The 2018 Deal Justice for the 89.1% RESPONSE

[IloveMYredTROLLEY!]

The SWW is going to further encourage/pressure more OPGs to ignore using correct delivery methods and SSOW, in order to reduce outdoor delivery time and not have daily arguments with management about cutting off or claiming "excessive" overtime.

I don't know of a single P'n'L van at my depot that has two LWTs on board.
I've yet to work with anyone at my depot that always uses a LWT for loops that exclude blocks of flats.
I don't know anyone at my depot that does not lock up their HCT to do loops with a pouch.
I don't know anyone at my depot that always stands still to get mail from the working bundle for their next address.

Consequently, they are making outdoor time look approximately 20-60 minutes quicker than it really should be.

However, this does not result in all duties finishing 20-60 minutes before their contract time. Some do, some just about get done by within their contract hours, while some are simply reducing the time in excess of their contract hours (and who knows if they are claiming overtime).

[Danelectro]

The initial post is how RM see the agreement and the reply is how the CWU see the agreement.
The judge decides.

Sorry, that's wrong, and for legal reasons, I have to state what I thought was obvious.

We don't know how RM see it no one from their side has produced anything like this.

Tony Bouch produced the first one in response to the second, he did so in a personal capacity.

The 2nd one was also in a personal capacity by the Admin of 1st class chat.(POSTMAN EDIT: Not RMC but 1st Class Chat on FB)

Neither should be seen or attributed to the Union or Royal Mail (or RMC), they are both publicly available commentary on the agreement as it stands.

I'm aware of all that.Thats not the point I'm making which I thought was obvious.

[RedRich]

We want a reduction in workload to coincide with a reduction with sww not to absorb the workload

SWW will be in name only at our office. Too many colleagues supplying the ammunition for the managers and people afraid to ask for the OT or to cut off.

Surely we can't have a ballot until there is a concrete proposal on the table for the pension.

[fishtank]

Surely we can't have a ballot until there is a concrete proposal on the table for the pension.

I agree, it is shameful that the union is putting this half assed proposal for a pension solution forward for membership acceptance mixed in with back pay and a SWW. It's pretty disgusting in my opinion.

How can the members decide whether they agree to something when they don't know what it will look like , what regulations will be in place to govern it or even whether the pension industry will support it.

At the very least the members deserve a separate vote when and if the final CDC pension becomes a concrete reality and I'll be putting forward a motion at conference for exactly that. I would suggest members lobby their branches to do the same.

[Wornoutpostie]

At the end of the day, for a lot of people (and me) it’s all about the pension.
So, for me it’s a “NO”

[rogersh]

I posted this recently;

The pre ballot agreement states;
"A reduction to the working week of one hour from October 2018 SUBJECT to (EDIT) (A) ...Trials ..."

Given the two hour reduction, at October 2019, is linked to the pay deal re the 5.33% .
If we are led to believe the reduction to 37 p/w is a foregone conclusion I don't see the point of the trials.

What if the trials decide it is unworkable? . As the next pay review date WILL be 1st April 2020 then we lose out on the 5.33%. (For PT an actual weekly increase)

Don't think that will happen , But it is possible under the wording as I read it.


The 2018 Deal Justice for the 89.1% RESPONSE

Reduction in the Working Week

The reduction to 38 hours will in fact happen in October. What has been agreed is that we will undertake trials only for its introduction and not that it is subject to them being implemented or resourcing to workload, individual performance data etc, etc. The working day will be made up with various attendance times that suit the ability to create innovative duty structures, and the flightpath to 35 hours helps increase this even more.

So I read it incorrectly. Reduction in hours WILL happen & is not SUBJECT to trials!

I do not believe I am alone in my interpretation of the wording of the agreement based on some of the following edited posts recently.

1.What amazes me is the union are trying to sell us this as a 12.33% pay rise. We MIGHT get a reduction in our working week and therefore an increase in our hourly pay but it is a MIGHT. We will not be seeing a 12.33% pay rise in our wages we will see a 7% pay rise in financial terms

2. I think the problem for a lot of people who might reject this deal is not that they want more but they don't trust Royal Mail to honour whats in the agreement. There is too much vague language and strings attached. Take for instance the SWW. I remember last time this happened it took ages to go through with different offices getting it at different times. What's to say this won't happen again? We need something firm in writing to show what we can do if RM try to wriggle out of this one.

3. Lots of vague "we'll work together on that ..."
Lots of things dependant on unspecified trails (e.g. SWW)

4 .SWW might not be implemented,

5. Even the SWW are subject to trials (that have not been explained). It's like telling a child they'll get a treat if they do well in their exams but not defining what you mean by 'do well' 

6. PTers are overlooked again, and it's not clear how the SWW is going to be implemented if at all.

7. There seems to be too many strings attached to the pay rise and SWW. Future pay rises should not be subjected to trials, trials and more sodding trials which will then get implemented whether or not they are actually fit for purpose.

[IloveMYredTROLLEY!]

The CWU have aspired to reducing the working week of a postie to 35 hours for a while, but was this ever put to a vote for the members, knowing that a shorter working week would come at the cost of not getting a wage rise to cover inflation of pretty much everything we spend our wages on?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

The CWU have aspired to reducing the working week of a postie to 35 hours for a while, but was this ever put to a vote for the members, knowing that a shorter working week would come at the cost of not getting a wage rise to cover inflation of pretty much everything we spend our wages on?

Not the posties but it was voted on at a Conference and it was supported by various branches.