What we waiting for???

[Martin Walsh]

All agreements can be broken, remember we do not have legally binding agreements. Dvbuk when somethings says that the overarching objective the transformation agreements is to avoid compusory redundnacies that is means it the first priority of the agreement and comes before everything.

Now I know the union made it clear during the talks that the agreement would be dead if there were complusory redundnancies now both of those are significant.

[dvbuk55]

All agreements can be broken, remember we do not have legally binding agreements. Dvbuk when somethings says that the overarching objective the transformation agreements is to avoid compusory redundnacies that is means it the first priority of the agreement and comes before everything.

Now I know the union made it clear during the talks that the agreement would be dead if there were complusory redundnancies now both of those are significant.

There's the rub dingo, when the agreement says that the overarching objective is to avoid compulsory redundancies it does NOT mean it is a first priority and comes before everything, had it meant that, then why not simply say that. Now you know the union made it clear that compulsory redundancies would kill the agreement BUT the agreement does not say that - what the union considered to be the meaning of the wording is simply not an agreed issue by both parties. The union were warned often enough that the words are the words and what the agreement would be upheld to. You and the CWU may consider the two matters of some significance but both ACAS and the TUC were party to the negotiations as well and as I recall there was some toing and froing on reaching a decision as to the exact wording of the agreement to be agreed by both parties. Perhaps there should have been a little bit more attention paid to the exact wording and a little less to the sentiment.

[rockytony67]

Well rocky, like many on here, you see what you want to see and not the reality of the situation.

As for issues that should be addressed, bullying, harassment, unfair testing of established procedures, non involvement in planning, reneging on payment for revisions, ignoring weight off the shoulder issues, all agreed procedures which have been ignored - you will notice I have not mentioned compulsory redundancies rocky because that is in the agreement had anyone cared to read it.

Theres one big problem with your stance now your STATEMENT came in response to the National Briefing on the 29/3/11, not in response to the agreement, the thread on the National briefing is herehttp://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 42&t=35168

Now you say the only part of that briefing that you don't agree about strike action is colleague shares, so can you tell me what is on that thread that made you make your great STATEMENT

[whatamess!!]

A lot of stick has been given to dingo, but i do believe that he tries his best regardless. I was at the national briefing in london and dingo you sounded quite down and that CR's were going to happen regardless of what ever happens. I understand that members up north are pissed off, why didn't HQ give then the backing when all the s**t of redundancies happened, you may say that they went of there own free will but some were pushed, travelling 50 miles plus for some is not an option so this is pretty much cumpulsary redundancy. Now on revisions(delivery) the IWT does not work, it's time HQ pulled the plug on all revision and we look else where, how can they expect members who are having to put up with failed revision to say that they will go on strike?? These members face bullying managers on a daily basis. So Dingo all is not lost, yet. As long as HQ come out and show genuine support for members and strong action is taken, lets stop this now!! Let stop hearing about London, let's start speaking up about the failings as a hole from north to south so we can unite and fight before it's to late. In my local mail centre we have been told that ** have to go and we know that this is unachievable so CR's sound like they could be coming to us also, If I/A is called we will stand strong in my branch and will support, but we need more than CR 's are in London for members to gain confidence.

[Big Daz]

I notice in the courier RML are insiting CR can be avoided if OPGs are flexible, I quote from the courier We have stressed to the union and assured employees in London that we are confident we can acheive 751 job losses without CR if people show reasonable flexibilty as to where they will work

So what is reasonable flexibility from RML perspective and what do CWU reps and members in London to be reasonable flexibilty?

[dvbuk55]

Well rocky, like many on here, you see what you want to see and not the reality of the situation.

As for issues that should be addressed, bullying, harassment, unfair testing of established procedures, non involvement in planning, reneging on payment for revisions, ignoring weight off the shoulder issues, all agreed procedures which have been ignored - you will notice I have not mentioned compulsory redundancies rocky because that is in the agreement had anyone cared to read it.

Theres one big problem with your stance now your STATEMENT came in response to the National Briefing on the 29/3/11, not in response to the agreement, the thread on the National briefing is herehttp://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 42&t=35168

Now you say the only part of that briefing that you don't agree about strike action is colleague shares, so can you tell me what is on that thread that made you make your great STATEMENT

It really is quite simple rocky - the national briefing was to say that the CWU had been brought back into conflict with RM and the Government - well I don't believe we have ever been out of conflict over the issues we originally went on strike for and which the agreement did nothing to address - if the union took on RM over the issues which have never been addressed then I am all for it - as for being in conflict with the Government - the agreement was prior to the Tories being elected. The union needs to choose very very carefully on what issues a national ballot should be called if they hope to get universal support.

[Martin Walsh]

Daz what Royal Mail failed to inform people that at the same time they are closing the mail centres they have also removed the International Traffic from the Mount to HWDC which leaves a further 455 indivuduals without a job.

For ease of reference the fact is the the Mount goes down from 944 full time staff to just 410 , East London has 400 full time staff and there are only 69 full time jobs in Romford and South London has 600 full time staff and there are only 230 full jobs at Jubilee and Croydon. Those are the facts.

Now the flexibility that Royal Mail want is that you may have worked in the Mount for 30 years but you can be moved out to allow someone from East or South to move. Mail Centre closures normally work on the basis that you move with your work and you have first choice on this. The London plan is not like that and thats why it is wrong.

Royal Mail also have now said they want to do a one to one session with every employee in the mail centres we believe they have not got the numbers they want to from the VR exercise and now will try the godfather appoach of making indivduals no choice. Remember no jobs have been offered and no jobs are available so how comes Royal Mail have asked clear choice to conduct one to one interviews. Anyone who thinks this is not bullying people to go is not living in the real world remember none of these want VR.

[rockytony67]

Well rocky, like many on here, you see what you want to see and not the reality of the situation.

As for issues that should be addressed, bullying, harassment, unfair testing of established procedures, non involvement in planning, reneging on payment for revisions, ignoring weight off the shoulder issues, all agreed procedures which have been ignored - you will notice I have not mentioned compulsory redundancies rocky because that is in the agreement had anyone cared to read it.

Theres one big problem with your stance now your STATEMENT came in response to the National Briefing on the 29/3/11, not in response to the agreement, the thread on the National briefing is herehttp://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 42&t=35168

Now you say the only part of that briefing that you don't agree about strike action is colleague shares, so can you tell me what is on that thread that made you make your great STATEMENT

It really is quite simple rocky - the national briefing was to say that the CWU had been brought back into conflict with RM and the Government - well I don't believe we have ever been out of conflict over the issues we originally went on strike for and which the agreement did nothing to address - if the union took on RM over the issues which have never been addressed then I am all for it - as for being in conflict with the Government - the agreement was prior to the Tories being elected. The union needs to choose very very carefully on what issues a national ballot should be called if they hope to get universal support.

It might be simple to you but I've not got a clue what your on about the fact remains in response to the national briefing of 29/03/11 you made this STATEMENT

dvbuk55 wrote:I am the unions worst critic because I believe they should have been more proactive in dealing with RMs duplicitous management instead of the appeasement that has been evident for a number of years. That has weakened the unions position and it is now critical that they make a stand, not over colleague shares, but over the callous way that RM have treated its workers across the land. If the CWU call a ballot I will rejoin immediately I am certain that this time it's for real, no interim agreements, no lip service to terms and conditions but a concerted attack on what has became a vicious managerial structure.

So I ask you what was in the national briefing that made you make this STATEMENT by the way do you think people being made compulsory redundent is a CALLOUS WAY to treat it's workforce

[Big Daz]

http://www.clearchoicecareers.com/services.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That them dingo?

[dvbuk55]

Well rocky, like many on here, you see what you want to see and not the reality of the situation.

As for issues that should be addressed, bullying, harassment, unfair testing of established procedures, non involvement in planning, reneging on payment for revisions, ignoring weight off the shoulder issues, all agreed procedures which have been ignored - you will notice I have not mentioned compulsory redundancies rocky because that is in the agreement had anyone cared to read it.

Theres one big problem with your stance now your STATEMENT came in response to the National Briefing on the 29/3/11, not in response to the agreement, the thread on the National briefing is herehttp://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 42&t=35168

Now you say the only part of that briefing that you don't agree about strike action is colleague shares, so can you tell me what is on that thread that made you make your great STATEMENT

It really is quite simple rocky - the national briefing was to say that the CWU had been brought back into conflict with RM and the Government - well I don't believe we have ever been out of conflict over the issues we originally went on strike for and which the agreement did nothing to address - if the union took on RM over the issues which have never been addressed then I am all for it - as for being in conflict with the Government - the agreement was prior to the Tories being elected. The union needs to choose very very carefully on what issues a national ballot should be called if they hope to get universal support.

It might be simple to you but I've not got a clue what your on about the fact remains in response to the national briefing of 29/03/11 you made this STATEMENT

dvbuk55 wrote:I am the unions worst critic because I believe they should have been more proactive in dealing with RMs duplicitous management instead of the appeasement that has been evident for a number of years. That has weakened the unions position and it is now critical that they make a stand, not over colleague shares, but over the callous way that RM have treated its workers across the land. If the CWU call a ballot I will rejoin immediately I am certain that this time it's for real, no interim agreements, no lip service to terms and conditions but a concerted attack on what has became a vicious managerial structure.

So I ask you what was in the national briefing that made you make this STATEMENT by the way do you think people being made compulsory redundent is a CALLOUS WAY to treat it's workforce

You mean do I think RM are wrong to apply an agreed procedure - NO. My statement followed the national briefing because the CWU was in conflict with RM, the reasons they have for suddenly being in conflict are in my opinion suspect, considering the number of issues - including closures of MC, which have been allowed to continue. My suppport was dependent on the issues nationally - it was supposedly a national briefing but as usual.............

[rockytony67]

I've still not got a clue what your on about so again I ask you what was in the national briefing that made you make your STATEMENT 31/03/11

dvbuk55 wrote:I am the unions worst critic because I believe they should have been more proactive in dealing with RMs duplicitous management instead of the appeasement that has been evident for a number of years. That has weakened the unions position and it is now critical that they make a stand, not over colleague shares, but over the callous way that RM have treated its workers across the land. If the CWU call a ballot I will rejoin immediately I am certain that this time it's for real, no interim agreements, no lip service to terms and conditions but a concerted attack on what has became a vicious managerial structure.

so come on put some meat on the bones

and I like this one from dvbuk55 "My statement followed the national briefing because the CWU was in conflict with RM, the reasons they have for suddenly being in conflict are in my opinion suspect, considering the number of issues - including closures of MC, which have been allowed to continue." So when did you discover they were suspect before or after your great STATEMENT : keep up the good work dvbuk55

[fishtank]

How about you give us your position rocky instead of simply hyjacking this thread to continue the rocky vs dvb nonsense.
How do you feel about the position the union finds itself in?

[rockytony67]

How about you give us your position rocky instead of simply hyjacking this thread to continue the rocky vs dvb nonsense.
How do you feel about the position the union finds itself in?

Oh look who's turned up his minder if I want to put up my opinion I will, dvb put up his and i'm just asking him to explan his change in postion you got a problem with that

[fishtank]

Oh look who's turned up his minder

More childish abuse rocky....how surprising.

if I want to put up my opinion I will,

If you don't have one...just say.

dvb put up his and i'm just asking him to explan his change in postion

He explained his position....several times....it's just that you don't like it...tough s**t...grow up.

you got a problem with that

Of course i have...your hijacking threads because you have a personal issue with another member....why don't you just pm him with the issues you have and stop trying to be the internet hard man....it's quite pathetic really.

[rockytony67]

Oh look who's turned up his minder

More childish abuse rocky....how surprising.

if I want to put up my opinion I will,

If you don't have one...just say.

dvb put up his and i'm just asking him to explan his change in postion

He explained his position....several times....it's just that you don't like it...tough s**t...grow up.

you got a problem with that

Of course i have...your hijacking threads because you have a personal issue with another member....why don't you just pm him with the issues you have and stop trying to be the internet hard man....it's quite pathetic really.

No I'm pointing out the inconsistencies in his posts that is all and that people should take what he say's with a pinch of salt as for being a internet hardman you know if I had a thin skin I could call that childish abuse Fishtank but as it is I'm scared of my own shadow