I shall be voting "yes"

[cloherty1976]

Dingo maybe you could give me some help as I had a question which I asked you and you never replied to me so I asked the union rep and he never new the answer so I tried another at a major voc and he never new the answer. So if you have don't know the answer to the question but are asking members to vote yes for something you don't know the answer too surely it's easier to not vote at all and just except what you get. This is not a riddle but it was a simple question and the question was : Are the network drivers going to get paid the 6 weeks scheduled attendance payments or still remain at 4 weeks? If you don't answer I won't bother again asking but I really do think that the union people who agree the deals should understand what they are agreeing too..

[Martin Walsh]

Doherty Royal Mail logistics arm is recognised as the core workforce and is therefore covered by the SA arrangements within the agreement. i.e. if your entitled to 6 weeks annual leave then you will be entitled to the SA.

Royal Mail define the core workforce as employees of Royal Mail Group LTD working in core Royal Mail operations, logistics , engineers ,fleet maintenance services , RMSS and Royal Mail international and in grades for which RNG has recognised the CWU to conduct collective bargaining. It does not apply to parcel force or HRSC.

[dvbuk55]

Those in Delivery Offices KNOW who isn't living in the real WORKING world. They don't need to be sold yet another pig in a poke. They don't need the shills visiting the areas to baffle brains with legal bullshit and promises of reviews, the last agreement had reviews built in and they either didn't happen or were ignored. The VERY LAST thing they need is yet another DEAL OF THE CENTURY, it wasn't and neither is this. What it is is a total capitulation of the CWU from which it will never recover.

Just vote NO.

[Martin Walsh]

Those in Delivery Offices KNOW who isn't living in the real WORKING world. They don't need to be sold yet another pig in a poke. They don't need the shills visiting the areas to baffle brains with legal bullshit and promises of reviews, the last agreement had reviews built in and they either didn't happen or were ignored. The VERY LAST thing they need is yet another DEAL OF THE CENTURY, it wasn't and neither is this. What it is is a total capitulation of the CWU from which it will never recover.

Just vote NO.

Dvbuk you said that about 2007 and 2010 and now unsurprisingly your saying it about the new agreement. The reality is you said we would not get the 3.5% as the reopener would stop it and you said that the supplement would be taken away.

My prediction from many reps I have spoken to and members is that this is going to go through in a massive majority of those who vote. As 95 000 of the CWUs 115000 comes from delivery offices I predict that delivery offices members will support the agreement.

The Legal Protections alone will sway many , but I do believe that the CWU membership are better off with an agreement even if we had wanted more on delivery then no agreement.

[cloherty1976]

Thanks dingo for your response

[dvbuk55]

Those in Delivery Offices KNOW who isn't living in the real WORKING world. They don't need to be sold yet another pig in a poke. They don't need the shills visiting the areas to baffle brains with legal bullshit and promises of reviews, the last agreement had reviews built in and they either didn't happen or were ignored. The VERY LAST thing they need is yet another DEAL OF THE CENTURY, it wasn't and neither is this. What it is is a total capitulation of the CWU from which it will never recover.

Just vote NO.

Dvbuk you said that about 2007 and 2010 and now unsurprisingly your saying it about the new agreement. The reality is you said we would not get the 3.5% as the reopener would stop it and you said that the supplement would be taken away.

My prediction from many reps I have spoken to and members is that this is going to go through in a massive majority of those who vote. As 95 000 of the CWUs 115000 comes from delivery offices I predict that delivery offices members will support the agreement.

The Legal Protections alone will sway many , but I do believe that the CWU membership are better off with an agreement even if we had wanted more on delivery then no agreement.

The legal protections have to be proven so are we going to take that on trust? What about the No strike deal? Are the legal protections supposed to take the place of national strike action? As for saying people should vote NO you're right I believe the union have lost their way and have increasingly become "embedded" about as far as they can get without getting married.

Do you still believe BT2010 was the DEAL OF THE CENTURY dingo? Tell me do you believe things have improved since 2007 with subsequent agreements because people in deliveries don't think so. Do you believe the road-shows are necessary to SELL this deal because it wouldn't stand on its own recognisance.
Have you ever heard of a flim flam man dingo?

[clashcityrocker]

Do you believe the road-shows are necessary to SELL this deal because it wouldn't stand on its own recognisance.

The roadshows that accompanied BT 2010 were for reps and not for the general membership to attend.
So even if you take the line that the reps were bamboozled by the snake oil salesmen (rather than believing they made up their minds having heard both sides of the story) the roadshows could only have swayed a few thousand voters.
Yet the vote wasn't even close.

[dvbuk55]

Do you believe the road-shows are necessary to SELL this deal because it wouldn't stand on its own recognisance.

The roadshows that accompanied BT 2010 were for reps and not for the general membership to attend.
So even if you take the line that the reps were bamboozled by the snake oil salesmen (rather than believing they made up their minds having heard both sides of the story) the roadshows could only have swayed a few thousand voters.
Yet the vote wasn't even close.

Doesn't really answer the question will this deal stand on its own recognisance without the roadshows. The reps are just once removed from the members except they are already in the union system. Was 2010 a good deal?

[BernardBresslaw]

Money talks.

The majority of postmen are dumb, which was evidenced today in my office, when upon being told on New Years Eve, that people finishing early today, would be made to sort to their time as absorption, many *still* started before their scheduled time.

When you have muppets like that, making up the majority, throwing £££ signs their way, will have them salivating at the prospect of voting the deal through. It's what the union is banking on, as anyone with an iota of sense, would reject it outright as an exercise in waffle and false promises, just like the last one.

[clashcityrocker]

Was 2010 a good deal?

Yes.

[dvbuk55]

Was 2010 a good deal?

Yes.

Well it definitely hasn't proved to be the deal of the century.

[RTP]

RTP the reason there was no mention of a limit of BSI or a cap or a level was that delivery offices up and down the UK are at different levels.

Remember in 1999 when the Performance Bonus Scheme was introduced their was the following bands based on EP. High Performance which meant any office over 105 EP , then Band A if you were at 90 , Band B if your office was at 85 , Band C if your office was at 80 and then Band D was offices with 75. It even suggested that if a delivery office went below 75 for 3 months they would lose bonus.

DPMS measure the EPs then and now it is the IWT. The EP for some offices are well over 100 and others well below 60. A number of things can effect your ep as we know.

However as Bob will testify he has said this consistently at briefings and members meeting that there was never an agreement to go to 100 BSi and he even at one point said the proposal should only be for a 5 % improvement on your current EP.

For whatever reasons some units agreed to go too 100bsi some even believed when the upper decile was agreed they would get jobs back which was disturbing to say the least. Other offices have negotiated what they believe was a reasonable move in inward performance which is what the agreement allows you to do.

However if anyone really believes that Royal Mail were ever going to put a cap on EP improvements when some offices are allegedly working at 130 Bsi then they are clearly not living in the real world. Some of those offices when checked have loads of people starting before their time and cutting corners and clearly give a false productivity rating.

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

I recognise all offices are different, however why was the banding not set out again in 2010. Band A at 90 and so on. Or better still why not do it now. That way there IS a cap and all those offices that have been set unrealistic performance targets could be looked at and hopefully a lot of the problems will be solved.

[fishtank]

RTP the reason there was no mention of a limit of BSI or a cap or a level was that delivery offices up and down the UK are at different levels.

BT2010 was supposed to resolve that,It obviously didn't. Why are delivery offices up and down the UK at different levels? It's much the same job no matter where you go and although geography can have a small effect it doesn't explain how offices can be operating at vastly different levels of efficiency. Starting early might have some effect but it's unlikely to explain the kind of disparity we see between one end of the country and the other.

Is it only strong offices that are inefficient? Why doesn't Royal Mail produce an efficiency map and we can all see the truth behind why some offices are working harder than others for the same money or even less in some cases. Why are managers in these poorer performing areas even tolerated by Royal Mail.

In fact ignore all that...Just explain to me exactly how this new incentive scheme is going to work?
It's pretty easy to incentivise an office pissing about at 60BSI with loads of savings potential and lapsing opportunities but how exactly do you incentivise an office already working at 100BSI already cut to the bone and already with no lapsing opportunities at all?
What exactly are you going to incentivise them to do?

[north london driver]

Those in Delivery Offices KNOW who isn't living in the real WORKING world. They don't need to be sold yet another pig in a poke. They don't need the shills visiting the areas to baffle brains with legal bullshit and promises of reviews, the last agreement had reviews built in and they either didn't happen or were ignored. The VERY LAST thing they need is yet another DEAL OF THE CENTURY, it wasn't and neither is this. What it is is a total capitulation of the CWU from which it will never recover.

Just vote NO.

Dvbuk you said that about 2007 and 2010 and now unsurprisingly your saying it about the new agreement. The reality is you said we would not get the 3.5% as the reopener would stop it and you said that the supplement would be taken away.

My prediction from many reps I have spoken to and members is that this is going to go through in a massive majority of those who vote. As 95 000 of the CWUs 115000 comes from delivery offices I predict that delivery offices members will support the agreement.

The Legal Protections alone will sway many , but I do believe that the CWU membership are better off with an agreement even if we had wanted more on delivery then no agreement.

many reps may well say they will be asking there staff to vote for this part open deal and will be told what to say at
there meetings with staff but to say on this forum you think a massive majority of delivery members will vote yes sounds like the same vibes from headquaters.area reps are not as pleased as you think on this deal but as for the staff in delivieries across this country i just hope they all vote.

[Martin Walsh]

I don't know what area reps your talking to but I think most area reps following the national briefing are now ok with the agreement. Yes most wanted more on deliveries but that could not be achieved in the negotiations and most now accept that the legal protections are worth having.

I could be wrong off course but there has only been one agreement in recent history which was rejected by the membership after CWU HQs had recommended it and that was the way forward and that was because there was an organised no vote led by some divisional reps called Dave Ward and Bob Gibson.

Even then a few months later when arguably the deal had got worse it was voted in.

There is no organised opposition to this agreement apart form the usual suspects who oppose all agreements.