Cumbernauld delivery office: How the CWU is enforcing Royal Mail’s USO reform pilots

[stage3]

You are really trying to ram your agenda down our throats.
You attempt to get people to join your cause by browbeating anyone who dares to question what you believe.
These are real people, with real jobs, real mortgages and bills and you think by doing what the company does to us is going to attract us to your cause!
Where do i sign up!!!!!
Look i am sure you are all reasonable people deep down, but really you can't think this is the way forward.
Have a meeting and try a different approach, or keep doing the same and failing miserably.

The latest is that the PWRFC is proposing unofficial action or wildcat strikes to stop the pilots. Where is this said in any PWRFC statement which has been put out on the pilot or in this article ?

After the reporting of the CWU rep ''blocking'' the workers motion to not participate in the trials, and advising that going further with it would likely lead to dismissal the article then states

''The Postal Workers Rank and File Committee (PWRFC) has called for workplace meetings to halt the pilots ''

The intention is pretty clear.

If not proposing unofficial action, then how would the pilots be halted? What would the purpose of these meetings be then?

Whether deliberate or not you have misquoted the article. It says "Those who were present say the CWU workplace rep suppressed the motion, insisting the meeting could not discuss it or put it to a vote. The rep claimed the motion would lead to his sacking by management! The same worker said, “The motion put forward what the CWU should be doing if it was really addressing our concerns and standing up for our jobs and the mail service. What’s the point of being in a union if we don’t even have the right to debate or vote on a motion, or oppose attacks on our terms and conditions? Thousands of jobs are on the line across Royal Mail…”

What you are saying is a meeting of members can't discuss or agree a motion, how undemocratic is that? Its "unofficial" because its the members. Who is the union the members or the officials?

[Acca Dacca]

You are really trying to ram your agenda down our throats.
You attempt to get people to join your cause by browbeating anyone who dares to question what you believe.
These are real people, with real jobs, real mortgages and bills and you think by doing what the company does to us is going to attract us to your cause!
Where do i sign up!!!!!
Look i am sure you are all reasonable people deep down, but really you can't think this is the way forward.
Have a meeting and try a different approach, or keep doing the same and failing miserably.

The latest is that the PWRFC is proposing unofficial action or wildcat strikes to stop the pilots. Where is this said in any PWRFC statement which has been put out on the pilot or in this article ?

After the reporting of the CWU rep ''blocking'' the workers motion to not participate in the trials, and advising that going further with it would likely lead to dismissal the article then states

''The Postal Workers Rank and File Committee (PWRFC) has called for workplace meetings to halt the pilots ''

The intention is pretty clear.

If not proposing unofficial action, then how would the pilots be halted? What would the purpose of these meetings be then?

Whether deliberate or not you have misquoted the article. It says "Those who were present say the CWU workplace rep suppressed the motion, insisting the meeting could not discuss it or put it to a vote. The rep claimed the motion would lead to his sacking by management! The same worker said, “The motion put forward what the CWU should be doing if it was really addressing our concerns and standing up for our jobs and the mail service. What’s the point of being in a union if we don’t even have the right to debate or vote on a motion, or oppose attacks on our terms and conditions? Thousands of jobs are on the line across Royal Mail…”

What you are saying is a meeting of members can't discuss or agree a motion, how undemocratic is that? Its "unofficial" because its the members. Who is the union the members or the officials?

You havent answered my questions regarding the intention of the meeting to ''halt the pilots'' and how that would be achieved without unofficial action

As for misquoting the article, the article says;

Having blocked the motion, the CWU rep appealed to members that by taking part in the pilot, they could prove it was “unworkable.”'

Where have I mis spoke?

It states both that the CWU blocked the motion to not participate in the trials ( which would unofficial action ) and also calls for workplace meetings to ''halt the trials''

Its pretty clear that its encouraging unofficial action.

If it isnt, like I asked previously, how would the trials be halted otherwise?

[stage3]

You are really trying to ram your agenda down our throats.
You attempt to get people to join your cause by browbeating anyone who dares to question what you believe.
These are real people, with real jobs, real mortgages and bills and you think by doing what the company does to us is going to attract us to your cause!
Where do i sign up!!!!!
Look i am sure you are all reasonable people deep down, but really you can't think this is the way forward.
Have a meeting and try a different approach, or keep doing the same and failing miserably.

The latest is that the PWRFC is proposing unofficial action or wildcat strikes to stop the pilots. Where is this said in any PWRFC statement which has been put out on the pilot or in this article ?

After the reporting of the CWU rep ''blocking'' the workers motion to not participate in the trials, and advising that going further with it would likely lead to dismissal the article then states

''The Postal Workers Rank and File Committee (PWRFC) has called for workplace meetings to halt the pilots ''

The intention is pretty clear.

If not proposing unofficial action, then how would the pilots be halted? What would the purpose of these meetings be then?

Whether deliberate or not you have misquoted the article. It says "Those who were present say the CWU workplace rep suppressed the motion, insisting the meeting could not discuss it or put it to a vote. The rep claimed the motion would lead to his sacking by management! The same worker said, “The motion put forward what the CWU should be doing if it was really addressing our concerns and standing up for our jobs and the mail service. What’s the point of being in a union if we don’t even have the right to debate or vote on a motion, or oppose attacks on our terms and conditions? Thousands of jobs are on the line across Royal Mail…”

What you are saying is a meeting of members can't discuss or agree a motion, how undemocratic is that? Its "unofficial" because its the members. Who is the union the members or the officials?

You havent answered my questions regarding the intention of the meeting to ''halt the pilots'' and how that would be achieved without unofficial action

As for misquoting the article, the article says;

Having blocked the motion, the CWU rep appealed to members that by taking part in the pilot, they could prove it was “unworkable.”'

Where have I mis spoke?

It states both that the CWU blocked the motion to not participate in the trials ( which would unofficial action ) and also calls for workplace meetings to ''halt the trials''

Its pretty clear that its encouraging unofficial action.

If it isnt, like I asked previously, how would the trials be halted otherwise?

I clearly pointed out how you misquoted the article. From your reply you equate a motion which could be debated and voted on by members not to be co-opted onto the pilot as "unofficial action" ,so members cannot decide anything. That could have provided an example to all the other 36 delivery offices and Royal Mail would not be able to continue with the fraud this based on consent through the TOR signed by Martin Walsh and management behind their backs. And the rep argued that members should be drafted into a trial which he admitted was "unworkable" e.g- failure of the mail and impossible workloads. Brilliant.

[postslippete]

It is up to the members to decide what type of industrial action they would support including ASOS but unlike 2022/3 this would be under their control and the resources built up used to mobilise a fight not support the six figure salaries of those selling out their jobs and T&C's.

When you and tramssir talk about workers setting up their own committees, meeting together and what type of industrial action including ASOS (action short of a strike) they can take; once again these actions are only legal if it is official. That means that it is endorsed by the CWU and has followed a lawful ballot process.

The CWU clearly have no intentions of doing this and without it effectively means that this is classed as "unofficial action" and who really wants to risk their jobs when RM in the past wanted to rightsize the business and any guarantees for no compulsory redundancies only lasts until next year. The ideology, rhetoric and hyperbole that you put into your articles is great but there is absolutely no logic for us in carrying it out.

[moon71]

Make no mistake, the employer refuses to negotiate our inflated terms and conditions. They broke the strike and that's how it ended. And so did my mentality.

If your not happy, go find something better. It's just a job.

And if you think the package is acceptable, stick with it.

Now I can understand the frustrations but at the end of the day you clock in clock out. If your that unhappy find something better. And so many do this.

But thinking the PWRFC can change the union and ask for more takes us straight back to the confrontation that we lost.

I striked at christmas 2022, when the wife was made redundant, whilst gas electric jumped up 250 quid. And it changed me.

Thinking a coffee club of moaners will change my terms and conditions is just dreaming, more likely they'll make my Ts an Cs worse.

What's better is supporting a successful business with more contracts, higher mailing and more work. That way the business is healthier an able to reward greater rewards to workers. But you don't want this, you want a bloated, slow business with less work because we want more for less.

And that is the crux.

BTW longest thread to date at least you have an audience.

[scotchy1962]

They really don't like to answer a question, numerous times you are asked how to stop the trials and all you do is answer a completely different question. No substance, no solution, just a lot of fresh air.
As i said why should people put their real jobs on the line for a fake union?
You do realise this is all real life and not some online game?

[Barnacle]

If they renamed themselves Coffee Club of Moaners’ they might attract more members

[Londonsburning]

Why are you wasting your time here? …There time is up.

You’re on about your good self, CarryingMgmnt, aren’t you? Busted! Truly busted! Adios, amigo! For now anyway. Look forward to your next username.

Why are you so obsessed with this so called carrying management? I would almost call it stalker behaviour lol

[Martin Walsh]

I will be in Cumbernauld meeting the members and supporting the local rep which has been disgracefully attacked in this article.

The CWU choose 34 out of the 37 pilot sites after consultation. There have been numerous members meetings and Tony Bouch has visited Cumbernauld and had a members meeting.

The problem is that your organisation has no responsibility at all and are free to shout from the comfort of your anonymous positions.

However the CWU have to respond to the reality of the situation
.

1. Ofcom have said in their latest position that the USO is financially unsustainable and is losing Royal Mail over 300 million pounds per year.

2. Reducing just a Saturday would only save circa £50 million per year.

3. In their consultation paper they lay out that if it is not the Optimised Delivery Model then legislation will be required to move Royal Mail to a 3 or 4 day USO.

So the current status quo of the USO is not going to remain. It is currently not working as we all know in terms of quality.

The World wide Socialist Group are calling for walks outs and rank and file disputes. They have hardly any members.

Any walks outs they won’t be in control off it will be the CWU who have to get the members a return to work solution.

For the record we are piloting the ODM in 37 sites to see if it achieves the overarching principles and will only reach an agreement on full USO development if the pilots achieve these overarching objectives.

Any final agreement on USO reform will be subject to an individual member ballot.

In terms of the Pilots only Newton Mearns have gone live. The issues with DTS and the Tops 2000 machine which was not deferring some Mail has now been reported as fixed.

Cumbernauld and Girvan are now planned to go live on 31st March.

However no one should be in any doubt that when an independent regulator says that the current USO is no longer financially sustainable that it will change.

The only options on the table are a speed of delivery option or 3 or 4 day USO which would mean job losses in every function on a much larger scale.

The CWU cannot afford and will not stick our head in the sand and allow USO reform to come in without either piloting it and shaping it so members will benefit from it.

Finally having Polls about having trust in the CWU where 380 people vote when we have 99 thousand members is not in any way a representation of our members thoughts.

I attend dozens of members meetings and the vast majority of them understand that change is going to come we have got to make that change the reset our members need in terms of workload, attendance patterns and restoring quality.

Following my attendance in Cumbernauld we will release a further communication including interviews with members within the unit.

The Truth will prevail.

I am fair game as I knew when I stood what I would face a local rep doing their best is not and we will support from any attack.

[Londonsburning]

Martin, what is your opinion on the poll about the CWU here on blueshirts? An 85% vote of no confidence is a damning indictment of how poorly the CWU go about their business if you ask me.

[Martin Walsh]

Neil 380 people voting is not representative of 99 thousand paying CWU members.

[Londonsburning]

Neil 380 people voting is not representative of 99 thousand paying CWU members.

Neil? Lol are you trying to doxx me? surely any poll is an accurate portrayal of the wider feeling of the people it represents, otherwise they are meaningless.

[Barnacle]

Neil 380 people voting is not representative of 99 thousand paying CWU members.

Neil? Lol are you trying to doxx me? surely any poll is an accurate portrayal of the wider feeling of the people it represents, otherwise they are meaningless.

A poll on this website, only tells you what a section if the users of this website thinks. It has no wider relevance.

[ted_e_bear]

Neil 380 people voting is not representative of 99 thousand paying CWU members.

Neil? Lol are you trying to doxx me? surely any poll is an accurate portrayal of the wider feeling of the people it represents, otherwise they are meaningless.

Who is Neil ?

Is it you ?

[BELIAL]

Neil 380 people voting is not representative of 99 thousand paying CWU members.

Just out of curiosity MW can you recall the number of votes that got you elected, and what was the membership total at that time?

Thanks in advance.