Workers Power Bulletin - Vote No to the Deal

[TrueBlueTerrier]

received by email so no link

Vote No to the Deal

CWU members are being balloted on the new “Agenda for Growth” agreement (21 Jan to 4 Feb), with the union’s postal executive recommending we accept it. But postal workers should vote no, the new deal leaves us worse off and weakens the union.

Workers deserve a pay rise, we've been waiting for more money for nearly a year. Many will want to vote yes to get it, despite the offer (9.1 percent over three years) being only half a percent more than Royal Mail's original offer and still below inflation - the company can certainly afford more, with profits up by a huge fifty percent!

Protections with get-out clauses

Looking beyond pay, the deal gets even worse. Most workers' big worry was that after privatisation, Royal Mail's original three year guarantee on our terms and conditions weren't enough. The strike threat forced them to extend this to five years and add legally binding “protections” against a two-tier workforce, zero hours contracts, or carving up the company. But Royal Mail can pull out of these if they are “reasonably likely to have a materially adverse effect on the Employer's business or prospects” ie profits. This get-out clause is so vague it can cover almost any situation and mean any legal action by the CWU to try to defend these protections would be laughed out of court.

TNT is rolling out city centre deliveries based on low wages and zero hour contracts, while Amazon builds local hubs to be able to use cheaper delivery companies. Isn't it a question of “if not when” Royal Mail pull out of the protections? Managers will use this threat to put huge pressure on CWU leaders to make concessions.

Workplaces will get worse

The deal's focus on “improvements to efficiency” should ring alarm bells for delivery staff in particular given that CWU negotiators caved in to Royal Mail on delivery issues like absorption, leaving them out of the deal. A review of delivery issues is promised in January, but how will that resolve them if the new agreement can't? A forced mediation process will make it harder for reps in all workplaces to disagree issues, strengthening management's hand across all sectors.

Strike ban ties our hands

CWU officials are insisting this isn't a no strike deal, but it clearly is: “if there is national-scale industrial action (in the form of a strike or action short of a strike) …which either (i) involves employees in the majority of operational workplaces across Royal Mail Group Limited; or (ii) involves employees in an integral part of the operation whereby taking action will have, or is reasonably likely to have, a similarly disruptive effect.” So Royal Mail can pull out of the deal if there is a national overtime ban, action involving fifty percent plus one of workplaces, or even if there is industrial action by “employees in an integral part of the operation”, which would rule out any mail centre strikes. Bosses get to decide if strikes are too disruptive as an excuse to pull out of the deal. Why would the Dave Ward leadership stand up to them - they didn't this time round?

Vote no, for a strong union!

This deal chips away at our rights and strength. It will see more job losses, more unbearable workloads and management “pressure”, and result in a weaker union. Vote no and let's demand that all the issues are resolved in a way that guarantees our future and maintains our workplace strength. That ultimately will require striking.

The CWU tops blocked a national strike all year and this dud deal is the result. If it goes through, they will be cosying up with Royal Mail bosses at board meetings and reviews, throwing more of our issues overboard to keep Royal Mail from pulling out of the deal.

If we had made good our threat to strike in the run up to privatisation (or Christmas) we'd have squeezed far more out of Royal Mail. We still can. A recent strike by Hovis workers against zero hours contracts won, showing that you can win in the private sector - with competition and the need for shareholders to make a profit, a strike puts even more pressure on Royal Mail bosses than before. If all those against the deal start up a campaign for a no vote, it could organise the CWU's rank and file for the fight ahead, whether the deal goes through or not.

READ WHAT’S LURKING IN THE SMALL PRINT IN “A WORKERS GUIDE TO THE DEAL”, ONLINE: http://tinyurl.com/WorkersGuide" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AGREE WITH WHAT YOU JUST READ?
THEN GET IN TOUCH AND JOIN WORKERS POWER!
Workers Power is a revolutionary socialist organisation. Find out more and sign up for our free e-newswire online - or contact us by email or phone: info@workerspower.co.uk or ring 0207 708 4331 Comments, questions and contributions on postal issues welcome.

[dvbuk55]

Pretty much spells it out. Deliveries know its a bad deal because it's so similar to BT2010, having its praises sung by the usual crew, who incidentally aren't going to be subject to the incentives and efficiencies and can pretty much sit back and let the unit reps take the strain - just like BT2010. There should be more critiques like this of this deal pointing out its failings.

[5plusbonusball]

Anyone know what % of the voting workforce are in delivery . The others will vote yes leaving us the minority again, maybe just ballot the deliverers in a seperate vote?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Anyone know what % of the voting workforce are in delivery .

75-80% hardly a minority.

[Martin Walsh]

For the record Deliveries make up 82% of the membership who will vote in the agreement .

Dvbuk you miss the point again. BT 2010 changed deliveries by revisions , delivery methods , automation , longer Saturdays and though new ways of working such as IWM.

This agreement has no changes to delivery as the CWU blocked annualised hours , blocked further savings and blocked continuous improvement in terms of resoucing.

Now it's true the CWU did not get all they wanted out of it but neither did Royal Mail.

A lot of the issues will be picked up in either the review or the longer term agreement.

[BoltonPostie]

This agreement has no changes to delivery as the CWU blocked annualised hours , blocked further savings and blocked continuous improvement in terms of resoucing

Eh blocked further savings?
Before this new agreement management where pushing for 200 hours savings,now after this so called new start the DSM has said over 400 hours needs cutting.

[fishtank]

This agreement has no changes to delivery as the CWU blocked annualised hours , blocked further savings and blocked continuous improvement in terms of resoucing.

Blocked or moved them into the review stage where the members won't get a vote on them?
Are annualised hours, further savings and continuous improvement in terms of resourcing completely off the table now or just subject to review?

[chrisj]

What are annualised or what form will that take? And what is to be feared about annualised hours as long as the hours are measured accurately? Perhaps, that might shake a few complacent and smug offices?

If Annualised hours will stop people working for nothing and will give a true reflection of the resourcing to workload, make the job a bit fairer - what is the problem? I am willing to be enlightened.

Talking about further savings is too vague. Any company even a non-for-profit will always be looking for further saving but that has to be about being more efficient all round not just giving more work to employees - as that is virtually a pay decrease.

As we have been told several times here we cannot block continuous improvement in terms of resourcing - lapsing will be a fact of life and the company has to make profits.

Unless these things are spelt out, what are the members supposed to deduce from such statements - we have saved your bacon but you have to trust us on this - and we know what is good for you...

[Martin Walsh]

It is not my words it is actually now within the longer term delivery section.

Of course Royal Mail like most big companies like the AA want seasonal hours annualised hours. As you have been discussing on here traffic is lower in a number of times in the year. So Royal Mail would like people to work more hours in the busier period and less in the lower traffic periods. They want more flexibility .

Now in terms of continuous improvement around resourcing where under the current agreement if you have agreed an indoor revision say based on 90ep your meant to conduct your resourcing meeting using the iwt set at 90 of course Royal Mail wants to set the resourcing at more that what you agreed at your revision.

[dvbuk55]

It is not my words it is actually now within the longer term delivery section.

Of course Royal Mail like most big companies like the AA want seasonal hours annualised hours. As you have been discussing on here traffic is lower in a number of times in the year. So Royal Mail would like people to work more hours in the busier period and less in the lower traffic periods. They want more flexibility .

Now in terms of continuous improvement around resourcing where under the current agreement if you have agreed an indoor revision say based on 90ep your meant to conduct your resourcing meeting using the iwt set at 90 of course Royal Mail wants to set the resourcing at more that what you agreed at your revision.

Is that a Yes or No dingo - well you won't know because there has been no limitations set yet - just like BT2010 where the attitude was lets get it voted in then wing it. Don't tell me I've misunderstood dingo, I and many others knew the deal of the century yes I know, was a crock of crap, it was and still is and this Agenda for Growth is no different however much you embed yourself. I still don't know what that means - how embedded is embedded.

[dvbuk55]

It is not my words it is actually now within the longer term delivery section.

Of course Royal Mail like most big companies like the AA want seasonal hours annualised hours. As you have been discussing on here traffic is lower in a number of times in the year. So Royal Mail would like people to work more hours in the busier period and less in the lower traffic periods. They want more flexibility .

Now in terms of continuous improvement around resourcing where under the current agreement if you have agreed an indoor revision say based on 90ep your meant to conduct your resourcing meeting using the iwt set at 90 of course Royal Mail wants to set the resourcing at more that what you agreed at your revision.

Is that a Yes or No dingo - well you won't know because there has been no limitations set yet - just like BT2010 where the attitude was lets get it voted in then wing it. Don't tell me I've misunderstood dingo, I and many others knew the deal of the century yes I know, was a crock of crap, it was and still is and this Agenda for Growth is no different however much you embed yourself. I still don't know what that means - how embedded is embedded. I have been embedded myself but it was consensual not via a third party like the CWU who may embed themselves up to their taters but not the membership

[chrisj]

So Annualised hours will be more about using Temporary staff/OT all year round instead of just at Xmas. I suppose this already happens in MC or with the Networks?

How exactly can they make this work given that they cannot just reduce people's hours? I suppose they can stop filling vacancies and continue to employ more people on temporary contracts. But the problem with that is that turnover will become higher and sometimes they have to let temp staff go and employ them back again or have to give them contract after a certain time. The cheap labour from EC and others might help a bit but it will be hard to sustain...

I dont want to be overconfident, RM will struggle to pull that off in a lot of delivery offices, compensation cost will be too high and the disruption to mail delivery and trust issues will ruin their reputation. As long as the USO is there, RM always has to negotiate and will not be able to operate like other companies. Just my view.

[chrisj]

The other thing is that how can we work more hours when people are already on 39 hours a week - isn't there some European working directive and H&S issues to consider?

I suppose it is hard to judge from the outside the full meaning and implication of some of the threats that we have heard that RM is making. But, if there is something that is going to be in RM's interest and they know it is vital for the business and now shareholders, those things will eventually be introduced.

That is not saying that the CWU are not getting some concessions but the RM of the future will give less and less and they are not cowered by the Union. IMO

[barrowc]

So Annualised hours will be more about using Temporary staff/OT all year round instead of just at Xmas

I think it would be more about saying to you and me - OK you're getting paid for 25/39/whatever hours every week. If the traffic's down in a given week then you might work, say, 8 hours less than normal that week (and still get paid your normal hours). The flipside is that in some other week when the traffic's higher, you'll be working 8 hours more than normal (but still only getting paid your normal hours)

The benefits to RM would be to reduce people cutting-off (we would be told that we're repaying hours from a previous week or that we're banking some hours to be given back to us at some unspecified future date) and reduce overtime (although things would probably go pear-shaped near the end of the financial year - people might be owed more hours than they were due to work for the entire remainder of the year). It would also be a complete pain for people with commitments at specific times (e.g. picking up kids from school) to be told they are working longer next week

You can work up to 48 hours per week (averaged over 17 weeks) but can opt out of the 48 hour limit if you want to. H&S limits would only apply to some specific jobs (e.g. HGV drivers)

[fishtank]

Annualised or seasonal hours would most likely mean something simple like working 6 weeks at 38 hrs in the summer when the traffic is low and 6 weeks at 40 hrs during the peak period.
Anything more complicated than that would just get silly and unworkable.

I'm sure they would also like some form of banking overtime(and undertime) but that's a different conversation.