dvbuk55 wrote:I believe that criticism is over the top. I don't like the fact that dingo defends the union stance but that is his job. There is an element of gloating in the fact that there is no organised opposition and a yes vote seems inevitable. I don't like the fact that once again the roadshow is trying to get reps to accept this deal and moreover to persuade their members to go along with it. It's a bad deal and every delivery office should forget the financial aspects, forget the "legally binding" pseudo babble and concentrate on what this deal does to address the obvious problems in delivery and should vote accordingly. Money is transient but what you are going to agree to will affect your working life for the foreseeable future.
the money is only temporary once 5 yrs is up watch the pay scales tumble
its all just a great con for acceptance and once you open the no strike door your f****d it will only be a matter of time
forget our goals and protections what do you thinck private rm,s long term strategy is
complete pt workforce with no mail centers only private hubs and transport out to cheap tenders
thats what you will let in with agreement acceptance
hq dont care as long as pt are in union they know numbers are going to be hit
vote no. dave ward & co have no clue what we go through in delivery on a daily basis or they would not even be offering us a deal until the HUGE problems are resolved! This vote will be close, im thinking loads will be swayed by the back pay which works out to about 30pence a week over the 5 years but the sensible people will realize no issues in delivery will be resolved without huge changes or industrial action.
May be we need a rule where no General secretary or deputy general secretary, can serve more than two term in office. This might help them being so out of touch.
janitor wrote:May be we need a rule where no General secretary or deputy general secretary, can serve more than two term in office. This might help them being so out of touch.
I think that should be extended to all full time release officials as well. They should go back into the workplace and see at first hand how it is at the sharp end. Someone said all that experience going to waste but it won't be will it, they aren't out of the business and there experience is still there - just getting a revamp.
clashcityrocker wrote:Why not include unit reps as well then?
Because they already ARE at the sharp end and actually DO a job as well as represent the unit members - it really is that simple. In addition it is easy to see when a unit rep is not doing a good job and he/she can be voted out relatively easily compared to those higher up the unions ........ladder. A unit rep is subject to the agreement at its base level.
clashcityrocker wrote:Why not include unit reps as well then?
Because they already ARE at the sharp end and actually DO a job as well as represent the unit members - it really is that simple. In addition it is easy to see when a unit rep is not doing a good job and he/she can be voted out relatively easily compared to those higher up the unions ........ladder. A unit rep is subject to the agreement at its base level.
So there aren't any who have got themselves a "rep's walk"? Or a driving duty they don't have the seniority for with every Saturday off?
And no part-timers get screwed over because a f/t rep so obviously understands the problems of a p/t worker?
Two years and then remove them, because if they were good, their knowledge and experience will still be there to help the new rep, and it isn't always so easy to remove a bad rep.
Indeed if a bad one knew at the outset it was only for 2 years and not a job for life, then they might be dissuaded from applying in the first place.
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.
clashcityrocker wrote:Why not include unit reps as well then?
I wouldn't go that far but I would have unit reps ask their members for a formal mandate to continue every year whether anyone stands against them or not and if they can't manage a 51% majority they should be made to stand aside.
A unit with no rep can be represented from branch level if necessary providing it's a decent branch but a unit with a bad rep is a very dangerous thing from both the point of view of fair representation and recruitment.
A decent rep would have nothing to fear from this.
clashcityrocker wrote:Indeed if a bad one knew at the outset it was only for 2 years and not a job for life, then they might be dissuaded from applying in the first place.
halfull wrote:vote no. dave ward & co have no clue what we go through in delivery on a daily basis or they would not even be offering us a deal until the HUGE problems are resolved!
I don't think they care
'Royal Mail leaders could not lead a worm, they'll never take our pride cos that's what we earn'
halfull wrote:vote no. dave ward & co have no clue what we go through in delivery on a daily basis or they would not even be offering us a deal until the HUGE problems are resolved!
I don't think they care
And why would he? In this deal there is a 3 year pay settlement, initiatives placed on unit reps, a no strike deal, a seat on the board (?) perhaps and a review only in 2019...................keep the money rolling in boys while I sit on my, not inconsiderable, backside. As for deliveries..............we'll leave that up Branch chatterers to sort out. Oh it's a good deal right enough.........depending on which side of the line your standing of course.
dvbuk55 wrote:Anybody know how the North West Briefing went today?
The NW one was on Wednesday mate and it was pretty low key.
A few people mentioned things like the attendance agreement being shat upon,a few people mentioned about dignity and respect, mainly The Fat cats where too busy selling how groundbreaking the new deal was and how striking was soooo bad and trying to confound people with legal talk(but I'm legally trained ) and most of my `team` was most annoyed that the so called lawyer didn't turn up for the event I wonder why?)
Royal Mail managers.....about as popular as a t.urd in a swimming pool!
The DDA/Equality Act demands action,NOT words......adjustments NOT Occupational Health referrals.Case No:2505901/09
Royal Mail is an Equal Opportunities Employer..It discriminates against everybody.
) and most of my `team` was most annoyed that the so called lawyer didn't turn up for the event