MGV Prof Driver Grade in Delivery - (Delivery Sup & 2% PR)

[drb]

We as a branch voted no to BT 2010. We felt it was open to "rogue management". We felt we had no "friends" at the top,(we still believe this). As for the "cross function" of drivers,well it is a very small minority and was easy to miss.
However there is no national deal in the world that is easy going. The Way Forward,Pay & Mod etc. Even IWM,RRIS. Many "punch ups" over these. What was paramount was questions where being asked. We expect the questions to continue,because it educates us. What we do suggest is to run regular "surgeries" within your offices/mail centres. An hour per day? The answers on here are good enough debate to have with your members. If your rep ain't up to it,what about RMC surgeries? Give it a go! Don't slate the info given to us by Dingo and Geezer. Digest it! Inform your members. If you say HQ cannot do this then try it in your offices?
Prove your point!

[Martin Walsh]

TBT this is where I really disagree with you. Not on the basis that the union should be there to support the members whatever their views are on the national agreements. However I do believe that a union is not just CWU HQs but has to be at all levels.

A union cannot be strong or protect a workforce if the members within a unit dont take some responsibility in supporting and fighting against injustices. Remember we have the harshest employment laws in Europe and it requires the membership in a unit to support a ballot.

I along with may other reps have stood in front of members for decades and asked them not to cut up the job by coming in early ,working their meal reliefs and driving their own cars and yet thousands still did this and many still do that today. Do you think Royal Mail does not notice this ? Do you think this did not have a massive effect on why they decided to intorduce delviery best praticise and CDVs and absorption.

The Union is not some club where someone can join and pay a weekly sub and then say thats all they contribute because CWU HQs does the rest. No its about each unit and each Branch ensuring that there is proper reprsentation. Every Branch gets an amount of Money per month based on membership levels to represent the members within their Branch.

Now Fish I dont buy you statement that members believed the planners were right and thats why they agreed the revision. In my experience of meeting members in dozens of different views I have yet to meet a set of members who believe that the planners have got it right. Every office has experienced postmen and women who know what will work and what will not work in an office in terms of walks. So you have look at offices agreeing revisions which they know will possibly fail as they ever are getting something out of the revision like me part time staff becoming full time or improve attendances or they are attracted to the lump sums.

So in conclusion belonging to a trade union is based on leaving everything to someone else to do or to blame everyone else , it is about unity is strength and you only get unity if you stand together at every level and do what you believe is right.

It is an excuse that people say that the strong offices are looked after and the weak ones sometimes get rolled. Every office can become strong and quite a few offices have become weak over the years. All that it takes is either a good rep , a bad manager or an injustice and you can start to get some unity within your office and start standing up to Royal Mail. Remember Royal Mail has the most centralised management sysetem ever , DOMs have conference calls twice per day , DSMs also have conference calls with their delivery directors twice per day , the Delivery directors have twice daily conference calls with their national bosses. No DOM can introduce a revision unless its been agreed by the DSM , Director and has gone through the ARK process ( financial ) so you see you Delivery Director has no flexibility to do a deal and therefore sometimes you have to say no and take it through the stages of the framework. That not only requires the Area Rep and Divisional Reps support but it requires the members in the office to support the local rep who is doing a differcult job.

[dvbuk55]

Well to some of us dingo it appears that above unit level, the union is some sort of gentlemans club.

You talk about unity but that is the last thing that this union has fostered. We have had an agreement where some have been paid lump sums and some have not, where some are working a 39 hour week and some are not, some where 1 in 4 and less Saturdays are worked and some where 1 in 6 is still in operation, some where D&M has been implemented and some, by far the majority, have not. You surely can't expect a cohesive union when everything points to a devil take the hindmost attitude.

Surely those who are paid to look after the members interest have a responsibility to see that there is a national standard from top to bottom of union representation, which is obviously not happening now.

[Martin Walsh]

Its very easy and it does sound very good to say that above unit level it looks like a gentlemens club but I would suggest the vast majoirity of people who are in those postions earned their medals fighting for the members. Most if not almost all started as a local rep and then got elected to a higher postion and stand for election every year and they do a good job under stressful conditions. If it was so easy then there would be a que for standing for those postions. Its not easy fighting managment daily , reprsenting members at appeals or dismissal interviews , helping members with harrassment claims , supporting local reps , dealing with MTSF , pay issues , resign issues , absorption issues and whole range of other problems.

Its very easy to throw stones at a distance and may be popular on a site like this but I would say the vast majority of reps do a good job. You might not agree with what they are doing in terms of policy but they believe in what they are doing and believe its in the best intrests and is either union policy or Branch policy. I also believe and always ensure whenever I do anything with regards to a disagreement that the local rep or a nominated indivdual from the unit is at the meeting and the resolution goes back to the members. Thats call accountablity.

Now you suggest that some are on 39 hours , some are doing 1=4 Saturdays and some are not. In addition some have delivery methods and some do not and you seem surprised by this. Well its based on revison activity and unless the union agreed everyone had to introduce a revision on the same day ( I could imagine the outcry now ) then this was always going to be the case.

Its not new , you seem to forget in 1988 when went from 43 hours down to 41.5 it was done on a local basis and some took over 2 years to introduce it. You seem to have forgotten that the introduction of 40 hour week under the way forward was done on exactly the same basis. In addition you seem to have forgotten when we went from 2 deliveries to 1 and we all recieved a basic pensionable pay increase of £26.28 and for the first time ever everyone could go from 6 day working to 5 in delieveries that it was also based on local activity. Oh and under pay and mod the lump sums were dependent on local agreements on the enablers before monies were paid.

So it is standard praticise and has been for over the life time of the CWU . UCW and the PWU.

[fishtank]

Now Fish I dont buy you statement that members believed the planners were right and thats why they agreed the revision.

That's maybe because it's not what i said but let's not let the truth get in the way.
I said management must have thought it would work.
I said that the planners must have thought it would work.
I assume the rep must have thought it would work.
I assume that the Area Rep must at least had a quick nose and thought it would work.
Whether the Divisional Rep or National Officers were aware of the revision is unlikely but i'm assuming if the Area Rep thought it was a potential disaster it would have been flagged up to them.
So my point is all of these checks and balances,some of them with intimate knowledge of both the office and the workings of the revision tools couldn't spot a disaster coming...but you still blame Joe the member for not spotting it.
That,if you don't mind me saying is...ridiculous.

[dvbuk55]

And once having "earned" those medals are determined to stay there, by hook or by crook and the old saying goes you're only as good as your last mistake. Now the 39 hour week, what was wrong with implementing the 39 hour week across the board on a given date - after all RM believed that there was hours to spare and so the odd one wouldn't have mattered. As for the history lesson, who needs to relive the mistakes of the past? And the £26 you are so fond of quoting wasn't all new money, most of it was money already in the pay packet, a bit like the delivery supplement this time round. The five day week - now as I recall it the amount of mail was increasing and something had to be done to increase the time spent on delivery and that was the solution.

In all honesty dingo can you say that Area and Div reps do enough to engender the spirit of unity is strength? As I say I've probably seen one or the other twice in 22 years and the vast majority of my office wouldn't know either whether members or not, of which 40% are not! There's good money to be had for the glitterati if only anyone could be bothered to recruit on a serious basis and put forward a compelling reason to be included. Sort of moving forward rather than harp on about past glories.

I wait with bated breath as to what the result of the talks will be mid January but judging from the results of the last few rounds I would imagine that RM will be rolling out the new procedures by February.

[maisymoo04]

prof driver grade my god havnt heard so much crap in all my life.prob still a shower of lazy postman joke

[Martin Walsh]

Dvbuk spin all you like but the facts are that the £26.28 pay rise was new money. Only those offices who had either a PBS or ICS bonus had 5.28 of it go torwards the £26.28 rise. Now that is the truth and the vast majority of offices did not have ICS or PBS money. Again the Union had been argueing for a 5 day week for decades. Since 1987 some offices went to a 5 day week but the majoirty still were on 6 day weeks and the CWU sercured this in the talks. It had nothing to do with longer delivey spans as the maxium for urban deliveries under that deal was 3.5 and plenty of offices went to a wallington system and kept to a 6 day week but with a one week off in 6.

The reason why the agreement stated that you went to a 39 hour week on the intregrated revison is that was based on a revision of duties. Not every office has done an intregrated revision and in term of profesional drivers they will not be getting a shorter working week just an extra 2% pay rise. Mail Centres staff will get their hour off in two stages and part timers will simply get a 2% pay increase.

It is dispointing that you have not seen you area rep in 22 years but there are over 140 area delivery reps and I know many who do their best to reprsent the members including helping that distressed member who has lost his job , or is facing losing their job, or is being harrassed by management , taken off his delivery for cutting off , or the member who has had his pay stopped because he has failed to contact management when off sick and the rep gets his pay restored or another dozen other incidents where if it was not for a union then that member would have no hope.

The CWU know where there are membership problems and your in an area where there is one and that is hopefully going to be tackled early in the new year. Other areas are at 85% and some at over 90%. In my view there should be another Check Off in the CWU. Yes it was an anti trade union law but it meant that reps had to meet with members in order to get them to resign into paying their union subs from their wages which meant dialogue at every office. Each time the CWU had to do this they recuirted members. Labour repealled the law in 1997 but the CWU should still conduct a similar campaign.

[Martin Walsh]

Fish sorry if I mis quoted you but you have done a similar thing to me.

For the record the DSM , planner and DOM will think a revision is going to work regardless that is what they are being told told to do by more senior mangement.

I dont blame the members but I do ask if they believed it will not work why have they voted to accept the revision. Equally I would be more critical of the rep , area rep and Branch if they knew a revision would not work why have they allowed it to be introduced. I know some offices and we have all been there where some members may say " if management think that is going to work let them put it in " and yes it fails and some offices and members enjoy the chaos which sometimes means unlimited overtime and casuals to help the walks. But some dont like it and some members get harrass by managers who are themselves under pressure to make the office work.

I dont mind blaming Headquarters but I do believe that the union must not begin and end at 150 the Broadway and the union can only be strong if we in every Branch ensure that we only put in revisions which we believe will work and produce the benefits for the members and have the members support.

[Martin Walsh]

prof driver grade my god havnt heard so much crap in all my life.prob still a shower of lazy postman joke

Maisy are you saying there is not professional Drivers Grade and what is your point ?

[fishtank]

The senior members in a unit might have known a disaster was coming but they are to a certain extent protected from the worst of an office failing.
I would doubt the majority of junior members had a clue what was coming.
They may not have cared but that's a more worrying sign,they may have placed too much trust in those implementing it or they may have been...encouraged by one side or threatened by the other and i know that was the case with a neighbouring D.O. but i cannot see an office deliberately implementing an integrated revision to watch it fail.

[dvbuk55]

Dingo I don't doubt for one minute that there are areas who have reps of exceptional quality, people who try their level best and I am heartened by some unit reps who post on here who obviously should hold more senior roles and I hope that they do try to get elected; however I have seen at first hand how the branch manipulates elections to exclude good reps from being elected beyond unit level. When I started the union had to OK your employment and actively sought to engage each recruit and get them to join. The union has failed in my opinion in making sure that representation is as good as it should be spending too much time chattering instead of visiting units on a regular basis to speak to the grass roots and seeing first hand the problems that arise. It is little good spending time in a room with managers who will put forward a compelling case for x,y or z without the insight into exactly what is involved and being able to counter those proposals.

I call one of my son in laws "gunner" because he is always "gunner" do this or that, the will is there but the application isn't and that is pretty much like the unions attempt to modernise, recruit and fully engage the grass roots into negotiations that affect their working life.

[Martin Walsh]

Fish I often find that the reserve postmen and women know more about the walks than a senior person who may have been on a walk for god knows how many years. Now you make an intresting point about trusting one side and threatened by another side.

However most on here have said from day one that the agreement is viewed by the majority of delivery postmen and women as rubbish and that the union is viewed in a similar fashion. Why then have they trusted the union or indeed felt threatened enough to accept something they feel is rubbish ?

Look I think in a union which is as big as ours there is different priorities in different areas. For example I know from the reports in the North East that their aim in the first round of revisions was maximise full time jobs and have not concentrated on improved attendances. Whereas in the Anglia area they have as they have not got as many part time jobs.

You see a lot talk highly about the RMT and Bob Crow but the RMT is strong in London and not so strong outside. There are not many disputes which take place in the RMT outside of London even thou they have half of their total members working outside London.

You see the union has always had different geography differences. For example the standard of pay for a postmen and women is quite high is some parts of the country and seen as a well paid job whereas in others it is not. Of course in these recession a job is a luxury and many should not forget that as there are plenty of young people who may not work for a decade.

[fishtank]

Fish I often find that the reserve postmen and women know more about the walks than a senior person who may have been on a walk for god knows how many years.

I agree but they seldom feel confident enough to make those views heard at office meetings and are often shouted down and made to feel small by some senior members.
If it was up to me i would mostly use the input of reserves in duty planning as you tend to get a more honest view of the duty but we both know that office politics makes that difficult.

However most on here have said from day one that the agreement is viewed by the majority of delivery postmen and women as rubbish and that the union is viewed in a similar fashion. Why then have they trusted the union or indeed felt threatened enough to accept something they feel is rubbish ?

I think/hope most on here still trust their unit rep but the point is when you're faced with something as complex as this revision process,something you don't fully understand you have little choice but to place your trust in those that are supposed to understand it.
The unit i was referring to was directly threatened by both the Delivery Office Manager and the Area Rep that if they didn't accept the revision as it stood they would most likely lose their Sequence slot to another D.O. and have to move to even later starts.
This is a fact not an internet rumour.
The members obviously panicked and voted it in....the worry of later starts and family commitments overriding any fears that it was rubbish.

Look I think in a union which is as big as ours there is different priorities in different areas. For example I know from the reports in the North East that their aim in the first round of revisions was maximise full time jobs and have not concentrated on improved attendances. Whereas in the Anglia area they have as they have not got as many part time jobs.

Who decided those priorities?...not the members.
This is another case of union priorities overriding member priorities.
The union likes to promote local agreements and they are a handy tool for deflecting the blame when things go wrong but it has to be one thing or the other.
Local decisions have to be in the best interests of the local members...with no interference from Branch other than to offer assistance when required and ensure they are working within national guidelines
If Areas want to have a particular agenda it should first be debated and all of the members in that Area should be balloted.

You see the union has always had different geography differences.

Yes we have but like all "differences" it's up to the union to ensure to the best of it's ability that this does not have a negative impact on representation at all levels.
The union and it's officials certainly should never promote or be seen to promote disparity and inequality.

[fishtank]

So the upshot was a....draw.

It is recognised that some Professional Drivers MGV Grade perform an element of delivery work in their duty time. In such cases, these individuals will now be eligible to receive the delivery supplement to basic pay

MGV Drivers will get the delivery supplement but only if they perform an element of delivery work within their contracted hours.
It does beg the question though if being tagged to a delivery office is no longer enough and you have to actually deliver something...why is that not the case across the board?
Of course the easy thing for Royal Mail to do now that they have clarification is make sure MGV drivers don't perform an element of delivery work within their contracted hours...oops.