Postmen are urged to accept pay deal

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

Post union leaders have recommended their members to accept a deal on pay and flexible working that will end the dispute that has brought the system to its knees.

Royal Mail has offered its staff a 5.4 per cent rise and a one-off payment of £175.

There will be another pay rise of 1.5 per cent and a payment of £400 once the agreed reforms are in place.

The Communication Workers Union will ask its 130,000 members at the Royal Mail to back the deal in a ballot.

But there is doubt that postmen will rubber stamp the offer. Many are angry at plans to change their working hours, with most daily deliveries being shifted to the afternoon.

Workers, who walked out after rejecting an offer of 2.5 per cent, fear modernisation will cost 40,000 jobs.

The dispute is thought to have cost Royal Mail millions of pounds.

Ministers welcomed the union's recommendation. Business Secretary John Hutton said: "This will ensure the Royal Mail can continue to modernise."

Nick Dines, of the British Chambers of Commerce, added: "This is good news. Small businesses have been held at ransom by the CWU."

[AndyK]

Nick Dines, of the British Chambers of Commerce, added: "This is good news. Small businesses have been held at ransom by the CWU."

Nick Dines what a pr@tt, more like the workforce been held to ransom by :lfo :cfo , stealing our pensions and whats left of working conditions

[IWW Fellow Worker]

Ministers welcomed the union's recommendation. Business Secretary John Hutton said: "This will ensure the Royal Mail can continue to modernise."

What a laugh! This, from a man who 'works' in a big palace in London surrounded by guards dressed in daft uniforms dating back to Tudor times, where the lad in charge of the debate wears a frock coat and stockings, where some bloke bangs the door with a black rod, and they slam the door on him because that's what happened to King Charles the Headless, so it's traditional. The whole procedure is carried out according to rules set down by a man who died about 130 years ago, and this dick has the nerve to tell us to modernise!

[tenpole tudorsack]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

Post union leaders have recommended their members to accept a deal on pay and flexible working that will end the dispute that has brought the system to its knees.

Royal Mail has offered its staff a 5.4 per cent rise and a one-off payment of £175.

There will be another pay rise of 1.5 per cent and a payment of £400 once the agreed reforms are in place.

The Communication Workers Union will ask its 130,000 members at the Royal Mail to back the deal in a ballot.

But there is doubt that postmen will rubber stamp the offer. Many are angry at plans to change their working hours, with most daily deliveries being shifted to the afternoon.


Workers, who walked out after rejecting an offer of 2.5 per cent, fear modernisation will cost 40,000 jobs.

The dispute is thought to have cost Royal Mail millions of pounds.

Ministers welcomed the union's recommendation. Business Secretary John Hutton said: "This will ensure the Royal Mail can continue to modernise."

Nick Dines, of the British Chambers of Commerce, added: "This is good news. Small businesses have been held at ransom by the CWU."

I AM ASKING IT'S 130,000 MEMBERS NOT TO ACCEPT THIS DEAL... There is a need to understand the complexities and rubik cube puzzles that are intertwined within this "offer". The membership are being asked to accept a Pandoras box of surprises that will show itself fully within the next 3 - 5 years. Sorry It's a massive "No" from me.

[IWW Fellow Worker]

Nick Dines, of the British Chambers of Commerce, added: "This is good news. Small businesses have been held at ransom by the CWU."

Nick Dines what a pr@tt, more like the workforce been held to ransom by :lfo :cfo , stealing our pensions and whats left of working conditions

Well said mate! I hope his business goes to the wall, and we see an action reply of the rich, underworked parasites throwing themselves from skyscapers as they did in 1929.

[k979aaa]

Nick Dines, of the British Chambers of Commerce, added: "This is good news. Small businesses have been held at ransom by the CWU."

Nick Dines what a pr@tt, more like the workforce been held to ransom by :lfo :cfo , stealing our pensions and whats left of working conditions

Well if he think's he and his buisness friend's (butt buddie's) are being held to ransom just wait what royalmail have instore for him and his friend's £1 ( no typeing error ) to send a letter outside of a town £5 to send to a remote area god know's for recorded/special delivery.!

[dvbuk55]

So we vote No.

It is returned to a leadership and EC who have agreed, rubber stamped and recommended.

What happens next?

Return to IA, RM and ballot, vote No Return to IA, RM and ballot

I don't know the answer.

[DirtyHarry]

Nick Dines, of the British Chambers of Commerce, added: "This is good news. Small businesses have been held at ransom by the CWU."

Nick Dines what a pr@tt, more like the workforce been held to ransom by :lfo :cfo , stealing our pensions and whats left of working conditions

Nine Dicks , what a plonker.

[shaunyr]

work your hours stuff flexibility

vote no stuff the union

one big stitch up trust no -one

[BELIAL]

So we vote No.

It is returned to a leadership and EC who have agreed, rubber stamped and recommended.

What happens next?

Return to IA, RM and ballot, vote No Return to IA, RM and ballot

I don't know the answer.

An interesting scenario indeed and one you can bet our representatives hope to avoid at all costs.

Surely a no vote would indicate that our negotiators and executive have failed to represent the views of the membership.

They may argue that they have in good faith acted in what they believe to be our best interests, but a no vote means we disagree and in any event their role is to represent us, not to dictate what we should accept, other people are quite capable of that- management.

Management/union leaders looks to me like the roles are getting blurred.

Suppose it's no , will we trust our old leaders to effectively prosecute further IA ,they made a pigs ear of the recent strikes ,how good will they be organising action they don't agree with.

Time to ship out and let someone who wants to do the job takeover

[k979aaa]

So we vote No.

It is returned to a leadership and EC who have agreed, rubber stamped and recommended.

What happens next?

Return to IA, RM and ballot, vote No Return to IA, RM and ballot

I don't know the answer.

they work for us bigger the vote against the deal the better more pressure on them.

[dvbuk55]

I agree in part with the previous two posters.

However, if after months of negotiating, this is the negotiated deal as agreed by the leadership, a No vote merely indicates our absolute disgust of the deal and their inability to do better.

It doesn't bring us any closer to a negotiated settlement and indeed if having negotiated this openly and whatever other agreements in the offing privately, such as the pension, there isn't any likelihood of a better deal even, IMO, we take further IA.

The response to IA throughout has been brilliant but I think it is a bridge too far to ask the membership to instigate confrontation with a leadership that has clearly no stomach for it.

[doveston]

http://iccoventry.icnetwork.co.uk/0100n ... _page.html

[k979aaa]

I agree in part with the previous two posters.

However, if after months of negotiating, this is the negotiated deal as agreed by the leadership, a No vote merely indicates our absolute disgust of the deal and their inability to do better.

It doesn't bring us any closer to a negotiated settlement and indeed if having negotiated this openly and whatever other agreements in the offing privately, such as the pension, there isn't any likelihood of a better deal even, IMO, we take further IA.

The response to IA throughout has been brilliant but I think it is a bridge too far to ask the membership to instigate confrontation with a leadership that has clearly no stomach for it.

Their can only be a deal with our consent!.

[stressed eric]

I agree in part with the previous two posters.

However, if after months of negotiating, this is the negotiated deal as agreed by the leadership, a No vote merely indicates our absolute disgust of the deal and their inability to do better.

It doesn't bring us any closer to a negotiated settlement and indeed if having negotiated this openly and whatever other agreements in the offing privately, such as the pension, there isn't any likelihood of a better deal even, IMO, we take further IA.

The response to IA throughout has been brilliant but I think it is a bridge too far to ask the membership to instigate confrontation with a leadership that has clearly no stomach for it.

Their can only be a deal with our consent!.

i'd really like to think so, i'm definatly voting no they can fecking shove it but if they want it in i think the powers that be will get it in.
dont trust any of them, they'll push it in.