Brain Fury wrote:Yes much better that RM maintains the agreement and goes bust than expects people to live in the real world
My argument is not essentially that the agreement is bad, it is of course, but it's RMs job to press for as much productivity as cheaply as possible. My point of view is that the union has negotiated away many of the protections we have for pretty much 30 pieces of silver.
As for maintaining agreements well who would expect RM to stick to agreements when for almost 10 years they have flouted them without question. The union would do better to withdraw from the arena altogether and employ capable negotiators whose future depends on success because as it stands the present system of negotiating has no redress whatsoever except to withdraw financial support.
It seems to me that the CWU leadership think they have gained protections not surrendered the but that isn't the point.
The post I responded to was complaining that RM could withdraw from the agreement on protection of t&cs in certain exceptional circumstances e.g financial difficulties. Leaving aside the cynicism and suspicion surrounding the deal , in principle would it make sense for a business to lock itself into an agreement without an escape clause even if that meant that the business suffered?
borders wrote:we cannot collectively strike, but unballoted IA can take place and this will happen :-
5.3 Special Mediation
Where despite the best endeavours of both Royal Mail and CWU, unballoted industrial action occurs, the Divisional Representative (or equivalent) and the Head of Industrial Relations will be immediately informed. They will work with the local representatives of both parties to identify the cause of the industrial action, resolve differences, return to work and if necessary engage in due process. Unless there is an expectation of a quick return to work they will arrange for Special Mediators to be appointed.
You won't make it to the gate before the mediators have you back at work.
Read the agreement and remember it's all legally binding.
Sorry Borders you and others posting are wrong to peddle mistruths.
We can collectively vote and take national industrial action, there are consequences, such as RMs withdrawal from the agreement but that doesnt mean we cannot take national strike action if we believe its right.
borders wrote:we cannot collectively strike, but unballoted IA can take place and this will happen :-
5.3 Special Mediation
Where despite the best endeavours of both Royal Mail and CWU, unballoted industrial action occurs, the Divisional Representative (or equivalent) and the Head of Industrial Relations will be immediately informed. They will work with the local representatives of both parties to identify the cause of the industrial action, resolve differences, return to work and if necessary engage in due process. Unless there is an expectation of a quick return to work they will arrange for Special Mediators to be appointed.
You won't make it to the gate before the mediators have you back at work.
Read the agreement and remember it's all legally binding.
Sorry Borders you and others posting are wrong to peddle mistruths.
We can collectively vote and take national industrial action, there are consequences, such as RMs withdrawal from the agreement but that doesnt mean we cannot take national strike action if we believe its right.
Oh so true didn't we just have a mandate to strike and didn't take it even without legal consequences.......sooooooo what are the chances of a national strike being called by the gut less wonders if they think they are going to have to go to court with the commensurate legal expenses and really to no advantage to the CWU organisation it's a really hard one that.
borders wrote:we cannot collectively strike, but unballoted IA can take place and this will happen :-
5.3 Special Mediation
Where despite the best endeavours of both Royal Mail and CWU, unballoted industrial action occurs, the Divisional Representative (or equivalent) and the Head of Industrial Relations will be immediately informed. They will work with the local representatives of both parties to identify the cause of the industrial action, resolve differences, return to work and if necessary engage in due process. Unless there is an expectation of a quick return to work they will arrange for Special Mediators to be appointed.
You won't make it to the gate before the mediators have you back at work.
Read the agreement and remember it's all legally binding.
Sorry Borders you and others posting are wrong to peddle mistruths.
We can collectively vote and take national industrial action, there are consequences, such as RMs withdrawal from the agreement but that doesnt mean we cannot take national strike action if we believe its right.
Oh so true didn't we just have a mandate to strike and didn't take it even without legal consequences.......sooooooo what are the chances of a national strike being called by the gut less wonders if they think they are going to have to go to court with the commensurate legal expenses and really to no advantage to the CWU organisation it's a really hard one that.
Surely it's got nothing to do with "guts". Wasn't the ballot to give the CWU leadership the option of calling a strike if they felt it to be necessary to secure an acceptable deal? It wasn't a vote to instruct them to call a strike. IMO some members seemed to want to strike for its own sake - just to give RM a bloody nose irrespective of whether it helped or hindered the negotiations. Presumably if the membership doesn't support the current leadership then they will be voted out next time.
Brain Fury wrote:Surely it's got nothing to do with "guts". Wasn't the ballot to give the CWU leadership the option of calling a strike if they felt it to be necessary to secure an acceptable deal? It wasn't a vote to instruct them to call a strike. IMO some members seemed to want to strike for its own sake - just to give RM a bloody nose irrespective of whether it helped or hindered the negotiations. Presumably if the membership doesn't support the current leadership then they will be voted out next time.
You do have a point Brian - however, how many times was the last chance saloon side tracked with yet another delay - unless agreement is by blah blah a timetable for industrial action will be decided, and then it wasn't, and then it wasn't again and the sum total of those delays meant RM had a strike free Christmas and we have a ballot in the new year with a minimal increase on the original offer.
The union seem more concerned about a profitable business than the terms and conditions of the membership and business profitability is NOT their concern we don't pay them to support RMs business plan we pay them to support us.
Brain Fury wrote:Surely it's got nothing to do with "guts". Wasn't the ballot to give the CWU leadership the option of calling a strike if they felt it to be necessary to secure an acceptable deal? It wasn't a vote to instruct them to call a strike. IMO some members seemed to want to strike for its own sake - just to give RM a bloody nose irrespective of whether it helped or hindered the negotiations. Presumably if the membership doesn't support the current leadership then they will be voted out next time.
You do have a point Brian - however, how many times was the last chance saloon side tracked with yet another delay - unless agreement is by blah blah a timetable for industrial action will be decided, and then it wasn't, and then it wasn't again and the sum total of those delays meant RM had a strike free Christmas and we have a ballot in the new year with a minimal increase on the original offer.
The union seem more concerned about a profitable business than the terms and conditions of the membership and business profitability is NOT their concern we don't pay them to support RMs business plan we pay them to support us.
It's debatable whether the overall final agreement was a minimal increase. If you are just talking about pay, IMO the original pay offer was a good one and the new one is better. Did you really expect more?
In any case again you seem to be saying that there should have been strike action irrespective of how the negotiations were progressing. The fact that the CWU chose to defer calling a strike was an indication that they were happy with how talks were progressing and ultimately they arrived at a deal that was acceptable to them without having to do so. I could understand people complaining if after all the negotiations no deal was reached and strike action was called after Christmas but that didn't happen.
Isn't it extremely shortsighted to say that a union shouldn't be concerned with the commercial success of a company? What sort pay, security and employment prospects will there be for employees in a business that isn't successful? Working with the business to ensure commercial success and supporting the T&Cs of employees should go hand in hand for a sensible, grown up union especially now we are in the private sector.
Brain Fury wrote:. Isn't it extremely shortsighted to say that a union shouldn't be concerned with the commercial success of a company? What sort pay, security and employment prospects will there be for employees in a business that isn't successful? Working with the business to ensure commercial success and supporting the T&Cs of employees should go hand in hand for a sensible, grown up union especially now we are in the private sector.
No it isn't short sighted Brian, the primary concern of the union should be to support the members working conditions but it seems in recent negotiations that is a secondary issue and the profitability of the company takes precedence. That role is RM managements purview. In this latest agreement there is no strategy to deal with delivery issues except as an adjunct to the negotiations and that is simply not good enough - remember the rallying cry "nothing is agreed until EVERYTHING is agreed" well the delivery issue isn't agreed - merely side lined until later and who knows, after the agreement with a no strike clause, what as a union they can do about it? We are heading for a future without any method of changing course and being even more sidelined than we are already - if that is possible.
Brain Fury wrote:. Isn't it extremely shortsighted to say that a union shouldn't be concerned with the commercial success of a company? What sort pay, security and employment prospects will there be for employees in a business that isn't successful? Working with the business to ensure commercial success and supporting the T&Cs of employees should go hand in hand for a sensible, grown up union especially now we are in the private sector.
No it isn't short sighted Brian, the primary concern of the union should be to support the members working conditions but it seems in recent negotiations that is a secondary issue and the profitability of the company takes precedence. That role is RM managements purview. In this latest agreement there is no strategy to deal with delivery issues except as an adjunct to the negotiations and that is simply not good enough - remember the rallying cry "nothing is agreed until EVERYTHING is agreed" well the delivery issue isn't agreed - merely side lined until later and who knows, after the agreement with a no strike clause, what as a union they can do about it? We are heading for a future without any method of changing course and being even more sidelined than we are already - if that is possible.
I expect we are never going to agree. What agreement could have been made on delivery issues without further extending the negotiations i.e. what could RM and the CWU have agreed now without further work and discussion which would convince you that the matter(s) had been satisfactorily dealt with?
labbloke wrote:
Sorry Borders you and others posting are wrong to peddle mistruths.
We can collectively vote and take national industrial action, there are consequences, such as RMs withdrawal from the agreement but that doesnt mean we cannot take national strike action if we believe its right.
Sorry labbloke but with all due respect that's absolute bollocks.
Do you really expect the membership to vote for strike action that will immediately remove the legal protections covering their terms and conditions?
Do you really expect HQ to ballot the membership for national industrial action knowing they will face a heavy and embarrassing rejection?
Saying we can take industrial action is like saying you can ask your wife if you can sleep with her sister...you can of course ask but the answer will be no and the consequences will be a kick in the nuts so in all reality you're not really going to ask that question are you?
Brain Fury wrote:I expect we are never going to agree. What agreement could have been made on delivery issues without further extending the negotiations i.e. what could RM and the CWU have agreed now without further work and discussion which would convince you that the matter(s) had been satisfactorily dealt with?
You see Brian you talk as if these negotiations have suddenly opened the delivery issue and that is simply not true. There has been ample opportunity to discuss what has been an obvious problem for two years and more and the union have ignored it until now and then say we'll look at it later whilst arranging for new productivity schemes.
I don't know what you do but I would suspect you're not in deliveries where the parcel and packet ratio has tripled and more in the last three years whilst still trying to cope with the mail which even if it is less it's only marginally so with the inclusion of D2Ds.
fishtank wrote:Saying we can take industrial action is like saying you can ask your wife if you can sleep with her sister...you can of course ask but the answer will be no and the consequences will be a kick in the nuts so in all reality you're not really going to ask that question are you?
Decisions decisions - is it worth spending the afternoon in casualty
labbloke wrote:
Sorry Borders you and others posting are wrong to peddle mistruths.
We can collectively vote and take national industrial action, there are consequences, such as RMs withdrawal from the agreement but that doesnt mean we cannot take national strike action if we believe its right.
Sorry labbloke but with all due respect that's absolute bollocks.
Do you really expect the membership to vote for strike action that will immediately remove the legal protections covering their terms and conditions?
Do you really expect HQ to ballot the membership for national industrial action knowing they will face a heavy and embarrassing rejection?
Saying we can take industrial action is like saying you can ask your wife if you can sleep with her sister...you can of course ask but the answer will be no and the consequences will be a kick in the nuts so in all reality you're not really going to ask that question are you?
You are right on what you say but if they are told to vote for a strike or it's recommended then that's what they do. People on here are quite often like a rabbit caught in the headlights. They will always say they are going to strike and man the picket lines but reality saying is different to doing.
cloherty1976 wrote: if they are told to vote for a strike or it's recommended then that's what they do.
I think that's very unlikely now.
I can't see any member putting legal protections at risk over a pay dispute or some woolly aims from HQ.
I don't think some in the union fully understand the implications of entering into a legally binding contract with the employer,I think they assume it's just another deal and if they start to get a bit pissed off with it they'll just throw their toys out the pram again and the membership will come running.
Make no mistake,this is a game changer,nothing will be the same again,while the protections are in place the union more or less has to swallow whatever is put in front of it because the members will not under any circumstances risk the protections being pulled and open themselves up to franchising,zero hour contracts and having their terms and conditions shredded.
Why would they...that would be crazy.
cloherty1976 wrote: if they are told to vote for a strike or it's recommended then that's what they do.
I think that's very unlikely now.
I can't see any member putting legal protections at risk over a pay dispute or some woolly aims from HQ.
I don't think some in the union fully understand the implications of entering into a legally binding contract with the employer,I think they assume it's just another deal and if they start to get a bit pissed off with it they'll just throw their toys out the pram again and the membership will come running.
Make no mistake,this is a game changer,nothing will be the same again,while the protections are in place the union more or less has to swallow whatever is put in front of it because the members will not under any circumstances risk the protections being pulled and open themselves up to franchising,zero hour contracts and having their terms and conditions shredded.
Why would they...that would be crazy.
I agree with this totally and did say the union started negotiations on a weak hand. I am not saying they will ask for a strike when they have there meetings which they will obviously recommend excepting the great deal. They have got us a few extra quid but basically don't understand the legal implications and how it will pan out in the future. Royal Mail have some of the best law firms working for them and I am sure they will pick holes in the agreements to there benefit. It is a game changer but in reality we just got to hope things aren't to bad..
didn't we just have a mandate to strike and didn't take it even without legal consequences.......sooooooo what are the chances of a national strike being called by the gut less wonders if they think they are going to have to go to court with the commensurate legal expenses and really to no advantage to the CWU organisation 
Decisions decisions - is it worth spending the afternoon in casualty