I shall be voting "yes"

[Martin Walsh]

Your quoting the agreement when I was referring to the legal contract which states

10.3 The CWU may terminate the agreement in its entirety in accordance with clause 7.2

10.4 The company shall be entitled to notify the CWU at any time that any or any or all of the protections will be no longer continue , if any of the following exceptional circumstances apply ( remember exceptional is the word )

10.4.1 if Royal Mail ceases to be the designated Universal Service Provider. ( if this was to ever happen then the company would be in disaster )

10.4.2 In circumstances where , the believes on reasonable grounds that continuing the protection concerned would , or would likely to place the company in breach of , or result in the company being unable to comply with any legal or regulatory requirement. ( this would mean that new laws of regulations have been passed which make the agreement illegal )

10.4.3 In the event of the company believes on reasonable grounds that a part of the business to which a protection applies has ceased to be , or is likely to cease being financially sustainable. ( there is a a further protection which states if this was to happen only that part of the business would be exempt )

10.4.4 in the event that the company believes on reasonable grounds that a significant event or series of events has occurred , or is likely to occur thats has a material adverse effect , or is reasonably likely to have a materially adverse effect on (1) the companies business or prospects or (2) the legal or regulatory basis on which the company operates ( including but not limited to the companies position as the sole universal service provider ) , or

10.4.5 If there is national scale industrial action ( in the form of a strike or action short of a strike ) which has been authorised at National Level by the CWU , namely industrial action which either (1) involves Employees in the majority of operational workplaces across the company ; or (11) involves employees in an integral part of the operation whereby taking action will have , or is likely to have a similarly disruptive effect. ( if this was to happen we would have been out of the agreement a long time ago. )

10.5 If clauses 10.42 and or 10.4.3 apply to one part of the company business but not to another , the company rights to serve notice under clause 10.4 shall apply only to the part of the business to which clauses 10.4.2 and or 10.4.3 apply.

10.6 In the circumstances referred to in clause 10.4 the company must give notice to the CWU at least one month before the relevant protection terminates ( unless in the reasonable opinion of the company , it is not reasonably practicable to do so ) and specify why it is being given and to which of the protections it applies.

10.7 In the event of termination of any of the protections in accordance with clause 10.4 , nothing shall prevent the CWU from exercising any legal rights and remedies it has in respect of such termination , including challenging whether any of the exceptional circumstances apply.

10.8 Either party may terminate this agreement in accordance with clause 9.4 ( which is At the end of the review period referred to in clause 9.3 , if either party believes that industrial stability has not been restored or has no reasonable prospect of being restored within a reasonable time period , that party may serve on the other three months notice to terminate the agreement.

10.9 Termination of this agreement in whole or in part by either party is without prejudice to either parties rights , liabilities , or remedies arising under this agreement prior to such termination.

10.10 In the event that this agreement is terminated in whole or part. Current agreements and any collective agreements reached during the term of this agreement will remain in p[lace in accordance with their terms.

[Martin Walsh]

point 6 is clearly a no-national strike clause; so walk-outs are acceptable but those will be resolved locally or swept under the carpet, and this is what some powerful arm of the Union prefer anyway...

The perceived break-up, franchising and outsourcing is not really an option for a newly privatised company like Royal Mail. As long as RM is the main USO and it is making healthy profits; it will make no business sense to break itself up and outsource to would-be competitors. Franchising is not such an easy thing to set up... And it is more for a company that has got too big and where 'economies of scale' has turned negative. and where smaller units can be stable financially and partially controlled. The Dutch experience shows that it is not the same as delivering parcels and/or selling burgers/chicken or forecourts.

The only part that is really relevant is the issue of a two-tier workforce. In the main, the protection was there for current employees but extended further - good! On the negative side, a two-tier workforce for new entrants will most likely creep in further before the end of the protection term.

The clauses are definitely very much in favour of RM but then they are the business and employers and they have to make a healthy profit to keep us employed at a decent pay. However, the no-strike clause?

How is this a no strike deal ?? Get real ! What company is going to give legal protection which will restrict their ability to make profits and not want to review them if the CWU go on strike ? Do you know what a no strike deal is ? Under the sawyer review we had a 10 month period when we were not allowed to ballot or take strike action and the company was not allowed to take executive action that is what a no strike deal is. What is now in place is that we know if we have to take strike action in the future they will have the opportunity to review the legal protections. If the issue is right will it really stop the membership taking strike action. After all most on here don't think the legal protections are worth protecting anyway.

[gluteus maximus]

Can you answer my last question please Dingo. Thanks

[chrisj]

Are we just talking semantics here?

I was actually going to put no-strike deal but revised it to a no-national strike clause


7 Exceptional Circumstances

7.1 The Employer shall be entitled to notify the CWU at any time that any of the Protections will no longer continue, if any of the following exceptional circumstances apply:

According to the agreement that I referred to: it does not mention review the Protections... It says that the protection will no longer continue. Furthermore, you have continually warned against voting No because he so-called legal protections will most likely be removed.

I am not too bothered about the Protection to be honest, I am more concerned about my workload - that is selfish but I have my reasons. However, we do not disagree that RM has to make profits and that Strikes can be counter-productive... That has always been my position but to be cornered or blackmailed in this way is not what I expected from the Union.

So under what circumstance can you envisage a national strike as long as the protection stick is there?

What people in delivery want is a pro-active Union and a fair an even-handed Union that looks after all its members and try to get the best out of any deal or agreement for every member.

A review is not what a lot of people in delivery ever have envisaged from all the balloting and posturing. The Union can just be honest and say sorry that we got you delivery folks nothing from this current agreement. And to say that we were misled and not told the full truth and were given false hope and expectations.

Why exactly is it that it is delivery that is being put under so much pressure? Efficiency and improved performance should not scare posties and as a senior rep; you should stop arguing like RM that they that oppose things are just lazy sods and neandertals that wants thing to go back to the 80s.

They can come to my office and they will find out that there is very little they can achieve in higher efficiency and any savings currently being made is on the backs of those that come in early and those that do not claim overtime when they work over - simple! Like Fish said, what will be the incentive for those already super-efficient?

[dvbuk55]

After the American Civil War there was a group of people who would travel about the Southern States of America, they travelled with their luggage in suitcases made entirely of carpet, hence the name, Carpetbagger. It was used as a derogatory term, suggesting opportunism and exploitation and I think they are alive and well and probably duping hard working men and women into agreeing to nefarious agreements purporting to be in their best interests.

[fishtank]

How is this a no strike deal ??

It is what it is dingo.
The members will never vote for national industrial action while the protections are in place because the stakes are too high so while the protections are in place it's a no national industrial action deal.
That's pretty much undeniable logic.

[Martin Walsh]

Chris I assume you still think the world is square as well.

I could come back and say in the area I represent we don't allow managers to do some of what is clearly going on normally the staff reacts.

What did you want out of the delivery talks? The union was always looking at a new delivery structure which was never going to be achieved over night. Yes they wanted to get management to concede more up front including no outdoor absorption but that was not achievable until there was a review.

Now let's look at what's included a review into whether national agreements are being applied ? What good practices are in place , what processes and procedures are taking place ,what tools are being used and have input from reps employees and managers.

There also a review or effieency levels to see if its achievable , realistic and sustainable.

There is a review of workload recording to ensure its accurate including d2d.

There has to be cultural change in the workplace to ensure employees opinions are listened and acted upon

All joint statements , guidelines and agreements hold the field including the bullying one titled Dignity and Fairness at work which will be rolled out and reviewed.

Rejecting the agreement is not the answer . Perhaps applying some of the current agreements and forcing managers to abide by them would be.

[fishtank]

Perhaps applying some of the current agreements and forcing managers to abide by them would be.

Why do we bother making agreements at national level with senior Royal Mail managers if we have to do the forcing at local level to make them abide by them?
We could just cut out the top tier altogether and make local agreements with local managers and reps....
It would hardly weaken already weak offices that get no support from branch where the managers just ignore agreements anyway.
It wouldn't weaken big strong offices.
It would of course mean there wasn't much left for anybody above area rep to do?

[Martin Walsh]

Fish the point being there are enough agreements which some units do not apply. Now we can blame the Branch , the local Rep , the Division or indeed headquarters but in other areas who do apply those agreements things are generally better.

My guess is that if you done what you say get rid of everyone about unit level the se units will apply the agreements and the same units would not but with the added feature that some units would get better agreements then others

[chrisj]

Chris I assume you still think the world is square as well.

I could come back and say in the area I represent we don't allow managers to do some of what is clearly going on normally the staff reacts.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rejecting the agreement is not the answer . Perhaps applying some of the current agreements and forcing managers to abide by them would be.

A bizarre response! What have I said that is so unreasonable? world might be round but square???

Anyway, your response is too much about how good and strong in the areas that you represent and an obsession with campaigning for a yes vote...

So how do we force manager to abide by current agreement given that our so-called weakness is not going to change - we have the members that we have and we are not so street-wise like the areas that you represent? If you have a good answer then put in a newsletter or LTB for all to share. Thanks.

You are like a Premiership manager in a top club but how will you perform in the championship or one of those yo-yo PL clubs?

[fishtank]

You are like a Premiership manager in a top club

You're not special anymore...

[clashcityrocker]

Rejecting the agreement is not the answer . Perhaps applying some of the current agreements and forcing managers to abide by them would be.

Rejecting the agreement is not the answer. Perhaps applying some of the current agreements and forcing the staff to abide by them would be.

[dvbuk55]

My guess is that if you done what you say get rid of everyone about unit level the se units will apply the agreements and the same units would not but with the added feature that some units would get better agreements then others

Well it would certainly be cheaper and if weaker units get poorer deals it would be no different to now according to you. The reality is almost one third of the workforce is part time outside of London which means it's probably over 40%. The CWU does not have in place a check and balance as to how represented the members are nationally and how effective the agreements are nationwide. It does little good to have agreements if the union doesn't ensure those agreements are used.

[dvbuk55]

Rejecting the agreement is not the answer . Perhaps applying some of the current agreements and forcing managers to abide by them would be.

Rejecting the agreement is not the answer. Perhaps applying some of the current agreements and forcing the staff to abide by them would be.

Is there a parrot on here?

[chrisj]

Also how many times are we going to hear that we have secured a 'Review'? It makes you wonder what the Area and Div REPS talk about when they meet up. Surely some of these DIV and Area reps must represent some of the weaker units where all sort of shenanigans is happening.

There is something seriously underhand going on here - the whole thing does not sound right - at least from what we have coming out of dingo - one who was supposed to be probably more militant amongst the top REPS...

The phrase carpeting bagging is sounding more apt the more we look at the winners in this deal What about that sneaky incentive scheme being introduced for more efficiency in delivery? It sounds almost like sending naughty kids on outdoor activities and/or even holidays abroad and big praises for doing what most others kids do normally. Shady

Dingo seriously think that there is some sort of campaign going on here - I do not think so but he is here to make sure that there is no chance of a NO vote. It will be a Yes vote but not for the right reasons - IMHO. And hopefully the deal will bite the so-called strong units in bum in the near future. They better watch their backs and all those top Union REPs with their political and/or boardroom ambitions might find the new privatised RM scrutinising their activities more and more...