What now

[Halfhappy]

Sadly I have to agree. I’d say there is a 95% chance of the union trying to sell us the garbage deal that they rejected before xmas(with some minor tweaks). Get ready for some nauseating Facebook live sessions of Webb Ward and Furey back slapping each other and falling over themselves in self congratulations over the amazing job they have done.

95% based on what exactly? Up to now the entire offer has been catagorically rejected. The union has not budged on this. What on earth would a minor tweak look like to make any of it acceptable?

[Halfhappy]

They had better hurry up and make up their mind ,they are bringing in the changes to sick pay as we speak,was told saturday you must have a sick note or positive covid test result from day 1 of sickness or we won't be paid,we keep getting told they can't do it but they are,losing deliveries in the resign,told its not with union agreement but they are doing it,by the time the end of February comes it could of changed forever and will never go back,the strikes need to start asap or else we are done for.

All the strikes so far have,nt stopped them what makes you think more strikes will.

Where its true, it would seem that RM are going ahead with imposing unagreed change, I really don't find it surprising. I think this is very much a tactic to demoralise and make employee's efforts feel futile. This doesn't mean that strikes are having no effect, or any of the unagreed changes can't be replaced with agreed changes. It's probably the long-term disruption and uncertainty that will be caused for the business, and it's customers, that will ultimately get an acceptable agreement. At some point RM are going to have to reach some sort of compromise, they can't run an business, under a cloud of disruption with an uncooperative workforce. There's really little else, as employees, we can do. It's either roll over, or withdraw your labour in protest, and try to force the employer to an acceptable compromise. The former leaves us and relying on the employer's goodwill, that there will be no more erosion of jobs, terms and security. The latter is reliant on large, undiminishing support from the members. That's really it. I know there's other forms of IA, that's a debate in itself.

When all these un agreed chances fail will management still blame us when it's completely their own s**t show.

I'm sure that's rhetorical but, just in case it's not, of course they will. The s**t show will probably become another convenient excuse to cut and chop at something else.

[postslippete]

This may be a stupid idea - but maybe there should be an annual charge for each household that wants post delivered each year. Even if it's just £5 for the whole year, that's 32million addresses x 5 = £160million. In return Royal Mail have to maintain the 6 day service and employ enough staff to do so.

But it feels to me like Royal Mail don't deserve this as this dispute and the loss of money each day is either down to mismanagement or it's been orchestrated.

If it was/is genuine that the USO was no longer financially viable then an annual fee per household to put towards maintaining the service could possibly resolve everything. I think most people would pay a fiver or tenner each year. The alternative would be that they get no deliveries and their mail would be returned to sender or maybe they can collect it for a £1 charge each time.


Service is maintained to keep us all in jobs.
Service is maintained for the public.
Service is maintained for businesses.
Royal Mail make £160million+ to cover costs.


Instead of reducing the USO - maintain it with an annual customer fee.

Do you think the public really want to pay for receiving all that crap that we post? All them pizza leaflets and farm foods junk. Royal Mail could potentially lose a lot of business this way. The public are not considered to be our customers. So if one of our customers wants to send something via the post and they can't because the recipient won't pay Royal Mail an annual charge to send it to them, then we will lose business! We lose business, we lose jobs. Surely its far easier for Royal Mail to just bump up the price of postage by 10% like they did last year if they wanted to get more revenue in.

[Chitchat]

This may be a stupid idea - but maybe there should be an annual charge for each household that wants post delivered each year. Even if it's just £5 for the whole year, that's 32million addresses x 5 = £160million. In return Royal Mail have to maintain the 6 day service and employ enough staff to do so.

But it feels to me like Royal Mail don't deserve this as this dispute and the loss of money each day is either down to mismanagement or it's been orchestrated.

If it was/is genuine that the USO was no longer financially viable then an annual fee per household to put towards maintaining the service could possibly resolve everything. I think most people would pay a fiver or tenner each year. The alternative would be that they get no deliveries and their mail would be returned to sender or maybe they can collect it for a £1 charge each time.


Service is maintained to keep us all in jobs.
Service is maintained for the public.
Service is maintained for businesses.
Royal Mail make £160million+ to cover costs.


Instead of reducing the USO - maintain it with an annual customer fee.

Do you think the public really want to pay for receiving all that crap that we post? All them pizza leaflets and farm foods junk. Royal Mail could potentially lose a lot of business this way. The public are not considered to be our customers. So if one of our customers wants to send something via the post and they can't because the recipient won't pay Royal Mail an annual charge to send it to them, then we will lose business! We lose business, we lose jobs. Surely its far easier for Royal Mail to just bump up the price of postage by 10% like they did last year if they wanted to get more revenue in.

I reckon if the government want a USO then the government need to cover the loses through subsidizing.