According to Dave Warren at the meeting I went to yesterday three national officers: Martin Collins, Bob Gibson and Terry Pullinger - which, correct me if I am wrong, is half the national officers in the postal section - refused to put sign up to the national agreement.
This is apparently unprecedented in the history of the uniuon when it comes to national deals like this.
Anyone know if this is right and if its as significant as Warren suggests?
ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (Updated 2021)... HERE
ANNOUNCEMENT : PLEASE BE AWARE WE ARE NOT ON FACEBOOK AT ALL!
National officers against the deal
-
geopip
- Posts: 95
- Joined: 19 May 2007, 09:25
Yes the above is true, they did not want to be associated with the agreement and of course because of the rules they do not get a vote on the agreement.
More significantly one is the National Officer for Royal Mail Deliveries, second is the National Officer for Mail Centres, Distribution, Processing etc and the other is the National Officer for Network Drivers if these 3 officers who represent Royal Mail members in these functions every day of the week don't believe the deal is good enough for our members why should we.
More significantly one is the National Officer for Royal Mail Deliveries, second is the National Officer for Mail Centres, Distribution, Processing etc and the other is the National Officer for Network Drivers if these 3 officers who represent Royal Mail members in these functions every day of the week don't believe the deal is good enough for our members why should we.
-
I-POSTIE
- Posts: 78
- Joined: 09 Mar 2007, 21:51
- Gender: Male
I am looking at the Pay and Modernisation Agreement and shaking my head and wondering what the (expletive) went wrong. Like most of us, whom have an interest in the outcome of the industrial action, having invested too many days of lost pay in support of our objectives, I watched the news broadcast adamantly as our last action of four days unfolded. On the Tuesday pressure from outside parties was growing for a resolution to the postal strike and the reluctance of Leighton and Crosier to become involved in the talks had clearly manifest itself as being central, in the publics and business establishment minds, as the underlying reason as to why negotiations were not moving forward. Finally, Crozier made an appearance. He plainly did not want to be filmed walking in to the TUC building. Whether he was told to attend or he thought he should go there before his bosses in government told him, we will never know but he was not looking delighted at the prospect of having to take part. When Dave Ward left the building, broadly smiling, after the talks had finished he looked like the cat that had got the cream. So how have we ended up with this shambolic agreement which the PEC has the audacity to endorse? I would certainly like to have been a fly on the wall in the boardroom, in that lost week, when the membership heard not an inkling from PEC. Personally, I believe there must have been ructions when the negotiating team returned with this embarrassing, vague and precarious list of nonsense which has a closer resemblance to Leightons’ and Croziers’ plans for our future at Royal Mail then our own. Crozier walked in thinking he was on the back heal and walked out laughing up his sleeve.
Whilst the pay offer is an improvement upon Royal Mail starting position of lump sums instead of an increase paid into basic pay it is hardly worthy of great praise when it is recognise that the 6.9% offer is spread over two years. 5.4 % is payable as of October 07 however you have to read through to page 11 of the agreement to find that the second payment of 1.5% is due from 7 April 08. The reason for this is that the first page takes great delight in telling us that, “We have decoupled any link between pay and pension reform.â€
Whilst the pay offer is an improvement upon Royal Mail starting position of lump sums instead of an increase paid into basic pay it is hardly worthy of great praise when it is recognise that the 6.9% offer is spread over two years. 5.4 % is payable as of October 07 however you have to read through to page 11 of the agreement to find that the second payment of 1.5% is due from 7 April 08. The reason for this is that the first page takes great delight in telling us that, “We have decoupled any link between pay and pension reform.â€
-
IWW Fellow Worker
- Posts: 3644
- Joined: 30 May 2007, 14:27
- Gender: Male
-
shakey
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 28 Aug 2007, 17:28
-
Albethere
- Posts: 76
- Joined: 20 Aug 2007, 14:50
- Location: North of the Midlands
Well said I-Postie, BUT we have been advised by our local union to consider the consequences of voting NO! We were told that by voting NO the union could lose their "local" negotiating position with RM, thus enabling RM to do what they want anyway by the imposition of executive action.
Our local union said the deal may not be everything we wanted, but was the best they could achieve in the difficult circumstances. AND he said change would be coming in anyway whether we liked it or not - so by voting to support the deal we could enable the union to be FULLY involved in shaping the future, whereas otherwise the union would effectively be cast out into the abyss!!!
I was originally going to vote NO, but now I am having to look at this tricky choice with far greater vision. Not very easy at all!
At least this forum is helping everyone to share ideas. Well done to the administrators of the forum. This forum is the best!!!
Our local union said the deal may not be everything we wanted, but was the best they could achieve in the difficult circumstances. AND he said change would be coming in anyway whether we liked it or not - so by voting to support the deal we could enable the union to be FULLY involved in shaping the future, whereas otherwise the union would effectively be cast out into the abyss!!!
I was originally going to vote NO, but now I am having to look at this tricky choice with far greater vision. Not very easy at all!
At least this forum is helping everyone to share ideas. Well done to the administrators of the forum. This forum is the best!!!
-
dvbuk55
- EX ROYAL MAIL
- Posts: 16650
- Joined: 02 Jun 2007, 19:17
- Gender: Male
Well if the negotiating by these muppets is a sign of "shaping the future" then I think I'll take the risk and vote NO.Albethere wrote:Well said I-Postie, BUT we have been advised by our local union to consider the consequences of voting NO! We were told that by voting NO the union could lose their "local" negotiating position with RM, thus enabling RM to do what they want anyway by the imposition of executive action.
Our local union said the deal may not be everything we wanted, but was the best they could achieve in the difficult circumstances. AND he said change would be coming in anyway whether we liked it or not - so by voting to support the deal we could enable the union to be FULLY involved in shaping the future, whereas otherwise the union would effectively be cast out into the abyss!!!
I was originally going to vote NO, but now I am having to look at this tricky choice with far greater vision. Not very easy at all!
At least this forum is helping everyone to share ideas. Well done to the administrators of the forum. This forum is the best!!!
-
L Tommo
- Posts: 3165
- Joined: 06 Feb 2007, 09:43
- Gender: Male
- Location: WATCHING YOU WATCHING ME!
I POSTIE.. If you dont mind i think this piece you just done needs to be seen in real form... Ive printed it off and will with your say so..??? Copy many off and hand them out to people and posties i know... This is AGAIN a wonderful meaningful effort to show EVERYBODY concerned what is going on and how to deal with the deal offered.... I feel that only keeping this post of yours just for the net would be a great shame and EVERYBODY should see it......
I know many on here think the same as we all read and agree with your great points of view and style you put them in...
Shame Billy n Dave cant act in the way you type and think......
OUT
I know many on here think the same as we all read and agree with your great points of view and style you put them in...
Shame Billy n Dave cant act in the way you type and think......
OUT
L TOMMO.... ILLEGITIMIS NON CARBORUNDUM........
EAST LONDON MAIL CENTER-ISHHHH
EAST LONDON MAIL CENTER-ISHHHH
-
POSTMAN
- SITE ADMINISTRATOR
- Posts: 32759
- Joined: 07 Aug 2006, 03:19
- Gender: Male
I-POSTIE
The man is a f***ing legend!
I Wrote-During Covid-Which is still relevant now
It's good to get these types of threads, the ridiculous my manager said bollox, so we can reassure ourselves that while the world is falling apart, Royal Mail managers are still being the low-life C***S they have always been.
My BFF Clash
The daily grind of having to argue your case with an intellectual pigmy of a line manager is physically and emotionally draining.
It's good to get these types of threads, the ridiculous my manager said bollox, so we can reassure ourselves that while the world is falling apart, Royal Mail managers are still being the low-life C***S they have always been.
My BFF Clash
The daily grind of having to argue your case with an intellectual pigmy of a line manager is physically and emotionally draining.
-
I-POSTIE
- Posts: 78
- Joined: 09 Mar 2007, 21:51
- Gender: Male
L Tommo, thank you for asking whether you may print my remarks. Certainly, anything I publish in the public areas of the RMC website, as far as I am concerned is in the public domain and is open to be printed by any of the website readers without further permission. However I will point out that they are my personal views and not that of any organisation. As for the CWU, I am a rank and file member and as you may have already acknowledged, my deliberations do not always equate with those of the unions opinions. Thank you once again for your politeness.
Albethere, thank you for enlightening us as to your local branches view of the situation. In this respect your local branch is doing better than mine who have yet to provide a point of view. However I feel this is in the defeatist mode. Surely the union (all members united) is strongest at the national level when defending our pay, conditions and pensions? I perceive that if the management are condoning negotiating at the local level then they have the means to exploit the situation to their own advantage. We must consider that which management have been bringing in as executive action will not stop because a minority of union members in a particular unit disagree in negotiations at the local level as was happening prior to the industrial action. We should remember that there are a large number of units with fewer than 40 persons of which a number have weak or non-existent union representation on a daily basis which will allow management the opportunity for which they have been waiting. Clearly as a union we owe all members our support in bringing about a fair agreement that is representative of all of us rather than throwing the weakest to the lions. That type of activity is characteristic of the divisions that will occur within the union and will be indicative of it’s break up should we depart from collective bargaining. What happens when one area is achieving it savings bonuses and another is battling to save duties because workloads are too great? One does have to ask oneself, will I be supporting the union on their behalf should one think one will lose one bonus to do so? Especially, if ones unit has already made its’ savings at the expense of duties, personal time etceteras. Reflecting upon those who are trying to save their working conditions, will they be best pleased when those who do not want to lose their bonus turn down the opportunity to support their colleagues? The reality is, as yet, we do not know which of these we are to be. Personally, I do not want to either. With all the fragmentation happening how will the union be at the centre of dealing with change. I agree changes is coming but has to be done in a way that is agreeable to employee and employer. It should not be some rush and panic deal that concedes all for the ridiculous notion that the union will be at the centre of the chaos trying to conciliate different factions within its’ own ranks. I would rather the union be at the centre of its’ united members defending us against the management’s business plan then fighting its’ way out from within should this document be approved.
We have to remember this is our final chance to have any effect upon the way in which we work for Royal Mail in the near future. I truly believe, as I am sure many others would agree, should we have held out we would have won the day. The negotiators through the towel in to early but we have not as yet lost. The worst that can happen is that we end up where we are should we vote no to this deal. The management will say that they will take the deal off the table but they only have a small amount of latitude. If they offer worse we wont vote for it but the chances are with new negotiators (I suggest those members of the PEC who have turned their back on this deal) we will have a better deal. I am up for giving it a try. I’m voting “NO.â€
Albethere, thank you for enlightening us as to your local branches view of the situation. In this respect your local branch is doing better than mine who have yet to provide a point of view. However I feel this is in the defeatist mode. Surely the union (all members united) is strongest at the national level when defending our pay, conditions and pensions? I perceive that if the management are condoning negotiating at the local level then they have the means to exploit the situation to their own advantage. We must consider that which management have been bringing in as executive action will not stop because a minority of union members in a particular unit disagree in negotiations at the local level as was happening prior to the industrial action. We should remember that there are a large number of units with fewer than 40 persons of which a number have weak or non-existent union representation on a daily basis which will allow management the opportunity for which they have been waiting. Clearly as a union we owe all members our support in bringing about a fair agreement that is representative of all of us rather than throwing the weakest to the lions. That type of activity is characteristic of the divisions that will occur within the union and will be indicative of it’s break up should we depart from collective bargaining. What happens when one area is achieving it savings bonuses and another is battling to save duties because workloads are too great? One does have to ask oneself, will I be supporting the union on their behalf should one think one will lose one bonus to do so? Especially, if ones unit has already made its’ savings at the expense of duties, personal time etceteras. Reflecting upon those who are trying to save their working conditions, will they be best pleased when those who do not want to lose their bonus turn down the opportunity to support their colleagues? The reality is, as yet, we do not know which of these we are to be. Personally, I do not want to either. With all the fragmentation happening how will the union be at the centre of dealing with change. I agree changes is coming but has to be done in a way that is agreeable to employee and employer. It should not be some rush and panic deal that concedes all for the ridiculous notion that the union will be at the centre of the chaos trying to conciliate different factions within its’ own ranks. I would rather the union be at the centre of its’ united members defending us against the management’s business plan then fighting its’ way out from within should this document be approved.
We have to remember this is our final chance to have any effect upon the way in which we work for Royal Mail in the near future. I truly believe, as I am sure many others would agree, should we have held out we would have won the day. The negotiators through the towel in to early but we have not as yet lost. The worst that can happen is that we end up where we are should we vote no to this deal. The management will say that they will take the deal off the table but they only have a small amount of latitude. If they offer worse we wont vote for it but the chances are with new negotiators (I suggest those members of the PEC who have turned their back on this deal) we will have a better deal. I am up for giving it a try. I’m voting “NO.â€
-
earlyrisera
- Posts: 13
- Joined: 28 Sep 2007, 19:35
pay and modernisation deal
Dave Ward has tried to sell us down the Royal Mail river, he has to go at next years election! maybe Ward and Crozier are the same person, it has to be a NO vote and a vote of no confidence in Dave Ward!
-
dvbuk55
- EX ROYAL MAIL
- Posts: 16650
- Joined: 02 Jun 2007, 19:17
- Gender: Male
Re: pay and modernisation deal
You're obviously North of Watford.earlyrisera wrote:Dave Ward has tried to sell us down the Royal Mail river, he has to go at next years election! maybe Ward and Crozier are the same person, it has to be a NO vote and a vote of no confidence in Dave Ward!