The case for Local Agreements

[Martin Walsh]

I have been in the industry for 36 years.

I have been a rep at every level. I have gone to literally over 250 offices throughout the UK , some on a frequent basis.

In that time members within offices want different things such as attendance patterns , levels of SA , start times and finish times , when their meal relief is , their annual leave span , the hours that a part timer works over what days , their delivery span , how they do D2Ds , how they cover overtime , what model week you want to use. In addition all offices are at various productivity levels due to things like whether your inside your post code area or outside and have further to travel or you have secondary sorting or simply you have less parcel growth ,

Those who don’t want local agreements will be the first to complain if at National Level it was agreed you all had to start at a different time , finish at a different , change their attendance pattern , change their annual leave slots to standardise them , agree that all part timers would be on the same hourage regardless of the tasks .

It simply would not work if there was no local agreements.

This agreement allows for local solutions which cannot be done centrally , for example the number of dedicated parcels duties will depend on the number of larger parcels that an office has and whether that office can reduce from the core the hours from loss of letters to fund the dedicated parcel duty or not ?

Equally the ratio of full time to part time is totally different in offices. If you simply standardise this as you would have to do if there was no local agreements than you would in some offices be reducing the level of savings part time duties and increasing them elsewhere. That in itself would be a huge challenge.

This is why local agreements will remain the vehicle for moving forward issues as the members in the office should have a vote on their offices start time , finish times , their attendance patterns , the detail of their revisions. Rather than someone at Headquarters saying all offices have the following start , finish , hours , delivery span , overtime levels and attendance patterns.

I can guarantee that there would be far more complaints if the national agreement was to say that.

[Woody Guthrie]

Maybe you're right.
Perhaps we should vote on the agreement locally.
If my office doesn't fancy it why should they have to accept it just because your area does?
Local solutions to local problems.

[Schiff]

Local agreements negotiated by inexperienced reps, reps looking out for themselves and their mates, full-time reps looking out for the full-timers at the expense of part-time members etc are something that the union should be trying to put an end to - not encouraging.

I have worked in a number of organisations, none of which were subject to this level of local difference.

[clashcityrocker]

If a bean counter somewhere decides all part time overtime must be stopped (as has happened twice over the past couple of years) what exactly is all this talk of local solutions going to do?
The DOM has little or no say in what goes on. Having a local decision making process with him involved is non sensical.

How does any of this address the profitability of the business?
Or are we still content to let GLS make all the profit? (Slave labour funds our shorter working week?)

[renrag40]

Maybe you're right.
Perhaps we should vote on the agreement locally.
If my office doesn't fancy it why should they have to accept it just because your area does?
Local solutions to local problems.

You are wasting your time asking Martin Walsh that. My experience is that Martin Walsh only answers questions he wants to and ducks the difficult questions........ all the time trying to force feed us the party line of how wonderful this agreement is and how lucky we are as union members to be paying Pullinger and Wards bloated salaries.
Under no circumstances should we ever be expected to vote on a deal which has 24 important issues still to be negotiated. The most important power that members have is the power of oversight through the ballot box. Not only does it hold RMs feet to the fire in negotiations but just as importantly the union negotiating teams feet as well. Agreeing in advance to issues you don’t know are being negotiated removes that pressure that the membership have the final say.
IT IS A NO AND WILL ALWAYS BE A NO UNTIL I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I AM BEING ASKED TO VOTE YES TO.

[blacov]

Maybe you're right.
Perhaps we should vote on the agreement locally.
If my office doesn't fancy it why should they have to accept it just because your area does?
Local solutions to local problems.

You are wasting your time asking Martin Walsh that. My experience is that Martin Walsh only answers questions he wants to and ducks the difficult questions........ all the time trying to force feed us the party line of how wonderful this agreement is and how lucky we are as union members to be paying Pullinger and Wards bloated salaries.
Under no circumstances should we ever be expected to vote on a deal which has 24 important issues still to be negotiated. The most important power that members have is the power of oversight through the ballot box. Not only does it hold RMs feet to the fire in negotiations but just as importantly the union negotiating teams feet as well. Agreeing in advance to issues you don’t know are being negotiated removes that pressure that the membership have the final say.
IT IS A NO AND WILL ALWAYS BE A NO UNTIL I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I AM BEING ASKED TO VOTE YES TO.

I would like to agree with all of you. First of all local solution are probably the safest bet so in my opinion should go ahead. However those who will be involved in designing new arrangements may be biased. Therefore it isn't popular amongst members. Last perhaps most important issue is the vote. How on earth are we expected to decide our future if there are over 20 points still under review and members have no idea what they are. I think we deserve an update in due course on the progress on these 24 outstanding issues or at least some clarification in what direction the talks are going. I think once this has been resolved people should be asked to vote. Personally I am going to abstain or vote no even though I like what has already been agreed and presented to us last month.

[fb1969]

Local agreements is the only section of the overall agreement that mentions "culture" which is the only reference to BULLYING AND HARRASSMENT. Neither the CWU or RM ever acknowledge that it exists by using the words.

If the CWU think that will stop bullying it just means they condone it as much as RM do. At best this agreement will change nothing, but more likely it will be a lot worse.

[Martin Walsh]

Woody as you know the collective strength of the whole of the CWU ensures we get an agreement. If you wanted the ability to vote per office on whether You accept the terms than clearly we would end on different pay rates and different terms and conditions .re,

Even if in your scenario an office voted against the national agreement do you really think that Royal Mail will leave that office alone unchanged.

The better option is what lots of office do throughout the Uk and that is to ensure that any local agreement is acceptable to the office and if it is not than collectively raise it through the IR framework. Remember there were 600 disagreements in the IR framework from our initial dispute, so can be done.

However the alternative is that if you don’t want local agreements you want a National Agreement making every office have a mandatory start time , finish time , productivity level , attendance pattern , absorbing level , percentage of full time to part time ratio , part time hours contract.


So tell me who would accept that ? I can state that there would be outrage if that was to happen and most know that.

[Martin Walsh]

Renrag I have been on this site from the beginning never ducking an issue , I answer as many questions and email as I can.

I give this site more information than you would normally get . I am often criticised by many on here for my answers or views and most of my mates and Reps think I am made to continue with some of the abuse I get back.

The reason I do is I believe in open communication with the members , it is something I have always done going into offices to hold meetings with members and simply talking to them.

Now let’s get some perspective into this , I was the one who told this site there was 24 issues to still resolve. However there is so much clarity within this agreement and those 24 issues will be in line and flow from the Pathway to Change Agreement.

I will when I get time deal with what Clarity there is within the agreement and there are some massive statements within it.

So the 24 aspects include things like what is the reference period for WIPWH productivity measure , normally we would use this current year but due to COVID that is impossible as whilst traffic would be correct an individual office maybe different if they are failing the USO so we are examining how we arrive at a fair reference period. However the fact that the agreement means an office only has to examine whether you can improve your productivity level against your own office against a previous reference point is an huge safeguard as we have move Royal a mail away from National League tables being the driver for productivity .

[blacov]

Renrag I have been on this site from the beginning never ducking an issue , I answer as many questions and email as I can.

I give this site more information than you would normally get . I am often criticised by many on here for my answers or views and most of my mates and Reps think I am made to continue with some of the abuse I get back.

The reason I do is I believe in open communication with the members , it is something I have always done going into offices to hold meetings with members and simply talking to them.

Now let’s get some perspective into this , I was the one who told this site there was 24 issues to still resolve. However there is so much clarity within this agreement and those 24 issues will be in line and flow from the Pathway to Change Agreement.

I will when I get time deal with what Clarity there is within the agreement and there are some massive statements within it.

So the 24 aspects include things like what is the reference period for WIPWH productivity measure , normally we would use this current year but due to COVID that is impossible as whilst traffic would be correct an individual office maybe different if they are failing the USO so we are examining how we arrive at a fair reference period. However the fact that the agreement means an office only has to examine whether you can improve your productivity level against your own office against a previous reference point is an huge safeguard as we have move Royal a mail away from National League tables being the driver for productivity .

This is fantastic work Martin but I am afraid for some if not most people this is not enough. As we all know RM have history of going back on their words so people are cautious. I believe the ballot should come out only when there is more clarity on these remaining 24 aspects. In terms of one national agreement I am afraid this will only make matters worse in a lot of places so local agreements are essential. Thank you for doing your bit and informing us as much as you can. If we make it right RM should return to be making healthy profits and workforce will carry on with good rewards. However if there is a lot of grief throughout front line staff it will be a lot more difficult to progress. Hope this will work out for all of us.

[Woody Guthrie]

Woody as you know the collective strength of the whole of the CWU ensures we get an agreement.

Yes it does Martin but when the outcome of the agreement is so different across the business units members quite rightly wonder if they're fighting for the same thing.

The biggest problem with the agreement and brace yourself for this, I don't think it's a very good agreement for the business as a whole.

Trying to improve productivity and efficiency in a piecemeal fashion using 1000 different local agreements never works, never has and never will and I think Royal Mail will soon realise this. Why should that bother us? Well our entire job security is tied up in how the next few years pan out.

It's a kick the can down the road agreement, nothing more but when we catch up to the can this time we might find out it's an oil drum full of concrete.

[hans solo]

local agreements is just an excuse for allowing rm to push through their own proposals piecemeal
cwu know and accept this
going local will have some members doing over 5hrs del span while others do 3 and allowed to finish on street and go home
im alright jack f**k you attitude from our own members rm and cwu to each other
there are no standards to fall back on and unify
local agreements also leave single offices fighting for themselves with ir probs and walkouts
if you also want local agreements there should be no cwu hq but also split up to different regions

[Pharox]

Sorry if this a little of topic or already been posted. Is there a list or something that details the 24 issues that are out standing? Surely you can't expect folk to vote 'Yes' on a deal that is half missing/incomplete without knowing the full details of these issues.

[toonshola]

Sorry if this a little of topic or already been posted. Is there a list or something that details the 24 issues that are out standing? Surely you can't expect folk to vote 'Yes' on a deal that is half missing/incomplete without knowing the full details of these issues.

Oh that’s exactly what they expect unfortunately. I was banned from making comments on the Cwu Facebook page 2 days ago for asking this very question. The union has become some weird cult where any criticism is removed. Just watch any of their live streams to see them wanking each other off it’s cringe worthy. They have let us all down big time in my opinion.

[worktotime]

Woody as you know the collective strength of the whole of the CWU ensures we get an agreement. If you wanted the ability to vote per office on whether You accept the terms than clearly we would end on different pay rates and different terms and conditions .re,

Even if in your scenario an office voted against the national agreement do you really think that Royal Mail will leave that office alone unchanged.

The better option is what lots of office do throughout the Uk and that is to ensure that any local agreement is acceptable to the office and if it is not than collectively raise it through the IR framework. Remember there were 600 disagreements in the IR framework from our initial dispute, so can be done.

However the alternative is that if you don’t want local agreements you want a National Agreement making every office have a mandatory start time , finish time , productivity level , attendance pattern , absorbing level , percentage of full time to part time ratio , part time hours contract.


So tell me who would accept that ? I can state that there would be outrage if that was to happen and most know that.

you say 600 disagreements went in the ir framework , are these the same ones the cwu swept under the carpet for our new leaders ? or are these still going to be dealt with ?