The CWU and the 'Warchest' - explanation needed

[Acca Dacca]

I have just received an email from the CWU once again mentioning how we stood up against Royal Mail and 'their warchest'

When asked what this warchest is, we have been told that it is a credit facility that can only be accessed when the business has stability and an agreement with the union......the same union that are claiming the warchest is there to be used to errmm beat the union


We are being told by the same union that there is a real threat of RM going into administration if there is no agreement yet at the same time being told there is a warchest

Which is it? Because it cant be both. Either RM did, and still does, have access to the money which they could use to try and 'beat us' or they can only access the money if we have already made an agreement with them....in which case why are the CWU/RM mentioning it as a union busting warchest? It wouldnt be a union busting warchest if it is a warchest that only an agreement with the union provides access to it.

Is it really wise for the CWU to mention a billion pound 'warchest' in their leaflets whilst at the same time telling us if we dont get this agreement, there will be no money and administration is inevitable?

It looks to me like they are all over the place

And before someone says ''they can only get the money if there is an agreement'' thats fair enough if thats true, but then why pretend that the credit facility could ever have been used to beat us before an agreement then?

[postieblueshirt]

It's all made up crap big boy words during the dispute.All done n dusted now we will be down to a 5 day letter service soon games a bogey.

[portadown]

Monday to Friday on its way for letters with large parcels and anything that will not fit a letter box put on a parcels run

[jahbalon]

Monday to Friday on its way for letters with large parcels and anything that will not fit a letter box put on a parcels run

Well what else do you expect ?
The letter post is dead, in the dead box. You can't fight change, only adapt to it.

[LouBarlow]

Monday to Friday on its way for letters with large parcels and anything that will not fit a letter box put on a parcels run

Well what else do you expect ?
The letter post is dead, in the dead box. You can't fight change, only adapt to it.

Ain’t that the truth. I’ve still got over 50% of my door to doors to do this week. On a Thursday. Less than half of my calls have had a single item of mail this week. This is why the company is changing.

[Woody Guthrie]

Which is it? Because it cant be both.

Yes it can.
If you put yourself in the shoes of a credit lending facility there are two ways to bring financial stability to a company and ensure it gets its money back.

1. Agree a solution with the workforce.
2. Impose a solution on the workforce.

They don't particularly care which it is or which one you spend the money on as long as it's one or the other.

[postslippete]

The CWU are all over the place. They are using every means possible to get their members to vote yes - even though what they are saying clearly doesn't make any sense.


So I will clarify. Royal Mail is sitting on retained earnings of £3.8 billion and has access to £1.7 billion liquidity - regardless of whether or not they have an agreement. Put simply, there is money there.

[timbo1234]

The CWU are all over the place. They are using every means possible to get their members to vote yes - even though what they are saying clearly doesn't make any sense.


So I will clarify. Royal Mail is sitting on retained earnings of £3.8 billion and has access to £1.7 billion liquidity - regardless of whether or not they have an agreement. Put simply, there is money there.

The term war chest was was first used in an article written by a union bashing , right wing tory journalist in the Telegraph some time ago now.
He later admitted it was taken out of context and it was not correct. It followed an interview with the RM chairman. RM denied ever saying it. No company has £1.7bn just sitting in the bank . It's money it could access to invest provided the company is stable and in RMs case has an agreed business recovery plan. CWU and the TUC both latched onto the article to defend unions as a whole. It was an intimidation threat started by the right wing Tory gutter press.

[Acca Dacca]

Which is it? Because it cant be both.

Yes it can.
If you put yourself in the shoes of a credit lending facility there are two ways to bring financial stability to a company and ensure it gets its money back.

1. Agree a solution with the workforce.
2. Impose a solution on the workforce.

They don't particularly care which it is or which one you spend the money on as long as it's one or the other.

you’ve missed the point

If the credit facility could only be accessed by having a solution then it doesn’t make sense for the union to be telling us we “stood up against RM and their warchest”

Either they had/have a warchest or they don’t which is it?

If they can only access it by either getting an agreement or having already imposed all the solutions on us - then it’s not a “warchest” they ever had to use against us whilst the dispute was ongoing given neither of those have happened yet

They are wanting their cake and eating it - putting out there wording that suggests we stood up against a heavily bankrolled powerful Royal Mail to support one line of motivation whilst at the same time telling us Royal Mail are in the doldrums and at risk of going out of business to suit another

[richietns]

Which is it? Because it cant be both.

Yes it can.
If you put yourself in the shoes of a credit lending facility there are two ways to bring financial stability to a company and ensure it gets its money back.

1. Agree a solution with the workforce.
2. Impose a solution on the workforce.

They don't particularly care which it is or which one you spend the money on as long as it's one or the other.

you’ve missed the point

If the credit facility could only be accessed by having a solution then it doesn’t make sense for the union to be telling us we “stood up against RM and their warchest”

Either they had/have a warchest or they don’t which is it?

If they can only access it by either getting an agreement or having already imposed all the solutions on us - then it’s not a “warchest” they ever had to use against us whilst the dispute was ongoing given neither of those have happened yet

They are wanting their cake and eating it - putting out there wording that suggests we stood up against a heavily bankrolled powerful Royal Mail to support one line of motivation whilst at the same time telling us Royal Mail are in the doldrums and at risk of going out of business to suit another

It was just used as ammo to drum up support for the strikes etc its called propaganda seems your making a mountain out of a mole hill.

[Woody Guthrie]

If they can only access it by either getting an agreement or having already imposed all the solutions on us - then it’s not a “warchest” they ever had to use against us whilst the dispute was ongoing given neither of those have happened yet

I think it's you who's missing the point.

There was no caveat that the solution had to be imposed first, only that the decision on which direction had to be taken.

The money could be used to implement a solution either way and since the imposition route does not require months of negotiation had the business decided to break off discussions with the union at any point during the dispute and forge their own path that "war chest" would have been made available at that point.

Only an agreed solution would require the dispute to be over first before access to the money became available.

An imposed solution obviously would not have.

[Ad_bee]

The 'warchest' probably refers to the 'syndicated bank loan facility' and/or Covid Corporate
Financing Facility (CCFF) both of which would bear ESG covenants. 'Warchest' is just the big-boy talk.

https://www.royalmail.com/sites/royalma ... tation.pdf
S&P investment grade rating of BBB stable
outlook
• On 8 October 2019, Royal Mail issued a
€550m bond with maturity date of 8
October 2026
• An amended £925m syndicated bank loan
facility replaced the existing £1,050m
syndicated bank loan facility in September
2019 with an end date of 2024
• Covenants waived until March 2022 –
replaced by minimum liquidity covenant,
tested quarterly7
• Secured access to Covid Corporate
Financing Facility (CCFF)
• Net debt increased by £832m largely due
to leases capitalised under IFRS 16 and
dividend paid offset by free cash flow

https://find-and-update.company-informa ... ng-history >
Full accounts made up to 27 March 2022 >
liquidity risk

"In October 2021 the Bank Syndicate Loan Facility was extended by one year to September 2026. There are no further extension options to the agreement. The unused comitted facilities of the company at 27-3-22 of £925 expire in 2026 (2020-21 £925 million expiring in 2025)."

Furthermore in the above filing is an ESG report which is probably linked to the T's&C's of the Bank Syndicate Loan Facility and which really, really are binding for Royal Mail. Within, they extoll the benefits of working with the unions.

[Acca Dacca]

If they can only access it by either getting an agreement or having already imposed all the solutions on us - then it’s not a “warchest” they ever had to use against us whilst the dispute was ongoing given neither of those have happened yet

I think it's you who's missing the point.

There was no caveat that the solution had to be imposed first, only that the decision on which direction had to be taken.

The money could be used to implement a solution either way and since the imposition route does not require months of negotiation had the business decided to break off discussions with the union at any point during the dispute and forge their own path that "war chest" would have been made available at that point.

Only an agreed solution would require the dispute to be over first before access to the money became available.

An imposed solution obviously would not have.

And you are missing the point that the union are telling us without this agreement the company is likely to go bust

Now we are to believe without the agreement the company can implement their changes using a war chest credit facility of billions

and also go bust?

[Woody Guthrie]

Without the agreement the company could go bust.
With the agreement the company could go bust.

The union obviously believe that the agreement gives the business the best chance of avoiding that scenario and that imposition would not solve its problems.

Is that such a ridiculous position to take?

The war chest is irrelevant to both scenarios, it's debt.

[Acca Dacca]

Could and likely are two different things

I could win the lottery tomorrow, I’m not likely to