LTB : national negotiation disclaimer

[Ahebban]

Letter to Branches




No. 057/10 Ref:24209 Date: 18th January 2010



TO: ALL BRANCHES WITH POSTAL MEMBERS


Dear Colleague,

RE: National Negotiations

We have been made aware that a communication is circulating in the name of the Postal Executive claiming to outline the current state of play in national negotiations.

The purpose of this LTB is to make it clear this is not a CWU HQ communication and does not have the authority of the Postal Executive.

The CWU, alongside Royal Mail, have signed into an independent process supported by Roger Poole, the independent Chair, and ACAS. Whilst we would wish to communicate more fully on detailed progress in national negotiations, all parties have accepted that we need to retain confidentiality apart from where it has been agreed within the process to issue information.

It has been clear from the outset that any final agreement will be shaped around the key principles contained in the interim agreement. This remains the case. Currently, both parties are fully committed to negotiations concluding by the 22nd January 2010.

Yours sincerely



Dave Ward Martin Collins
Deputy General Secretary (P) Assistant Secretary

Ray Ellis Bob Gibson
Assistant Secretary Assistant Secretary

Terry Pullinger
Assistant Secretary

[dvbuk55]

What a difference a day makes - or two in this case. The outstanding problems of longer Saturdays and D2Ds then must not be an issue - although I hear a rumour that we will be asked to go to agreement blind on this subject. As for the rewards package - still to be decided? If those issues are still causing problems after 3 months of negotiating then they are going to have to be bloody brilliant to solve them in 2 days. Having said that, two weeks holiday at Christmas couldn't have helped, then the bad weather kept them from getting a taxi for a couple of miles .................. hey ho life's hard.

[fishtank]

What the hell is going on?
Does this refer to the PEC report update posted on friday by Lovejoy?
What a shambles.

[Glenno]

A bit of Left Hand Right Hand me thinks!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Big Daz]

Peter K's reports have been coming out most months for a few years now, if they are a problem surley the powers that be would have asked him to refrain before now.

His reports are just his personal take on the PEC/NEC meetings, they should not be taken as a offical authorised CWU Communication.

At least three members of the Labour party NEC do what PK does with CWU NEC meetings and like the CWU the Labour party does not put the offical minutes of thier meetings into the public domain. Of course I could be totally wrong and somebody will come along and shoot me down in flames.

[The truth!]

Remember a number of senior managers look on this site.

So what Lovejoy put up was indeed Pete Keenyside`s own personal view of what is happening in the talks. However he titled it Postal Executive Report which gives the impression thats its a collective report. It was not !!

Unlike a number of other postal executive members who are actually in the negotations , Peter is not . So apart from reports at the PEC is not in full view of the facts.

The Unions LTB simply clarifies what has been agreed with Roger Poole in that it will not break the confidentiality clause which has been signed up to by all parties.

However all parties are committed to using this week to try and tie down an agreement but the issues of Saturdays , Door 2 Door and of course the benefits are still to be resolved and the union is not willing to fudge these issues and if it takes longer than the 22nd to get an acceptable agreement then so be it. Better the right agreement than a rushed agreement.

[Big Daz]

And how long do we give RM to move their position on those issues before puttting the issues agreed and unagreed to the vote?

The time for talking is ending, the time for members to have thier say is beginning, lets hope HQ realise!!!!!

[fishtank]

And how long do we give RM to move their position on those issues before puttting the issues agreed and unagreed to the vote?

The time for talking is ending, the time for members to have thier say is beginning, lets hope HQ realise!!!!!

Agreed...But..
The time for talking is also beginning.
It is time the union let us know exactly where we stand.
Some units appear to be moving forward with changes already.Some area reps appear to support this.
Is this the national position?
If not let us know before the damage is done.Time for an LTB perhaps?

[RoyalQuest]

Remember a number of senior managers look on this site.

So what Lovejoy put up was indeed Pete Keenyside`s own personal view of what is happening in the talks. However he titled it Postal Executive Report which gives the impression thats its a collective report. It was not !!

Unlike a number of other postal executive members who are actually in the negotations , Peter is not . So apart from reports at the PEC is not in full view of the facts.

The Unions LTB simply clarifies what has been agreed with Roger Poole in that it will not break the confidentiality clause which has been signed up to by all parties.

However all parties are committed to using this week to try and tie down an agreement but the issues of Saturdays , Door 2 Door and of course the benefits are still to be resolved and the union is not willing to fudge these issues and if it takes longer than the 22nd to get an acceptable agreement then so be it. Better the right agreement than a rushed agreement.

No chance of a rushed agreement, i bet it takes a couple of hours to decide on tea or coffee . It's a JOKE!!!! I think we need a clearout at the top of the union, a fresh start! On the 22nd we will have nothing, just an extension, AGAIN!!!!

[The truth!]

Totally disagree with you , what we need is an agreement which is right and if it takes an extra week then I think the members will accept that

If after this ,all our negotatiors believe that no more can be achieved then , yes put it out to the membership with either a recommendation for acceptance or rejection.

Anyone who has been involved in high level negotations in the past know that one move from either side can sometimes result in a domino effect thereby an agreement can be realised.

What do the members get by us simply walking away from the talks now. Yes everyone wants a deal now , but we are in a strong positon in many ways unlike some previously thought that Royal Mail were just waiting to ger Christmas out of the way and then was going to tell the union to sod off , instead they have openly told Roger Poole that they want an agreement.

Hopefully an agreement will be reached this week which is acceptable to the membership. But dont be surprised if after all this that the union decide that the benefits on offer are not enough and therefore recommend rejection. Equally be in no doubt whatsoever if the deal is right they will recommend it to the membership and be willing to front up the deal including putting the arguement on why the issues should be resolved locally and why the option of longer spans need to decided by your own unit based on where your office is to the walk seqencing machine and based on whether you want to maximise full time jobs.

Equally as unpopular as door to door is to some , what other company or union for that matter turns down work ? The fact is that not all offices now recieve 3 items per week , but it is a growing market and whatever the noise is around traffic recording no-one can deny the fact due to down stream access the work in your mail bag is signifcantly less in value then it use to be. Our members are not to blame but its a fact all the same.

Door to Door into workload will mean that Royal Mail will not only have to recongise that it will assist in protecting jobs and will cost them, ( they are already working out a formula ) but it will also cost them twice as they will be paying a delivery supplement for delivering door to door work which means you will be paid twice for the delivery of that work.

Those who claim they are going to quit the CWU if longer spans are agreed or door to door into workload , where have you been !! Door to Door into workload with no loss of pay has been union policy for over 16 years. There can no longer be a fudge on this issue , can you imagine any ship yard , car plant or factory say no we dont want extra work. Once its in your workload it helps to protect your job , providing your not chasing time then why would you not want it. At the moment the belief that the most market share the union can win in the short terms is 5 items in some high profile areas but in the long term hopefully more.

Equally when you lose time on your prep by walk seqencing then putting in door to door into workload will then assist.

Now with regards to longer spans , well under any agreement it wont say any office has to do longer spans . Instead it will say that delivery spans will be down to your office to determine based on local knowledge, the effects of delivery methods , standards, workload., the effects of walk seqencing and most importantly the members opinions in your office.

The impact of the workplan change once you see it will shock you and may then change your opinion. Who knows !!

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Totally disagree with you , what we need is an agreement which is right and if it takes an extra week then I think the members will accept that

As would I - but boy it had better be a good one for the sacrifices made by some, and the continuing ones by others.

Equally as unpopular as door to door is to some , what other company or union for that matter turns down work ? The fact is that not all offices now recieve 3 items per week , but it is a growing market and whatever the noise is around traffic recording no-one can deny the fact due to down stream access the work in your mail bag is significantly less in value then it use to be. Our members are not to blame but its a fact all the same.

As long as the Extra work is recognised and not fudged then I have no problems with extra D2Ds, but make sure all the issues surrounding this issue are taken into account. Such as weight on delivery, extra bag drops for walking posties, absorption, cover duty responsibility, proper recording, weight limits/ basically all the things that IMHO were not covered enough in the original agreement.

Those who claim they are going to quit the CWU if longer spans are agreed or door to door into workload , where have you been !! Door to Door into workload with no loss of pay has been union policy for over 16 years. There can no longer be a fudge on this issue , can you imagine any ship yard , car plant or factory say no we dont want extra work. Once its in your workload it helps to protect your job , providing your not chasing time then why would you not want it. At the moment the belief that the most market share the union can win in the short terms is 5 items in some high profile areas but in the long term hopefully more.

Most people are not worried about the extra workload or even longer delivery spans - what they are worried about is yet another fudged agreement left up to local reps to sort out. What we need is a template that has to be adhered to before longer delivery spans are even taken on in an office- why - because most of us are not chasing our time - the problem in most DOs is not finishing early but being put under pressure to work over.

Equally when you lose time on your prep by walk sequencing then putting in door to door into workload will then assist.

Then it MUST be in the new agreement so that managers cant use their present tricks abot being paid extra so it does not count in the prep and we should do it in our own time. This is not true yet they still try it on so make it clear in any agreement.

Now with regards to longer spans , well under any agreement it wont say any office has to do longer spans . Instead it will say that delivery spans will be down to your office to determine based on local knowledge, the effects of delivery methods , standards, workload., the effects of walk sequencing and most importantly the members opinions in your office.

Sorry does that mean if we don't accept longer spans and opt for shorter hours contracts then the Management cannot EA the longer spans in. Can't see it somehow.

The impact of the workplan change once you see it will shock you and may then change your opinion. Who knows !!

Well let us see it the Chinese whispers at unit level is getting beyond a joke - We just need something from the CWU to say how the talks are going. No position statements, no leaks, just a basic - are we doing well or is it going to pot. Nature abhors a vacuum and will do anything to fill it - well the vacuum of communication from both RM and the CWU is starting to cause problems than it will be able to solve. Just my opinion of course

[Lincox]

Can you explain in more detail how we will be paid twice for D2Ds work. If it is amalgamated into our hourly rate, then I cannot see RM paying a supplement on top.

[dvbuk55]

What is the truth? Or more to the point who is the truth - he seems to be more informed and to be suggesting more than the report by PK.

There does seem to be an acceptance by the truth that extra D2Ds are something we can't wait for, longer delivery spans and longer Saturdays are something we have been hoping Santa will put in the sack and that local negotiation is a wondrous tool that solves each and every issue. Well the truth is IT DOESN'T and it HASN'T we have had two years of "local" negotiation and it has been a disaster resulting in where we are now.

We don't want a Caesar washing his hands we want a decisive agreement which is NATIONAL.

[Big Daz]

Who is The Truth?

Thats obvious, Dingo is no more but being a timelord has regenerated into The Truth

[fishtank]

What is the truth? Or more to the point who is the truth - he seems to be more informed and to be suggesting more than the report by PK.

There does seem to be an acceptance by the truth that extra D2Ds are something we can't wait for, longer delivery spans and longer Saturdays are something we have been hoping Santa will put in the sack and that local negotiation is a wondrous tool that solves each and every issue. Well the truth is IT DOESN'T and it HASN'T we have had two years of "local" negotiation and it has been a disaster resulting in where we are now.

We don't want a Caesar washing his hands we want a decisive agreement which is NATIONAL.

It would appear that this agreement is simply there to rubberstamp changes that are already going ahead in many offices.
The question is will RM call a halt to these changes if the membership reject the agreement or there is no agreement at all.
In my opinion and going by past history this is unlikely.
So what we may have achieved is Executive Action by "interim agreement".
Tough action is required by HQ not hand washing nor indeed hand wringing.