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

[banner18]

How can a privatised company be technically state owned?

They own 63% I think. Of course they arent state owned now, I just said technically because gov is the biggest shareholder.

[UnhappyGremlin]

How can a privatised company be technically state owned?

They own 63% I think. Of course they arent state owned now, I just said technically because gov is the biggest shareholder.

As I said earlier on this thread, the Government retained 38% of shares.
They can be out voted on any issue.

[k979aaa]

What needs to be done is happening the fact that some have given up before they started or are non union is irrelevant the thing is nothing will happen without US all getting the agreement we deserve it is incumbent on us all to make that sacrifice of losing one days pay for the future good of us all. Never has so few of us all been against so many of the capitalists and free market clowns of the stock market some on here a spouse it. It would be a very sad day for us all if we gave in to the market forces at our own expense I say if you want war I will bring peace with force.

[daveyeff]

a point you made banner on the simple logic of having people believe that we have more to gain from a strike otherwise why do it? you must also have people believe you have more to lose if we dont strike. and most on here. in fact most of those who voted believe the latter to be the case.

[fishtank]

If Royal Mail originally offered 3 years protection and the union managed to negotiate 5 years protection will the naysayers be prepared to stand up after 3 years and face whatever it is Royal Mail has planned for us?
An extra 2 years might not sound like much but i'm sure when we get to the end of the next 3 years it will be greatly appreciated.

The question isn't just about the length of the agreement it's also about what is protected and what isn't.As far as I'm aware RMs list of protected T&Cs was pretty short and only covered certain areas of the business.

The longer we can have those protections and the more comprehensive they are,the more prepared we can be for anything that comes after and the more chips we will still have on our side of the table.

[banner18]

How can a privatised company be technically state owned?

They own 63% I think. Of course they arent state owned now, I just said technically because gov is the biggest shareholder.

As I said earlier on this thread, the Government retained 38% of shares.
They can be out voted on any issue.

Yes, they are the biggest shareholder was the point. Things will change a lot if a bigger company buys a majority of the shares.

[cloherty1976]

If Royal Mail originally offered 3 years protection and the union managed to negotiate 5 years protection will the naysayers be prepared to stand up after 3 years and face whatever it is Royal Mail has planned for us?
An extra 2 years might not sound like much but i'm sure when we get to the end of the next 3 years it will be greatly appreciated.

The question isn't just about the length of the agreement it's also about what is protected and what isn't.As far as I'm aware RMs list of protected T&Cs was pretty short and only covered certain areas of the business.

The longer we can have those protections and the more comprehensive they are,the more prepared we can be for anything that comes after and the more chips we will still have on our side of the table.

I posted on Saturday that this will be the deal and got shot down. 5 year deal will stop the strikes I feel sure it's going to happen. Fishtank to me it looks like you know something..

[Lounge Lizard]

If Royal Mail originally offered 3 years protection and the union managed to negotiate 5 years protection will the naysayers be prepared to stand up after 3 years and face whatever it is Royal Mail has planned for us?
An extra 2 years might not sound like much but i'm sure when we get to the end of the next 3 years it will be greatly appreciated.

The question isn't just about the length of the agreement it's also about what is protected and what isn't.As far as I'm aware RMs list of protected T&Cs was pretty short and only covered certain areas of the business.

The longer we can have those protections and the more comprehensive they are,the more prepared we can be for anything that comes after and the more chips we will still have on our side of the table.

I posted on Saturday that this will be the deal and got shot down. 5 year deal will stop the strikes I feel sure it's going to happen. Fishtank to me it looks like you know something..

Fishtank knows a lot. He always does.

[fishtank]

I posted on Saturday that this will be the deal and got shot down. 5 year deal will stop the strikes I feel sure it's going to happen. Fishtank to me it looks like you know something..

It was just a punt,nothing more.
I would rather see long term protections that don't have an expiry date but in the words of Mick Jagger :Tell me, sister morphine, when are you coming round again?

Sorry that should read:You can't always get what you want.

[cloherty1976]

FairPlay fishtank and I do like the poker terms..

[NWpostie]

It would be in Royal Mails and our interest to have some form of long term stability ideally through a 10 year pay and T&C deal I think 5 might be realistic or 7 possibly with some negotiations, I do draw the line at the "No strike" deal it would simply be unworkable.

[Brain Fury]

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?

Yes it's what TNT were arguing. It is not necessarily what Ofcom believe indeed they specifically said that labour costs could not be considered in isolation from an overall view of RM's efficiency in providing the USO which they will be assessing. They also specifically said that they will assess the affordability of the USO based on what it is at the time not what it might be in future or the minimum EU standard.

Also TNT may well have been saying they weren't happy paying into a compensation fund. Two points:
1) There is no compensation fund (any more than there is a £300 payment to no strikers).
2) If Ofcom decide a compensation fund is required then it isn't voluntary. If TNT are included in the group of organisations that Ofcom decide must pay into the scheme then like it or not they will have to pay.

[indio]

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.

Etc etc etc

What's the point being made here?

TNT a business is doing what businesses do.... trying to get the best possible/advantageous deal for themselves. No different to the current talks between the CWU and management.

Or is RM excluded/from competition?

[motch]

Well I won't bother watching the Horror Film tonight....That letter was frightening enough! FFS what is it going to take to stop these thieving money grabbing bastards from dragging everyone down to the lowest level of employment?

Obviously as FT has pointed out...Us & The CWU! I wonder if the RM big wigs are actually bothered about their own workforce getting shafted. After all it would save "Them" paying out higher wages. Heaven forbid a few Directors lost their jobs they'd probably just walk into another 100K one. What hope for Posties having to drag themselves back up the wages ladder?

I worked it out/light bulb moment a couple of years ago that the govt (any govt really) wants minimum wage style labour, or even free labour like workfare and use a HUGE MONUMENTAL amount of top up benefits to make a living wage for the masses. For one thing it helps the GDP figures no end.

Yes it's pretty obvious now that firms employing manual type non-skilled labour want to and can pay the minimum wage. Not putting us posties down but within a month or two most people can be a decent postie.... and even if they are a dire postie as long as they are fast the bosses will turn a blind eye to all mistakes.

[Dorset Plodder]

We know it ain't rocket science motch, and your right it's un-skilled manual labour. However I think people would be surprised at the wide experience & skills that our workforce has (Totally unrelated to delivering mail). A lot of people used to become Posties because they wanted a change from a more pressurised & stressful job.

Unfortunately now the job has started to become just as pressurised & stressful as their old careers, without a lot of the perks i.e Better Wages. I really do miss my Rolls Royce.