Latest on news24 re deal

[Rob Ray]

So you`re saying final salary scheme should stay for all? We`d all like to see that but even pension experts (of which I`m not one) are saying this cannot happen.

Yes of course it should, the working class won it in the first place in an era of far less production/wealth, to say it can't be retained is sheer defeatism.

Actually pensions experts are saying no such thing (and given that these people are employed by the government, if they do their word should never be taken verbatim). They were saying it about a year ago, when the total pensions deficit was touted about 100bn, but the number came down again as the stock market rose. RM's pension pot is also underwritten by the state afaik, if not by the Pension Protection Fund, so it's not going under anytime soon regardless of whether the final salary is kept or not.

If you think any deal which is clearly being done specifically to split the workforce for further attacks is ever going to be tied up to the extent they can't touch it again, you're being hopeful rather than realistic, and 'hopeful' means the same thing as 'dead meat' in politics.

If I were to talk to the people with only a few years to go til retirement, I might add a couple of thoughts...

1. In a few years' time you'll be happily retired, spare a thought for the poor buggers who're following you, one day it might be your great grandkid taking up the postbag.
2. Ask not what your union can do for you, ask what you can do for your union.

[dvbuk55]

This is very true and doesn't just apply to the CWU but the whole union movement. For far too long those bastards who head the TUC and get six figures salaries (along with most of the general secretaries), just sell us off so long as they get their lordship and huge pay. We have to change this. Why shouldn't general secretaries get exactly the same conditions as us for instance? Why shouldn't they get the average pay of the workers they represent? I'm sick of those self-serving bastards.

How very true.

We speak of New Labour being just like the Tories and the Trades Union leaders are hardly distinguishable from the politicians. Whilst our pensions and working conditions are being eroded they continue to live charmed lives at our expense.

[phantomshare]

the issue with the pension scheme is that if the deal states, a new scheme for any new starters from lets say April 08, every year you'll have members retiring and new members joining RM (on the new scheme ), 10 to 15 years down the line (estimate) the new members start out numbering the old members, now whether RM will wait for this to happen or strike earlier with a deal which suits new members of the new sheme better than old members we will have to wait and see, but this is just what maybe could happen, and it also put's into perspective all the way's that the CWU must scrutinise everthing that is put in front of them and think about how it will affect the union in the long term not just at the present moment in time.

a idea would be to tie in a compensation payment for existing members of the pension scheme should there be any changes in years to come.

[Midnight Toker]

How long before pay becomes a regional matter?
On what i`ve heard so far it has to be a no vote i don`t pay my dues for a sellout .

[ray of sunshine]

Damaged in the mail

* Robert Peston
* 13 Oct 07, 09:20 AM

It has been like walking on eggshells trying to establish how agreement was reached late last night to end the post workers' strike.

No one - either from CWU union or the Royal Mail - wants to go on the record.

Why?

Because the deal still has to be ratified by the 16 members of the CWU's postal executive.

And given that emotions among postal workers are running high in a dispute that's been dragging on since June, their assent cannot be taken for granted.

But if there was one thing that tipped the balance, it was that Brendan Barber, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, somehow succeeded in translating what both sides were saying into language they could all understand.

So who has won and lost?

Well, as far as i can gather, the big pillars of what Royal Management wanted from its workforce remain in place.

The value of the pay rise this year remains at the 2 1/2 per cent offered.

The attractive final salary pension scheme will be closed to new members.

And - most important for Adam Crozier, Royal Mail's chief executive - there will be a reform of allegedly inflexible working practices. Which for Crozier means that the company can invest £1.2bn in new kit and "modernisation" over the coming five years, safe in the knowledge that productivity of this business will improve.

For Crozier, that was the life or death issue. With the onset of competition in the postal market, Royal Mail was haemorrhaging custom to lower-cost competitors. For Crozier, it was "become more productive or die".

But, just to be clear, this is not a slam-dunk victory for management.

My sense is that there have been important concessions.

Perhaps the most important one is that negotiation on the detail of new working arrangements will be devolved to local areas, not imposed in Stalinist style from the centre.

What this reflects is the hard reality that many postal workers have lost any trust in Crozier and in the Royal Mail's chairman, Allan Leighton.

So, of course, there must be a risk of localised disputes, as these new more flexible working practices are put in place.

But for management, what is important is that all posties are now expected to be productively employed during all of their agreed hours, before overtime kicks in.

And, I think, there has been some tweaking by management on the terms of the pension-fund changes, of benefit to those who want to retire at 60, among other things.

What does it all mean? Well, assuming it all goes through, Royal Mail can move on to the next phase in its development - which is to catch up with its rivals in becoming more efficient.

But make no mistake, there are lessons here for management as much as for the workforce and trade union.

Negotiation on pay and working conditions has been going on for at least eight months - and for most of that time, neither side seemed to have even the most basic understanding of the other side's concerns.

And there has been well over a week of strikes - which has cost the business a bomb and been a massive inconvenience and expense to its long-suffering customers.

That is hardly what you would expect of a thoroughly modern business.
DONT SOUND TOO PROMISING

Many would say it reflects as badly on the management as it does on the trade union.

[catch]

It`s a very hard one to call but I do understand what you`re saying. All I can say from my own perspective is the final salary scheme should stay but we are being told (not just by RM) that pensions will have to change to some extent so....final salary scheme stays for all existing members, different scheme for new members. Am I willing to go on strike to keep final salary scheme for people that haven`t joined RM yet? Common sense tells me no. They`ll know what the proposed pension scheme for them is when they apply for the job. If they don`t fancy it they shouldn`t join. May sound harsh but we have to protect all the current staff rather than sacrifice years of hard work/ contributions for those that may join in years to come.

Then in 2-5 years however many % of the workforce will be on a two-tier system, and when they come back to take the final salary away from you again (assuming you're under 60) there'll be a smaller and smaller proportion of people left to resist it.


First they came for the new starters, and no-one blah blah blah.

[strangler]

First they came for the new starters, and no-one blah blah blah.

So, you got any better ideas?

[LondonUNISON]

Refuse the deal. Sorry to say this but all of this sounds like a bad deal to me.

The BBC article says it all when it says that all the main pillars that RM wanted remain in place - not a significant pay rise (in fact a pay cut if inflation remains the same), flexible working to be agreed locally and a two tier pension scheme. Now that article does say that RM didn't get all its own way. But nearly all the articles written in the media are from a pro-management stance and they're hardly likely to write "the CWU has been f****d over and the management are laughing their nuts off" because they know the CWU leadership (who I haven't got the time of day for, along with nearly all other union leaderships) has to sell it to their own members and has to be able to say they got concessions.

In terms of a better idea I'd say escalate the action and try and get other unions on board for cross union action on these issues. I bet RM were shitting themselves in terms of the wildcat action and if it had spread nationally.

[strangler]

If I were to talk to the people with only a few years to go til retirement, I might add a couple of thoughts...

1. In a few years' time you'll be happily retired, spare a thought for the poor buggers who're following you, one day it might be your great grandkid taking up the postbag.
2. Ask not what your union can do for you, ask what you can do for your union.

Fair comment. These days though the attitude is very much about 'looking after number 1'. I don`t condone it just saying that`s how it seems to be. I`m sure you hear, same as me, people moaning "what has the union done for me" totally unaware or forgetting all that goes on behind the scenes that you don`t hear about. However if those that will be retiring in the near future, or hope to, don`t get the terms at 60 that they would of had, they`ll blame the union as much as anyone else.

[Biggins]

If I were to talk to the people with only a few years to go til retirement, I might add a couple of thoughts...

1. In a few years' time you'll be happily retired, spare a thought for the poor buggers who're following you, one day it might be your great grandkid taking up the postbag.
2. Ask not what your union can do for you, ask what you can do for your union.

Fair comment. These days though the attitude is very much about 'looking after number 1'. I don`t condone it just saying that`s how it seems to be. I`m sure you hear, same as me, people moaning "what has the union done for me" totally unaware or forgetting all that goes on behind the scenes that you don`t hear about. However if those that will be retiring in the near future, or hope to, don`t get the terms at 60 that they would of had, they`ll blame the union as much as anyone else.

I totally agree with the above. 2 of the 5 strike breakers at my office obviously have this oppinion. I'm really dissappointed by them as I liked them and got on well with them, I find it a real shame that I now have to ignore them forever. The both have only months to go until they retire so I'm assuming they will justify their scabbing with this. It's no justification my father has only months left in RM before he retires and he still went on strike with us all!

[digitalangel]

There were some surprises in out office too over people who stayed behind when we walked yesterday.

They thought we were fools and nothing would come of it but this morning we stayed out again and several of us (me obviously!) attended a mass meetting in E16.

We're back in Sunday night/Monday morning but will be back out fo the door if problems or reprisals arise!

[baldrick]

If I were to talk to the people with only a few years to go til retirement, I might add a couple of thoughts...

1. In a few years' time you'll be happily retired, spare a thought for the poor buggers who're following you, one day it might be your great grandkid taking up the postbag.
2. Ask not what your union can do for you, ask what you can do for your union.

Fair comment. These days though the attitude is very much about 'looking after number 1'. I don`t condone it just saying that`s how it seems to be. I`m sure you hear, same as me, people moaning "what has the union done for me" totally unaware or forgetting all that goes on behind the scenes that you don`t hear about. However if those that will be retiring in the near future, or hope to, don`t get the terms at 60 that they would of had, they`ll blame the union as much as anyone else.

I'm one of those with only a few years to go, but I was on strike to defend the conditions and pensions of those who will still be in the job when I've retired, as well as to defend the pension that was promised to me 27 years ago when I joined RM.
And if I don't get what I was promised it will be RM I will be blaming. :lfo :cfo

[terrace]

I can't believe we will not have a retirement age of 65 in this deal,since Royal Mail have offered 65 retirement age to the Managers.

[catch]

First they came for the new starters, and no-one blah blah blah.

So, you got any better ideas?

Tell them to f**k off.

Last thing I saw on here they'll close the final salary pension to anyone under 30 and new starters. Anyone (30+) who votes for that and leaves the rest out in the cold is going to have ask themselves if they think they can defend a final salary pension scheme for 5, 10, 20, 30 years with an ever decreasing number of people to do so alongside them. This isn't "protecting salaries for people who join the job" it's basic self-preservation.

When it comes up to the vote next time, those new starters aren't going to give a s**t if you've sold them down the river, and they'll have a vote on your pension rights the same as you had a vote on theirs before they even got the job. There's also a very high chance that RM will offer some kind of sweetener - i.e. they close the final salary scheme, and this pays for improved benefits on the s**t scheme they put everyone onto - meaning those already on it will be voting for a slightly better deal for themselves.

So if you vote in favour of this, you're not voting to protect the scheme for those over 30 (or anyone in the job now) - you're voting to protect it until the next round of negotiations, but essentially handing over 10, 20, 30% of the votes to RM by cutting new starters out. Only those retiring in a few months have nothing to worry about from this, they aren't enough to swing it.

In terms of practical ideas - mass meetings to put this to the whole workforce in very, very clear terms along with the rest of the shitty deal. Unofficial action as and when necessary (imo very necessary). Going direct (not via the unions, actually direct to workplaces yourselves) to interact on a 1-1 basis with workers facing similar pay and pensions cuts - organise meetings, get leaflets drawn up. The only way there'll be any co-ordination on a national basis if is there's rock solid ties in place locally which can exert pressure and act independently when they need to.

[wraeth]

In terms of practical ideas - mass meetings to put this to the whole workforce in very, very clear terms along with the rest of the shitty deal. Unofficial action as and when necessary (imo very necessary). Going direct (not via the unions, actually direct to workplaces yourselves) to interact on a 1-1 basis with workers facing similar pay and pensions cuts - organise meetings, get leaflets drawn up. The only way there'll be any co-ordination on a national basis if is there's rock solid ties in place locally which can exert pressure and act independently when they need to.