Update to members following injunction decision

geordieboy123 · Post by **geordieboy123** » 14 Oct 2017, 17:46

daveyeff wrote:search ralph ferret. the video ''route ownership'' is in there. sorry don't think its a link. but the video will open your eyes to their crap. obviously the management sheep and deluded union 'anti-christ's' will reject it. but its a pre-cursor to their plans for us. if you can't find it mebbies teebs will guide you to it.

Yeah I've seen the video but I can't recall it being in the company proposals and I certainly can't find it

LaggyBand · Post by **LaggyBand** » 14 Oct 2017, 20:40

fishtank wrote:1. Everyone's pension is under attack, I've seen our pension reduced about 4 times now and every time another chunk is taken away for some daft reason people think that will be the last, it won't. If we let them they'll reduce our pensions to the bare minimum across the board, DC scheme included.

2. There is no pay rise on offer, just a lump sum that would only become a pay rise if certain conditions are met, conditions that RM don't have a cat in hell's chance of even coming close to.

3. The only reason RM don't use compulsory redundancy is because we as a union won't let them, we have an agreement to no compulsory redundancy in every deal, we don't have a deal or any guarantees beyond next year. The scale of change proposed is huge, the redundancies will be large scale, you do the maths.

4. Owning the workload doesn't mean working the hours you're paid, they already have an agreement to do that (p&m 2007 ), they just don't enforce it. What they want from owning the workload is sick absence cover, annualised hours and total flexibility on daily contracted hours. You go to work in the morning and have no idea what time you'll be finished, it will depend on the workload and who couldn't be arsed coming into work that day.

5. Bullying and harassment hasn't even started yet, see point 4 but your position is typically selfish and typically short sighted, you'll probably grow out of it.

The changes coming and the implications on delivery staff will turn your little world upside down Chris, you just don't realise it yet but at the end of the day the union isn't in a position to accept a deal because there isn't even a deal on the table, just a series of proposals that may or may not form part of any future deal.

I'm convinced you're totally correct.

But does it necessarily have to come to a grizzly end? IF the members continue to support the union by striking, AND the union simply reject all offers falling short of an actual 'good' deal - one that you yourself would actually consider good - how can they lose?

UnhappyGremlin · Post by **UnhappyGremlin** » 14 Oct 2017, 23:20

LaggyBand wrote:
fishtank wrote:1. Everyone's pension is under attack, I've seen our pension reduced about 4 times now and every time another chunk is taken away for some daft reason people think that will be the last, it won't. If we let them they'll reduce our pensions to the bare minimum across the board, DC scheme included.

2. There is no pay rise on offer, just a lump sum that would only become a pay rise if certain conditions are met, conditions that RM don't have a cat in hell's chance of even coming close to.

3. The only reason RM don't use compulsory redundancy is because we as a union won't let them, we have an agreement to no compulsory redundancy in every deal, we don't have a deal or any guarantees beyond next year. The scale of change proposed is huge, the redundancies will be large scale, you do the maths.

4. Owning the workload doesn't mean working the hours you're paid, they already have an agreement to do that (p&m 2007 ), they just don't enforce it. What they want from owning the workload is sick absence cover, annualised hours and total flexibility on daily contracted hours. You go to work in the morning and have no idea what time you'll be finished, it will depend on the workload and who couldn't be arsed coming into work that day.

5. Bullying and harassment hasn't even started yet, see point 4 but your position is typically selfish and typically short sighted, you'll probably grow out of it.

The changes coming and the implications on delivery staff will turn your little world upside down Chris, you just don't realise it yet but at the end of the day the union isn't in a position to accept a deal because there isn't even a deal on the table, just a series of proposals that may or may not form part of any future deal.
I'm convinced you're totally correct.

But does it necessarily have to come to a grizzly end? IF the members continue to support the union by striking, AND the union simply reject all offers falling short of an actual 'good' deal - one that you yourself would actually consider good - how can they lose?

Apathy. Staff willing to accept being shafted because they can't be bothered to fight.
Or don't care to.
Who will then blame the union for their failures.
Rather than there own failure to support the CWU and fight for what's right.

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 14 Oct 2017, 23:54

who do you's believe,... the Royal Mail,,,, or the union....its a simple choice.?? personally, I cudnt give A/F...I know who's on our side.

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 15 Oct 2017, 00:58

geordieboy123 wrote:
daveyeff wrote:search ralph ferret. the video ''route ownership'' is in there. sorry don't think its a link. but the video will open your eyes to their crap. obviously the management sheep and deluded union 'anti-christ's' will reject it. but its a pre-cursor to their plans for us. if you can't find it mebbies teebs will guide you to it.
Yeah I've seen the video but I can't recall it being in the company proposals and I certainly can't find it

Here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMo-TE6DhWc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

geordieboy123 · Post by **geordieboy123** » 15 Oct 2017, 08:38

k979aaa wrote:
geordieboy123 wrote:
daveyeff wrote:search ralph ferret. the video ''route ownership'' is in there. sorry don't think its a link. but the video will open your eyes to their crap. obviously the management sheep and deluded union 'anti-christ's' will reject it. but its a pre-cursor to their plans for us. if you can't find it mebbies teebs will guide you to it.
Yeah I've seen the video but I can't recall it being in the company proposals and I certainly can't find it
Here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMo-TE6DhWc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks but I would like to be directed to an actual document from either RM or the union which gives details of the scheme because I just don't recall it being proposed

UrbanPirate · Post by **UrbanPirate** » 15 Oct 2017, 09:16

geordieboy123 wrote:
k979aaa wrote:
geordieboy123 wrote:
daveyeff wrote:search ralph ferret. the video ''route ownership'' is in there. sorry don't think its a link. but the video will open your eyes to their crap. obviously the management sheep and deluded union 'anti-christ's' will reject it. but its a pre-cursor to their plans for us. if you can't find it mebbies teebs will guide you to it.
Yeah I've seen the video but I can't recall it being in the company proposals and I certainly can't find it
Here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMo-TE6DhWc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thanks but I would like to be directed to an actual document from either RM or the union which gives details of the scheme because I just don't recall it being proposed

I too would like to see that document. As I also dont remember it being proposed other than from union reps and this board. Much like the apparent breach of the "agreement" on RM's behalf. No evidence was ever put forward from the people who spoke about these breaches the most. Just conjecture.

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 15 Oct 2017, 09:47

The gory details are in an 8 page letter from Mike Newby outlining the business position, I'm not going to dig it out for you, it's on the site. For a guy with a lot of opinions you don't really do much research Urban.

UrbanPirate · Post by **UrbanPirate** » 15 Oct 2017, 09:58

fishtank wrote:The gory details are in an 8 page letter from Mike Newby outlining the business position, I'm not going to dig it out for you, it's on the site. For a guy with a lot of opinions you don't really do much research Urban.

That 8 page letter does not mention owning the workload/route ownership.

UrbanPirate · Post by **UrbanPirate** » 15 Oct 2017, 09:59

UrbanPirate wrote:
fishtank wrote:The gory details are in an 8 page letter from Mike Newby outlining the business position, I'm not going to dig it out for you, it's on the site. For a guy with a lot of opinions you don't really do much research Urban.
That 8 page letter does not mention owning the workload/route ownership.

As fishtank didnt want to take the 2 seconds it took me to find it, here it is.

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/letter.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 15 Oct 2017, 10:00

UrbanPirate wrote:
fishtank wrote:The gory details are in an 8 page letter from Mike Newby outlining the business position, I'm not going to dig it out for you, it's on the site. For a guy with a lot of opinions you don't really do much research Urban.
That 8 page letter does not mention owning the workload/route ownership.

No it mentions route ownership, do you want to explain to me the difference?

UrbanPirate · Post by **UrbanPirate** » 15 Oct 2017, 10:03

fishtank wrote:
UrbanPirate wrote:
fishtank wrote:The gory details are in an 8 page letter from Mike Newby outlining the business position, I'm not going to dig it out for you, it's on the site. For a guy with a lot of opinions you don't really do much research Urban.
That 8 page letter does not mention owning the workload/route ownership.
No it mentions route ownership, do you want to explain to me the difference?

What page is that on? I must have missed it

chrisj · Post by **chrisj** » 15 Oct 2017, 10:21

Seriously, I do not think RM will be able to manage route own worship a la franchising. It is hard enough getting the work completed under the current system.

If the USO goes and RM abandons letters altogether then that is a different kettle of fish.

It is too soon for that doom and gloom.

The bottom-line is that we do not know precisely how it will work; getting the job done on a variable/annualised hours will be tough for a lot of people but it will come eventually...

Pipeline changes is up to the company. Job losses, maybe but paying people VR is not exactly cheap so the idea that RM do not do IVR is neither here or there.

Someone mentioned that the changes to come will turn my world upside down but then the person does not know what I do now or before. All in all, it will still be better than the dole or working for an agency; my memory of those is not that long ago... And if it gets too much - then I leave...

There is bullying and harassment in most walks of life; even sexual harassment; as in the news about Hollywood. But there are procedures that are not adhered to by RM and not seriously pursued by CWU.

The accusations of selfishness is kicked back because I did say that the bullying and harassment is enabled mostly by the seniors/privileged and by people not doing the job properly (alright Jack's); and the bullying and harassment I experience the most is from colleagues - some even bully junior managers (the untouchables).

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 15 Oct 2017, 10:43

You're not a fighter Chris, we get that. You're an "oh well it could be worse, better get on with it then" kind of guy. You know your place, that's cool. You'll get through life just fine not making waves , not making any enemies. It's the quiet life and it suits some people to leave the fighting to others but....The reason you think this job is better than the dole and better than agency work is because we don't all leave the fighting to others.

geordieboy123 · Post by **geordieboy123** » 15 Oct 2017, 11:25

UrbanPirate wrote:
fishtank wrote:
UrbanPirate wrote:
fishtank wrote:The gory details are in an 8 page letter from Mike Newby outlining the business position, I'm not going to dig it out for you, it's on the site. For a guy with a lot of opinions you don't really do much research Urban.
That 8 page letter does not mention owning the workload/route ownership.
No it mentions route ownership, do you want to explain to me the difference?
What page is that on? I must have missed it

It's the last paragraph on page 2 but it doesn't give details of what they actually want,so,is it officially defined somewhere please?