No union has agreed to change and modernisation more than the CWU . We had agreements in place like " The Pathway to Change'. Proper agreements for change and modernisation which Royal Mail simply tore up .
The crux of the argument that will not go away is "did we/the Union break this agreement by taking industrial action when we swore not to?"
Were the Union solely instrumental in triggering this whole sorry episode of industrial strife by breaking their promise In this agreement.
Was the 2% rise part of the last agreement the Union signed?
This subject of breaking a no strike clause really needs to be brought to the surface and discussed.
It brings into question strong words like trust and faith.
I am an OPG Union man by the way and not a manager.
Thanks.
Also interesting in this. Didnt breaking the no strike clause literally make it open season on the t and c's? I am not very informed on all of this so happy to be corrected
Absolutely, nor am I but let's get down to business, was the 2% in a previous agreement?
The third year of a previous agreement that gave us a 2% rise?
Included in this agreement was a no strike clause?
They didn't agree to a no strike deal under any circumstances, can't remember the exact wording of it but they didn't agree unequivocally. That would be giving RM the nod to do as they pleased without any resistance. I'm sure dingo/Martin Walsh can clear that one up.
The union executive knew when we voted to have strike action it was gambling with previous agreements.i voted yes at the time but didn’t really understand the implications or consequences of the no strike agreement.Would I have still voted the same way ? That’s a hard one to answer.There is no doubt a lot of hardship money wise and mental health issues have arisen from the dispute.Royal Mail obviously had their own agenda but the unions job was to get as a good a deal as they possibly could within that framework.Now nobody really has a clue what is a good deal.A complete mess really.
The union executive knew when we voted to have strike action it was gambling with previous agreements.i voted yes at the time but didn’t really understand the implications or consequences of the no strike agreement.Would I have still voted the same way ? That’s a hard one to answer.There is no doubt a lot of hardship money wise and mental health issues have arisen from the dispute.Royal Mail obviously had their own agenda but the unions job was to get as a good a deal as they possibly could within that framework.Now nobody really has a clue what is a good deal.A complete mess really.
Yep.
The fact of the matter is we all voted yes so responsibility lies squarely on our heads but were we given the full facts?
Was the 2% part of a previous deal?
They didn't agree to a no strike deal under any circumstances, can't remember the exact wording of it but they didn't agree unequivocally. That would be giving RM the nod to do as they pleased without any resistance. I'm sure dingo/Martin Walsh can clear that one up.
So you agree they agreed a no strike deal in some form of words but not unequivocally??
It's been said many times that if letters including advertising ,flat items, bills were declining to the extent RM have claimed for the last 15 years there wouldn't be any
Only to people who can't do basic maths.
Exactly. You could have a 50% decline in letters every yr for 15 yrs and we'd still have letters. Ok, not many but it would never be zero.
It's ridiculous how much post people still get in this day and age.
I personally get barely anything, but a lot of households on my round get as much in 4 days as I get in a year. Some households getting 5 letters a day, day-in day-out.
It's ridiculous how much post people still get in this day and age.
I personally get barely anything, but a lot of households on my round get as much in 4 days as I get in a year. Some households getting 5 letters a day, day-in day-out.
It's ridiculous how much post people still get in this day and age.
I personally get barely anything, but a lot of households on my round get as much in 4 days as I get in a year. Some households getting 5 letters a day, day-in day-out.
No union has agreed to change and modernisation more than the CWU . We had agreements in place like " The Pathway to Change'. Proper agreements for change and modernisation which Royal Mail simply tore up .
The crux of the argument that will not go away is "did we/the Union break this agreement by taking industrial action when we swore not to?"
Were the Union solely instrumental in triggering this whole sorry episode of industrial strife by breaking their promise In this agreement.
Was the 2% rise part of the last agreement the Union signed?
This subject of breaking a no strike clause really needs to be brought to the surface and discussed.
It brings into question strong words like trust and faith.
I am an OPG Union man by the way and not a manager.
Thanks.
It was only 'after' the management tore up every agreement did we go on strike . Basically there was no longer any agreement left in place to break.
The first ballot (Pay Claim) allowed Royal Mail to tear up tear up legal protections in the Agenda for Growth with the no-strike clause. It was the CWU who are guilty of a breach of contract, not Royal Mail.
Once the CWU breached that, the no-strike clause, Royal Mail went Nuclear with attacking terms and conditions, knowing the CWU could not take them to the civil court for breach of contract.
10.4.3 in the event that the Company believes on reasonable grounds that any part of the business to which a Protection applies has ceased to be, or is likely to cease being, financially sustainable;
Even if we hadn’t took part in industrial action they would have just used the above clause to tear up the agreement using their claims of a million pound a day losses and the future of the company being at risk as justification.
Does anyone seriously think they wouldn’t have done? Or that they would have stuck to the MTSF agreement if we hadn’t taken strike action?
10.4.3 in the event that the Company believes on reasonable grounds that any part of the business to which a Protection applies has ceased to be, or is likely to cease being, financially sustainable;
Even if we hadn’t took part in industrial action they would have just used the above clause to tear up the agreement using their claims of a million pound a day losses and the future of the company being at risk as justification.
Does anyone seriously think they wouldn’t have done? Or that they would have stuck to the MTSF agreement if we hadn’t taken strike action?
We can say 'whats ifs' or 'do we really think' all we want. Fact is the Pay ballot opened up the t and c's and RM took it.
No union has agreed to change and modernisation more than the CWU . We had agreements in place like " The Pathway to Change'. Proper agreements for change and modernisation which Royal Mail simply tore up .
The crux of the argument that will not go away is "did we/the Union break this agreement by taking industrial action when we swore not to?"
Were the Union solely instrumental in triggering this whole sorry episode of industrial strife by breaking their promise In this agreement.
Was the 2% rise part of the last agreement the Union signed?
This subject of breaking a no strike clause really needs to be brought to the surface and discussed.
It brings into question strong words like trust and faith.
I am an OPG Union man by the way and not a manager.
Thanks.
It was only 'after' the management tore up every agreement did we go on strike . Basically there was no longer any agreement left in place to break.
You're redeemed.