Understanding the magnitude of this agreement

[BernardBresslaw]

so if we are to sort out all problems on our own now what exactly will the top brass be doing in the cwu?

If they have any sense checking the job ads.
I can't really see much need for them now,we have our protections and we have to fight our own battles,Royal Mail will basically impose a pay settlement in 2016 because well,what are we going to do about it?...ballot the members on whether they want to lose their protections for a better deal?
The only upside is Royal Mail have stated in their corporate responsibility aims for next year that they will target the poorest performing areas for "improvement" and I've seen the figures and I know where that is so...good luck with that local union number 0001.

The only reason I remain a member is because I want the support of my rep on a day to day basis, to ensure that, if workloads are too high, I can cut-off and know I have some backing. I see nothing in the agreement to tackle the grass roots problems in delivery offices, in regards unmanageable workloads, so I will continue to be a member to cover my own arse.

If you think about it, it is in the unions best interest to leave delivery offices in such a volatile state, as if everything was harmonious between management and staff, there would be no bloody need for them! No wonder they continue to blindly ignore problems on a local level.

[banddy]

can someone explain the part of the [proposed] new agreement - regarding the scheduled attendance payments 6 weeks during periods of annual leave etc ????

via PM please?

[musicmaniax]

Although this is such a big deal our department have only passed around the 2 page courier newsflash and no meetings because it's too busy to get us together to discuss any of it. So people are only being shown one side and then only the positives.

[gashead-postie]

all this talk though but no mention about delivery workloads

dingo even you don't want to talk about it ?

[cloherty1976]

can someone explain the part of the [proposed] new agreement - regarding the scheduled attendance payments 6 weeks during periods of annual leave etc ????

via PM please?

Can someone clarify for me as I work for network and I get 6 weeks leave will I get the 6 weeks payments or will i remain on 4 weeks payments. To clarify I have done more than 20 years to get my 6 weeks leave?Reading the agreement I read it like we won't but still not 100% sure. It's like the Xmas bonus which we never got but we did get the last £100..

[knackeredjointsRUS]

Dvbuk you stated you would vote no before you even saw the agreement let alone understood it. Quite frankly you enjoy life on this board as someone similar to victor meldrew where everyone else is to blame !

make fun all you want but the troops on the ground have nothing in common with the top brass in the cwu anymore! They havent got a clue what the problems are! We are paid fine! Just treated like s**t! Do something about that & come back with a post worth reading!

I get more stick in here then most ! Now I will be meeting about 50 offices over the next few weeks mostly delivery offices as I did getting the yes vote ! How many have you been too recently or do you get all your info from here? You see offices are different and not all suffer from the same problems the CWU as part of the review will visit 60 offices in a week joint visits from all round the uk including where there are no rep and will find out the problems and then look at resolving them.

Tell me your alternative if you want this agreement rejected ?

who cares about you "visiting offices"?? Stay there for a pissing month in each one & then see what you think! When you were a child & the headteacher walked in the classroom did you ever notice everyone behaved? same thing with managers when union reps come into a delivery office! Dont act stupid as you are clearly not! the problems in delivery cannot be patched up with a £200 bribe! Ill give you an alternative: read some of the grievances & b&h cases over the country & how they are dealt with & get that sorted! there's a start!

Well said

[fishtank]

I'm afraid that the level of local,branch,area and divisional representation across the country is patchy at best and abysmal in some areas.
If I was setting up a taskforce to review the problems in delivery I think I would sort that problem out first otherwise the whole thing will be a farcical waste of everybody's time.

Do we really expect these people to admit that they have been doing a piss poor job of representing their members?

[dvbuk55]

I'm afraid that the level of local,branch,area and divisional representation across the country is patchy at best and abysmal in some areas.
If I was setting up a taskforce to review the problems in delivery I think I would sort that problem out first otherwise the whole thing will be a farcical waste of everybody's time.

Do we really expect these people to admit that they have been doing a piss poor job of representing their members?

And why should they? Their masters at 150 Broadway don't, together with their sycophantic hangers on, it's a question of monkey see monkey do I'm afraid

[TrueBlueTerrier]

@ Himaggen - It was not for dismissals: Just plain mismanagement: Overtime repaid and a huge legal bill for the employer.

In terms of dismissals - Never lost an appeal!

Food for thought?

Do you want to give use the many ET case numbers then?

That would kind of blow any anonymity he may be trying to protect out of the water.

[arsenalbob]

This job aint that bad. Managers telling people what to do and for ever trying to get you to do more aint really bullying, it's their job and has happened from day dot. It's how you respond to it that matters.It's humorous having some twat barking orders at you when you know and he knows that if he spoke to you like that out of work you would stick one on him and blow him out in bubbles No, i've had hard jobs in my younger days but this aint one of 'em. Some of you northern members think of your fathers and grandfathers down the mines ffs

[stephen500]

Whilst I fully understand that people will read this agreement and make an opinion on whats in the words or their interpretation of whats in the words.

Let's be clear there is no union in the UK who has after priviatisation decided to force the employer to agree legal protections against the normal impact from privisation. Why do the RMT have so many ballots ? Cause they deal with so many franchises who all want to do the work cheaper.

Now what most of you do not know is that alongside the 36 page national agreement and 8 page agreement on pensions is a 23 page legal contract.

When I first read this agreement and the legal contract I had dozens of questions and clarification I wanted.

Ivan Walker who was the CWU lawyer helped explain some of the detail.

This is the first major legally binding agreement in the UK. What some need to understand is that the legally binding contract is not with employees but with the CWU.

Some of the approaches in the contact are standard. But the legally binding part now makes for the first time the IR framework legally enforceable.

So if a manager decides to say to the local rep we are introducing something next week say a revision , later starts , reduction in your TM1 you can say you don't agree and it has to go through the IR framework and it cannot be introdued by executive action. If you still cannot agree at stage 3 then it will go to a mediator who will try and make recommendations which are not complusory. If you still cannot reach an agreement then the CWU can take strike action and employer can take executive action. Hardly a no strike deal.

If management attempt to by pass the it framework the union can seek an high court injunction as Royal Mail will be in breach of the legally binding terms of the IR framework.

Plus let's look at the flash point / early warning procduce so this is when management say that this will be introduced as it is non negotiatable then this can be to the div reps and senior management to resolve or take to mediation.

Plus the agreement for the first time recognises that unofficial action should fall under the mediation process. Only a couple of years ago any office taking unofficial action had the punishment charter put on them removing all local agreements and changing work practices on their return from UIA. Now they will be treated by any other office with mediation.

Now let's look at what most of you are claiming is a no strike deal and what is known as exceptional circumstances, well let's deal with each

A) if Royal Mail were to cease to be the USO provider if would be because the company was on its last legs and is inconcievable.
B) if the legal protections were saying that the company was in breach of law by contuing them. Well Royal Mail would have to prove that it was in court as the CWU would take them as part of our armoury.
C) again if a part of the company was in financial trouble they would also have to demonstrate this in court.
D ) if off comm proposed something which the business claim they could not again sustain the legal protections they would have to prove this in court.
E) now let's look at what has been agreed it does not state that we cannot ballot , it says action which has been authorised at national level. Let's be clear here if you look at the cultural change section and industrial stability part of the agreement and the programe of work we will know well in advance whether the principles of this agreement is working and if it's not then. Quite frankly why would we bother being worried about them withdrawing the legal protections cause when we get any deal we would want the legal protections back.

Now let's look at the amount of national ballots we have had since 1971, there was the 1988 dras dispute , the 1996 employee agenda , the 2003 pay and major change , in 2007 pay and mod , in 2009 business transformation and in 2013 agenda for growth ,stability and long term success .

What is the common link to the national disputes ? Yes it's pay there has never been a national dispute without a pay rise or pay rises attached. This agreement has 3 year deal. I cannot see any problems at least for the first 3 years.

The choice is are you better off with the legal protections which stop the break up of the company , stops franchising , stop outsourcing and stops a 2 tier workforce or do you want to vote no on the basis of the basis you want to not have a get out clause if we call strike action.

You can't have both the business will not agree the legal protections and not have a right to review it if we take national strike action.

If you are voting no on that basis get it right you are voting not to have any legal protections.

There will be reps briefings on the agreement hopefully with legal support.

We have to weigh up the benefits of increased pay, including back pay and increased SA holiday payments, pension improvements for the new pension, legal protections for terms and conditions set against clauses that could end our protections. Such as the end of Universal service and a Cwu led national strike.
Although the question to be raised is why, before 2019 would we strike?
Our pay improvements are among the best in the UK.
The main problem appears to be deliveries.
If Royal Mail continue to pressure postman on deliveries, then I can see problems in the future. However if this improves then strife will be limited.
At Mail centres, staffing levels or the lack of, appears to be the main issue.
There are further weaknesses such as the Mtsf only being extended to 2015.
None of us know, by how much Rm may reduce head count by or whether over a period of time our overtime may reduce.
But you could say this about any industry.
So on balance and this is my OWN personal opinion, I will probably vote yes.
Bearing in mind I plan to leave the business no later then the 31st Jan 2020 and hopefully Dec 2019. Five Christmas's to go!
For those planing a longer stint, who knows what RM will look like in 2030.
Good luck.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

This job aint that bad. Managers telling people what to do and for ever trying to get you to do more aint really bullying, it's their job and has happened from day dot. It's how you respond to it that matters.It's humorous having some twat barking orders at you when you know and he knows that if he spoke to you like that out of work you would stick one on him and blow him out in bubbles No, i've had hard jobs in my younger days but this aint one of 'em. Some of you northern members think of your fathers and grandfathers down the mines ffs

What about the ex-miners doing the job now. We have some in my office and they wish they were back down t'pit.

Also whilst I agree with some of your point

Managers telling people what to do and for ever trying to get you to do more aint really bullying, it's their job and has happened from day dot.

it isn't what they are trying to do that is bullying its the methods they use, the constant questioning of your ability despite years of untainted service, their method of using other workers as an example when they know they are not doing the job in the correct manner etc etc.

However, its not the local managers that are to blame its the culture and lack of formal training and that comes from the centre. For instance the failure to adhere to agreements, the failure to understand them, the complete lack of even the most cursory understanding of employment law, the complete lack of knowledge of their obligations under H&S laws, the inability to generate a team mentality and approach (in fact the exact opposite), the lack of even the most basic people skills. The list is endless but it is easily sorted, have some type of formal training before promotion to a management position with a defined goal at the end of it. The odd 1 day release to attend a tick box briefing/course, with in house guidance by an over pressurised DOMs and equally poorly trained managers is not going to sort it.

[BernardBresslaw]

To be fair, we should take equal blame, as if the people cutting up jobs by working improperly, used the proper equipment, and worked to the guidelines, within their set hours, then managers wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

We are our own worst enemy.

[seaside]

To be fair, we should take equal blame, as if the people cutting up jobs by working improperly, used the proper equipment, and worked to the guidelines, within their set hours, then managers wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

We are our own worst enemy.

This should be put on a notice board in every office,

[tasam]

To be fair, we should take equal blame, as if the people cutting up jobs by working improperly, used the proper equipment, and worked to the guidelines, within their set hours, then managers wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

We are our own worst enemy.

We all know that the fastest way to bring RM to its knees is to do the job how they say it should be done using the designated equipment.

Either the overtime bill would rocket or the backlog of undelivered items would stretch to the moon - either way things would change.

Running around, cutting corners etc just hides the real problems so management can continue to live in happy-land.