahead. The likes of Banner and Cloherty who are in the ' What will be, will be' camp are like Chamberlaine, too wrapped up in their own convictions to see what is going on in the background and too weak and unprepared to take up the sword in defence against the race to the bottom.

[bennny7]

what t and c do the union want royal mail have a plan for 3 years time they hope the uso will go or get it watered down why should royal mail deliver dsa on a sat when people pay full price for a stamp and tnt delv certain areas 3 times aweek

[banner18]

Neville Chamberlaine always maintained that Hitler would never attack Poland. He thought he had signed a deal with Hitler and that would save Gt Britain from having to take up arms. How sadly wrong he was and when we were forced into declaring war against Germany, this country was ill prepared for the fight ahead. The likes of Banner and Cloherty who are in the ' What will be, will be' camp are like Chamberlaine, too wrapped up in their own convictions to see what is going on in the background and too weak and unprepared to take up the sword in defence against the race to the bottom.

This is an over simplified viewpoint. I fully supported the last industrial action we took and lost wages. I am sorry if I actually like to think and reason on my own about matters but I do. Am I absolutely sure I'm right? Well no or else I wouldn't be on here asking people about their views. The simple logic is that we have to believe there will be more gain after striking than we lost in pay whilst striking otherwise why do it? If you have a grievance or disagreement about something, you need to highlight that aspect clearly, you have to have a counter proposal. Talking in general terms and about things that you think will happen means nothing.

[k979aaa]

Neville Chamberlaine always maintained that Hitler would never attack Poland. He thought he had signed a deal with Hitler and that would save Gt Britain from having to take up arms. How sadly wrong he was and when we were forced into declaring war against Germany, this country was ill prepared for the fight ahead. The likes of Banner and Cloherty who are in the ' What will be, will be' camp are like Chamberlaine, too wrapped up in their own convictions to see what is going on in the background and too weak and unprepared to take up the sword in defence against the race to the bottom.

This is an over simplified viewpoint. I fully supported the last industrial action we took and lost wages. I am sorry if I actually like to think and reason on my own about matters but I do. Am I absolutely sure I'm right? Well no or else I wouldn't be on here asking people about their views. The simple logic is that we have to believe there will be more gain after striking than we lost in pay whilst striking otherwise why do it? If you have a grievance or disagreement about something, you need to highlight that aspect clearly, you have to have a counter proposal. Talking in general terms and about things that you think will happen means nothing.

Use your mind what would you do if you owned the business or were a shareholder it would not take to long to come to a conclusion that we could cut wages and annual leave sick pay and redundancy terms and gain even more PROFIT OFF THE BACKS OF POSTALWORKER'S.

[banner18]

Neville Chamberlaine always maintained that Hitler would never attack Poland. He thought he had signed a deal with Hitler and that would save Gt Britain from having to take up arms. How sadly wrong he was and when we were forced into declaring war against Germany, this country was ill prepared for the fight ahead. The likes of Banner and Cloherty who are in the ' What will be, will be' camp are like Chamberlaine, too wrapped up in their own convictions to see what is going on in the background and too weak and unprepared to take up the sword in defence against the race to the bottom.

This is an over simplified viewpoint. I fully supported the last industrial action we took and lost wages. I am sorry if I actually like to think and reason on my own about matters but I do. Am I absolutely sure I'm right? Well no or else I wouldn't be on here asking people about their views. The simple logic is that we have to believe there will be more gain after striking than we lost in pay whilst striking otherwise why do it? If you have a grievance or disagreement about something, you need to highlight that aspect clearly, you have to have a counter proposal. Talking in general terms and about things that you think will happen means nothing.

Use your mind what would you do if you owned the business or were a shareholder it would not take to long to come to a conclusion that we could cut wages and annual leave sick pay and redundancy terms and gain even more PROFIT OFF THE BACKS OF POSTALWORKER'S.

I totally agree but how will a strike change that. Its built in. Ask yourself why TNT workers never strike. Well their company will go under if they do. TNT workers have more right to strike than any of us but the conditions they are under makes it impossible. We have been manouvered to a position closer and closer to theirs over the years but I cannot see how a strike changes it unless it is to force renationalisation which the country probably won't support.

[Cichlid]

This is what we are fighting for.

Long term legal protections ensuring a private Royal Mail Group can never replicate employment practices of their competitors.

An above inflation pay and reward package.

A separate legally binding pension agreement that protects the Defined Benefit Scheme and secures improvements to the Defined Contribution Scheme.

Agreement on a future strategy for letters and parcels that delivers an agenda for growth with you - not despite you.

A new consensus on a fair days work for a fair days pay that tackles chaotic managerial lapsing/absorption and unrealistic efficiency demands.

Enough said.

[k979aaa]

Neville Chamberlaine always maintained that Hitler would never attack Poland. He thought he had signed a deal with Hitler and that would save Gt Britain from having to take up arms. How sadly wrong he was and when we were forced into declaring war against Germany, this country was ill prepared for the fight ahead. The likes of Banner and Cloherty who are in the ' What will be, will be' camp are like Chamberlaine, too wrapped up in their own convictions to see what is going on in the background and too weak and unprepared to take up the sword in defence against the race to the bottom.

This is an over simplified viewpoint. I fully supported the last industrial action we took and lost wages. I am sorry if I actually like to think and reason on my own about matters but I do. Am I absolutely sure I'm right? Well no or else I wouldn't be on here asking people about their views. The simple logic is that we have to believe there will be more gain after striking than we lost in pay whilst striking otherwise why do it? If you have a grievance or disagreement about something, you need to highlight that aspect clearly, you have to have a counter proposal. Talking in general terms and about things that you think will happen means nothing.

Use your mind what would you do if you owned the business or were a shareholder it would not take to long to come to a conclusion that we could cut wages and annual leave sick pay and redundancy terms and gain even more PROFIT OFF THE BACKS OF POSTALWORKER'S.

I totally agree but how will a strike change that. Its built in. Ask yourself why TNT workers never strike. Well their company will go under if they do. TNT workers have more right to strike than any of us but the conditions they are under makes it impossible. We have been manouvered to a position closer and closer to theirs over the years but I cannot see how a strike changes it unless it is to force renationalisation which the country probably won't support.

So you condone our terms and conditions should be more like TNT and TNT will go under if they did strike and they have more right to strike than US be very aware they cannot fight for what they have as once it has gone you will NEVER GET IT BACK!.

[banner18]

This is what we are fighting for.

Long term legal protections ensuring a private Royal Mail Group can never replicate employment practices of their competitors.

An above inflation pay and reward package.

A separate legally binding pension agreement that protects the Defined Benefit Scheme and secures improvements to the Defined Contribution Scheme.

Agreement on a future strategy for letters and parcels that delivers an agenda for growth with you - not despite you.

A new consensus on a fair days work for a fair days pay that tackles chaotic managerial lapsing/absorption and unrealistic efficiency demands.

Enough said.

Ok thanks. This proposal is impossible. It is like asking for the price of a can of beans to always remain the same regardless of every cost it takes to make it. This is the market system and I'm no great fan of it but it is the way it is. Seen as the government still owns the largest share, we are technically still state owned and in a similar position as before so replication of competitor employment practices is still some way off. I agree it is coming though but how does a strike address this unless it is advocating complete reversal?

The pay offer is good by comparison so some will disagree that a strike over this issue would be wise. A better deal could be acheived as RM won't keep kicking this can down the road.

The pension is a fair point but we didn't even get balloted for action when they wound up the final salary scheme.

A future strategy is a point by point issue, not something to strike about.

Totally agree with your last point but no agreement will tackle this. It is systemic from the bottom up. We need outside influence to change it, managers from other industries brought in etc.. This is no more likely to be acheived with strike action.

[UnhappyGremlin]

How can a privatised company be technically state owned?

[Lounge Lizard]

As most of you are aware TNT Post have an ongoing end to end operation in London and are about to start another in Manchester.
Some people think that Ofcom will ride to the rescue forcing TNT to deliver to every address making the whole thing uneconomic and TNT will disappear sharpish.
This will not happen.

It won't happen because the economics of setting up a rival USO would be unmanageable for any company and this would be deemed anti-competitive under relevant EU Directives and the only available alternative would be the right to establish a compensation fund where provision of the USO entails a net cost and represents an unfair financial burden on the Universal Service Provider.


Royal Mail staff should be very aware of the arguments the likes of TNT Post will put forward against paying into a compensation fund.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binari ... es/TNT.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As to matters which are to be considered to be within Royal Mail’s control (paragraph 6.28), it should be expressly stated that wages and other employment conditions are within Royal Mail’s control. It gives cause for concern that OFCOM will undertake work to identify a reasonable rate of efficiency improvement. If set too low, this can result in competitors not investing (due to risk of regulatory restraints) and may become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In principle we do not accept the presumption that Royal Mail’s costs are relatively fixed. The majority of cost is labour and so is, inherently, a variable cost. Royal Mail needs to be exposed to competition both operationally and on employment terms in order to produce the most efficient and flexible cost structure.

The current business model would represent an inappropriate baseline if it does not look forward and assume implementation of other employment models, more akin to those of its competitors. A changed Royal Mail business model could lead to another number staff and could lead to leaner (i.e. cheaper) labour costs and conditions.

Finally, in assessing the effect of delivery competition on the provision of the USO, potential changes to the USO must also be taken into account. If the extent of the USO is set at a level which is wider than it needs to be, from a consumer or EU legislation perspective, there can be no defensible argument that competition should be restrained in order to justify such additional and non-essential obligations.

These obligations would exist, ultimately, because of a political decision and not the assessment of the independent regulator. The guidance should make clear how any permitted reduction in the USO will be taken into account. It should not be limited to changes which are proposed (as stated in paragraph 6.63) as these may countenance a service which goes beyond the minimum needs of users and, thus, place an undue burden on Royal Mail and, thereby, its competitors

This is the reality of the situation.
TNT want both the USO and our terms and conditions reduced before they would consider making any contribution to the USO,Ofcom,Royal Mail and a Tory government are unlikely to put up much of a fight.

The only people left to fight for both are us and our union.
Strike on the 4th of November or roll over and accept the TNT model,It's that simple.

Fish,
Very interesting that.
About the only thing everyone is agreed on is that the USO should be maintained.
However, as you imply, the Tory government, and others too, will over just a few years find it easier to maintain the USO by cutting costs, with our pay reduced and conditions eroded, than by getting any contribution out of TNT.
We all know that really and it's just a case of to what extent and for how long pay and conditions can be protected, and I'm not at all optimistic about that.