Disillusioned Posters

[tommyrep]

Disillusioned posters.
I have noticed on other threads a few members have left the Union.
Would be interested in reading others views on that !
Have the Union failed them? Was the last deal a failure to them ?
Considering the massive vote for acceptance of the deal, the opinion on RM chat seems to differ.
Leaving* the Union is not the answer in my opinion. A divided work force gives RM the upper hand, without doubt.
I realise posters are more motivated and opinionated than most members are, but, why are so many disillusioned and what can the Union do impress on them that they are honestly aware of that apathy and will now strive to regain their faith and support. Without addressing members loss of faith in them, are the Unions days numbered ?
What do you think ?

[fishtank]

The union didn't fail anyone, you could argue that the negotiators failed to use the backing we gave them to produce an acceptable deal but the membership accepted it so that doesn't really make sense either.

What has become obvious is that the union has fully embraced the age of social media misinformation, the blocking of dissenting opinions and the kind of self obsessed one true voice attitude that even Putin would blush at. That's a fail but as long as it keeps the same snouts at the trough it's doing its job.

I won't leave my union for that but outside my own DO they can shove the whole gravy train up their arse, they're welcome to it.

[rogersh]

This was posted 2 years ago. I have re-posted as an example of the opinion of the cwu toward the business not adhering to national agreements & I quote "management's failure to apply agreements at local level."
I do not know the outcome of Terry Pullingers letter to Mike Newby but we can only have aspiration (to use the latest buzzword) that the four pillars agreement will not lead to similar consequences in future.

The point of the reply is that there is a history & the cwu are asking the members to trust in future that it will be different.


LTB 132/16 Resourcing, Recruitment and Professional Manpower Planning/Legally Binding Agreement
Postby TrueBlueTerrier » Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:34 pm

LTB 132/16 Resourcing, Recruitment and Professional Manpower Planning/Legally Binding Agreement

To: Branches with POSTAL Members



Dear Colleagues,

Resourcing, Recruitment and Professional Manpower Planning/Legally Binding Agreement

You will recall that in November 2015 the situation locally in respect of the business not adhering (in our opinion) to our National Agreements regarding the above had become so dire that it was necessary for a national intervention and the negotiation of a Joint Statement to guide and refocus the field (LTB 715/15 refers).

Unfortunately, it is with great frustration that once again we are required to intervene due to management’s failure to apply our agreements at local level. This has now reached epidemic proportions with the consequences of managers performing OPG work, excessive use of agency and casuals, excessive levels of overtime, part timers being asked to regularly perform hours above their conditioned hours (despite not being offered increased contracts in line with our agreement), an apparent national block on any full time recruitment, the cessation of temporary contracts, regardless of need, and offers of un-agreed voluntary redundancies etc threatening industrial stability.

Against that backdrop the Postal Executive has for the first time taken the very serious step of registering a national Point of Principle, in line with Schedule 3 Disputes Resolution Procedures of the legally binding agreement, and in particular Section 3 Achieving National Agreement 3.1 Point of Principle.

This is new territory for us and it is with great regret that we’ve had to take this action but it is naive to believe that industrial stability will be maintained if agreements reached nationally are not applied in the workplace locally.

Clearly this Point of Principle is not about renegotiating our National Agreements but rather the business’ failure to deploy those National Agreements and enforce them at local level. Our on-going dialogue will be about how we jointly correct that situation and restore confidence in our procedures.



Notwithstanding the position being taken nationally, Local, Area and Divisional Representatives should continue to challenge any activity which is considered inconsistent with our National Agreements via the IR Framework.

Attached to this LTB is a letter sent to Mike Newby on this issue which is self-explanatory.

Branches should ensure that this LTB is given the widest possible circulation and that it is brought to the attention of local Representatives.

Any enquiries in relation to the content of this LTB should be addressed to the DGSP Department.

Yours sincerely,


Terry Pullinger
Deputy General Secretary (Postal)
All post by me in Green are Admin Posts.
Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility.
The more often a stupidity is repeated, the more it gets the appearance of wisdom.
Voltaire,
User avatar
TrueBlueTerrier
Offline
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR

Posts: 61851
Joined: Sat Dec 30, 2006 11:29 am
Location: Proud to be part of the Union
Gender: Male
Top




LTB 132/16 Resourcing, Recruitment and Professional Manpower Planning/Legally Binding Agreement
Postby TrueBlueTerrier » Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:36 pm

TP/24005/16/hn

22nd February 2016

Mike Newby
ER/IR Director
Royal Mail Group HR
3rd Floor
100 Victoria Embankment
London
EC4Y OHQ

Dear Mike,

Resourcing in Royal Mail

Further to our recent conversation, I now write to you formally in regards to the above with the request that we meet as a matter of urgency to utilise Schedule 3 ‘Dispute Resolution Procedures’ of our Legally Binding Agreement, and in particular Section 3 ‘Achieving National Agreement’, 3.1 ‘Point of Principle’.

It is unfortunate that our endeavours to resolve this matter have continued for well over a year now and regrettably have proved unsuccessful, despite the fact we have produced a National Joint Statement designed to ensure that the legally binding resourcing principles (as detailed in Section 3 ‘Protections’ 3.1.7) are adhered to.

Equally, it is highly disappointing and frustrating to note that even in light of constant promises and commitments we still have managers performing OPG work on a regular basis.

This matter remains of paramount concern to the CWU and continues to cause constant problems and has inevitably left CWU members and Representatives
feeling less than confident in our joint ability at national level to ensure our Agreements are applied.

Clearly from the National Agreements and Joint Statements that we have produced collectively it is evident that we are in agreement with their terms but it is now imperative that we act swiftly to construct a process which ensures that those terms are applied, monitored and fully supported by your regional management structures at all levels.

To clarify, the disagreement we raise today, as a point of principle, is in response to the business’ failure to deploy our Agreements and Joint Statements. You will be aware that our legal agreement states that such matters should be resolved in one month or referred to external mediation, I would therefore ask that an urgent meeting is arranged to commence this process as soon as possible.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your early reply.

Yours sincerely,

Terry Pullinger
Deputy General Secretary (Postal)

[fishtank]

The point of the reply is that there is a history & the cwu are asking the members to trust in future that it will be different.

If you've been with the business any length of time you'll be as tired as I am with the phrase "this time it will be different".

The question I would ask is not will it be different but why will it be any different?

Could you point to anything to ensure compliance in this agreement that hasn't been in previous agreements which the union has failed miserably to enforce. The far more likely scenario is a default to business as usual, from what I'm hearing they can't even agree on the deployment of the PDA actuals.

[Celgar]

It does sound like, from upper management comments we have heard, that the PDA actuals will be used to determine if posties are finishing before duty time. I suspect they will not be so interested in any data that shows the walks are too long to complete in duty time though.

[clashcityrocker]

It does sound like, from upper management comments we have heard, that the PDA actuals will be used to determine if posties are finishing before duty time.

Unless they are all blind they know which posties are finishing early.
What do they need the PDA actuals for exactly?
Why not simply have an agreement that says - everybody returns to the DO and nobody goes home early?

[Celgar]

It does sound like, from upper management comments we have heard, that the PDA actuals will be used to determine if posties are finishing before duty time.

Unless they are all blind they know which posties are finishing early.
What do they need the PDA actuals for exactly?
Why not simply have an agreement that says - everybody returns to the DO and nobody goes home early?

In some offices that does, or did, already happen - everyone is told to start delivery at a certain time and if anyone comes back early they have to wait until their duty time is over before they can go home. But nearly every office is run differently and it is difficult to find out what is happening elsewhere. Quite a while back we were hearing stories that many other offices in our area were not doing any absorption whereas we were getting drowned in work. It's hard to determine which stories are true and which are half-truths, disinformation, or leg-pulls.

[tommyrep]

Many are disgruntled about the actions of the Union. Leaving won't improve their lot one iota.
Is it not the case that our Union at senior level have lost the support of many members because they have become so far out of touch with the day to day problems experienced by members. They negotiate agreements that RM know will never be truly applied, accept the ones they decide to cherry pick in the knowledge that the CWU won't persue or fight local problems ?
Is that not the main reason people are leaving, because they feel let down ?
The true impact on PDA information gained by RM and the info they wish to exploit will go unquestioned by the union in support of posties. Is that not a reasonable stance for many leavers to adopt ? given the experiences of other past agreements on flexibility, lapsing etc. The Union appears to be losing the faith of many members and I truly fear for the CWUs future when the reality of this agreement hits home. Strong united units may fair better than the small weaker units but this apathy cannot go unnoticed or the very future of the CWU is at risk.

[rogersh]

The point of the reply is that there is a history & the cwu are asking the members to trust in future that it will be different.

Could you point to anything to ensure compliance in this agreement that hasn't been in previous agreements which the union has failed miserably to enforce.

No i can't FT. The point of my post was to highlight the divisions that exist & how sceptical some members, old & new, will be on seeing non-compliance of previous agreements. Lets see how immediate the following is implemented by both parties.

Pre- Ballot agreement Negotiators settlement 2018

8. Resourcing in line with current agreements (EDITED points)
Both parties will re-affirm they will deploy legally binding commitments to part- time workers and the
use of agency workers.

In respect of part-time worker the following will apply with immediate effect.
It is apparent that while some colleagues have secured additional conditioned hours and also converted
to full- time there is more that can be done to reflect a part-time workers commitment to additional
hours (should they wish it.) This means, in line with our agreements, and where justified, we should
focus on moving to full time or increasing contractual hours, below full-time, either on a temporary or
permanent variation of contract.

Agreed no central HR policy will not be to only recruit on basis. Recruitment determined by workload
and the outcome of the weekly resource meetings – initiated 13 weeks out.
Notwithstanding our immediate activity we will develop a means to confirm that effective weekly
resourcing meetings are taking place. This will include 6 monthly reviews to of part-time employees
and regular use of agency workers to ensure use of this resource is being used in line with our
agreement.

16.2 Processing (Mail centres & RDC’s)

16.2.1 Joint Activity to Deliver the 1st hour of the SWW
To enable a reduction of one hour to the working week, from 39 hours to 38 hours, a review will take
place at each Mail centre/ RDC. …………….
As defined in the resourcing section of this document both parties recognise that in some locations
resourcing arrangements are currently inconsistent with the standards defined in the agenda for growth
and job security agreements, with regard to the resourcing mix. It is a joint aspiration to reduce the
number of Agency/Casual workers within our facilities and to enable this, a joint audit will take place
at each mail centre/RDC to establish the current resourcing mix. This audit will review the current year
round levels of current agency/casual usage at each site and examine the root cause of use and agree
alternative permanent employee resourcing options. This may include assessment of current and future
weekend resourcing requirements

[fishtank]

What I would like to know is what it is RM want from the PDA actuals that wasn't blatantly obvious when the agreement was negotiated and now has (I suspect certain areas of) the union bricking it.

Like every DO mine will have some casualties from the PDA information but the vast majority feel they have nothing to hide and actually believe this information will help them. Should we protect the few chancers with something to hide?

[crimson king]

I have noticed on other threads a few members have left the Union

Have they though? I seem to remember there were also a lot of people in these parts who said they were going to vote no...

It's easy to vent on an internet forum and do Jack s**t in the actual real world.

[tommyrep]

I have noticed on other threads a few members have left the Union

Have they though? I seem to remember there were also a lot of people in these parts who said they were going to vote no...

It's easy to vent on an internet forum and do Jack s**t in the actual real world.

I accept what you say and obviously I have no proof.
Talk is cheap, as RM and the CWU have proved. Like the low %turn out to vote, members are a fickle body of men/women.
There are a few who have said they have and were going to stop subs on forum and others in the workplace.
On the subject of voting NO, I also agree. I thought the forum indicated a strong support for a no vote, the 9 to 1 result proved differently. As usual the feeling of being let down may pass. The union do have a lot of disgruntled members who’s voices need heard as their opinions are not always unfounded. Ignore the masses at their peril.

[BELIAL]

If you feel the union officers have let you down then you can always go along to an agm and push for change[ having said that we have had no notice of area agm's for 5 years, since a few of us turned up and nearly caused an upset]. you can ,if a member ,vote out your current reps , you get no vote on Mogwai or Wally or Rickenbach.

There does seem to be a pattern emerging of the union being used as a tool for managing the workforce. RM go too far, RM want blood - workforce rebels ,big strike vote -RM and CWU drag out secret negotiations for months taking the heat out ,making workers feel far removed from power,then come up with a knobs and bells agreement of the century which both sides fail to enforce. It's a farce and we're all being played over and over again; and the only way to stop it is to get stuck in .

[A2B]

It does sound like, from upper management comments we have heard, that the PDA actuals will be used to determine if posties are finishing before duty time.

Unless they are all blind they know which posties are finishing early.
What do they need the PDA actuals for exactly?
Why not simply have an agreement that says - everybody returns to the DO and nobody goes home early?

Royal Mail know that a lot of DOMs allow people to finish early so they get the office cleared on ghost ot but i think it's plain to see they are after cutting the ot bill as much as they can.

Everybody returning to the office doesn't stop people hiding up till their finish time

The PDA will reveal all

Oh and no doubt they have been studying all this data for a long time now so will be fully aware of certain individuals tricks

[hans solo]

imnot leaving union but
i will no longer support colleagues in office
will no longer vote for ia
will no longer take unofficial action
will now cross picket line
why
because i voted no and im in the obvious minority anyway so f**k it all