heard no TUPE will APPLY when Privitised

[pants123]

ive seen and heard that the TUPE terms and conditions will not apply when Royal Mail is privatized.......

your terms and conditions will only apply for the 3 year pay offer made from Royal Mail..

so people my fellow human beings... No TUPE to be carried over to a privatized company...

so in other words.............. WE ARE TRULY DONE OVER..... AFTER THE SO CALLED 3 YEAR DEAL.... YOU WILL BE WORKING FOR NOTHING AFTER THIS..............

[TrueBlueTerrier]

TUPE would never had applied. In essence all the company is doing is selling shares, TUPE would only apply if we were transferred to another company like some POL staff did when they went to WHSmiths a few years back.


The 3 year deal is also a smoke screen as they say they will only change it with union agreement, so what's to stop them asking to change them before 3 years is up, and are they likely to accept a "No Chance" response from the Union anyway.

[pants123]

TUPE would never had applied. In essence all the company is doing is selling shares, TUPE would only apply if we were transferred to another company like some POL staff did when they went to WHSmiths a few years back.


The 3 year deal is also a smoke screen as they say they will only change it with union agreement, so what's to stop them asking to change them before 3 years is up, and are they likely to accept a "No Chance" response from the Union anyway.

Royal Mail must think we are STUPID........... forget it .................. either treat people with the respect and honour, the terms and conditions they deserve to do the Job... or stick it up their a r s e........ as a joke.... Moya Greene is really taking the p i s s............... treating people the way you do is... is below scum.... your a bad woman love... i only say ( love ) to be some sort of respectful person to you...

[Brain Fury]

TUPE would never had applied. In essence all the company is doing is selling shares, TUPE would only apply if we were transferred to another company like some POL staff did when they went to WHSmiths a few years back.


The 3 year deal is also a smoke screen as they say they will only change it with union agreement, so what's to stop them asking to change them before 3 years is up, and are they likely to accept a "No Chance" response from the Union anyway.

So what you're saying is that the offer of a 3 year deal is meaningless because RM wouldn't honour it? As I understand it, RM are offering a 3 year legally binding deal so if they sought to unilaterally break it, the CWU would have recourse the the courts to enforce it.

Of course if you start from the position that RM will break any deal then you are never going to reach one. So where do you go then?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

TUPE would never had applied. In essence all the company is doing is selling shares, TUPE would only apply if we were transferred to another company like some POL staff did when they went to WHSmiths a few years back.


The 3 year deal is also a smoke screen as they say they will only change it with union agreement, so what's to stop them asking to change them before 3 years is up, and are they likely to accept a "No Chance" response from the Union anyway.

So what you're saying is that the offer of a 3 year deal is meaningless because RM wouldn't honour it? As I understand it, RM are offering a 3 year legally binding deal so if they sought to unilaterally break it, the CWU would have recourse the the courts to enforce it.

Of course if you start from the position that RM will break any deal then you are never going to reach one. So where do you go then?

No I am saying that the offer of a 3 year deal is semantics - they have guaranteed a 3 year deal with the provision that it won't change unless the Union agrees to it. So that leaves the question what happens if they ask the Union for a change, and what would happen if the Union even refused to talk, never mind accept the new position.

Would Royal Mail really shrug their shoulders and so "Well we tried". Unlikely IMHO they would try to engineer and change the situation to make if more likely that the Union and its members are likely to accept the change.

So its meaningless not because of a lack of trust but because any large business will try to what's best for their shareholders/business interests. They won't ignore the legally binding contract, they'll find a legal way to negate it, or work round or within it.

As to breaking agreements - since I joined in 10 years ago Royal Mail have broken every agreement on the Operations side, and they have blamed the Union and workers every time. Spanish Practices was a term used in the press during and before the 2007 strikes against the Union. Yet it was Crozier and Leighton who brought in the biggest pair of those practices - Job and finish and Ghost Overtime.

There is a distinct lack of trust between managers and workers in Operations and no-one in our function will trust Royal mail to keep their word - they haven't before.

[fishtank]

So what you're saying is that the offer of a 3 year deal is meaningless because RM wouldn't honour it? As I understand it, RM are offering a 3 year legally binding deal so if they sought to unilaterally break it, the CWU would have recourse the the courts to enforce it.

Legally binding is a bit of a red herring.
The terms we are talking about form part of a collective agreement which are specifically deemed to be not legally binding under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 section 179.

What Royal Mail would be doing would be underscoring a collective agreement with a legally binding separate written agreement which were they to withdraw from unilaterally would have to go through the courts.

The courts generally favour employers over unions and were the employers to cite unaffordability or even a risk of financial instability it's doubtful the courts would uphold the agreement.
Also it's pretty certain any legally binding agreement would expect conditions of the union which unions have to be very wary of given the disparity of means between the two parties.

The reason unions seldom enter into legally binding agreements with employers is because its a recipe for bankruptcy through the courts,that's why there is a tradition of what's known as legal abstentionism from workplace disputes although recent trends seem to have moved the goalposts slightly.

[Brain Fury]

TUPE would never had applied. In essence all the company is doing is selling shares, TUPE would only apply if we were transferred to another company like some POL staff did when they went to WHSmiths a few years back.


The 3 year deal is also a smoke screen as they say they will only change it with union agreement, so what's to stop them asking to change them before 3 years is up, and are they likely to accept a "No Chance" response from the Union anyway.

So what you're saying is that the offer of a 3 year deal is meaningless because RM wouldn't honour it? As I understand it, RM are offering a 3 year legally binding deal so if they sought to unilaterally break it, the CWU would have recourse the the courts to enforce it.

Of course if you start from the position that RM will break any deal then you are never going to reach one. So where do you go then?

No I am saying that the offer of a 3 year deal is semantics - they have guaranteed a 3 year deal with the provision that it won't change unless the Union agrees to it. So that leaves the question what happens if they ask the Union for a change, and what would happen if the Union even refused to talk, never mind accept the new position.

Would Royal Mail really shrug their shoulders and so "Well we tried". Unlikely IMHO they would try to engineer and change the situation to make if more likely that the Union and its members are likely to accept the change.

So its meaningless not because of a lack of trust but because any large business will try to what's best for their shareholders/business interests. They won't ignore the legally binding contract, they'll find a legal way to negate it, or work round or within it.

As to breaking agreements - since I joined in 10 years ago Royal Mail have broken every agreement on the Operations side, and they have blamed the Union and workers every time. Spanish Practices was a term used in the press during and before the 2007 strikes against the Union. Yet it was Crozier and Leighton who brought in the biggest pair of those practices - Job and finish and Ghost Overtime.

There is a distinct lack of trust between managers and workers in Operations and no-one in our function will trust Royal mail to keep their word - they haven't before.

You mean that RM would make an offer that is acceptable to the CWU and its members? The bast**ds.

[fishtank]

..and for the original poster TUPE is a sham anyway,a pretty useless piece of legislation that protects little for not very long and can be undermined using a hundred different underhand tactics.
I wouldn't shed a tear over missing that boat.

[Brain Fury]

TUPE would never had applied. In essence all the company is doing is selling shares, TUPE would only apply if we were transferred to another company like some POL staff did when they went to WHSmiths a few years back.


The 3 year deal is also a smoke screen as they say they will only change it with union agreement, so what's to stop them asking to change them before 3 years is up, and are they likely to accept a "No Chance" response from the Union anyway.

So what you're saying is that the offer of a 3 year deal is meaningless because RM wouldn't honour it? As I understand it, RM are offering a 3 year legally binding deal so if they sought to unilaterally break it, the CWU would have recourse the the courts to enforce it.

Of course if you start from the position that RM will break any deal then you are never going to reach one. So where do you go then?

No I am saying that the offer of a 3 year deal is semantics - they have guaranteed a 3 year deal with the provision that it won't change unless the Union agrees to it. So that leaves the question what happens if they ask the Union for a change, and what would happen if the Union even refused to talk, never mind accept the new position.

Would Royal Mail really shrug their shoulders and so "Well we tried". Unlikely IMHO they would try to engineer and change the situation to make if more likely that the Union and its members are likely to accept the change.

So its meaningless not because of a lack of trust but because any large business will try to what's best for their shareholders/business interests. They won't ignore the legally binding contract, they'll find a legal way to negate it, or work round or within it.

As to breaking agreements - since I joined in 10 years ago Royal Mail have broken every agreement on the Operations side, and they have blamed the Union and workers every time. Spanish Practices was a term used in the press during and before the 2007 strikes against the Union. Yet it was Crozier and Leighton who brought in the biggest pair of those practices - Job and finish and Ghost Overtime.

There is a distinct lack of trust between managers and workers in Operations and no-one in our function will trust Royal mail to keep their word - they haven't before.

You mean that RM would make an offer that is acceptable to the CWU and its members? The bast**ds. Sounds like they just don't know what's good for them. Fortunately there are a few dedicated people only too willing to tell them.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

No, I am saying that they will engineer the situation to make it acceptable. Which makes the 3 year legally binding bit meaningless.

Real World RM example:

Royal Mail wanted to make more profits on D2Ds and deliver more of them. But as they paid us up to 3p per leaflet their profitability wasn't good. (worth £30 - 40 for an average delivery)

So they tell the Union we are not going to pay you to deliver Door 2 Doors from now on, but you'll still deliver them.

The Union and members panic and hammer out a new deal of a delivery supplement of £21 a week, but we also give up grandfather rights on early shift allowance worth £15 a week, but the number of leaflets becomes unlimited.

So situation engineered, Union accept a deal which made members worse off. Me personally delivered 5 D2Ds one week recently - under the old scheme and with shift allowance I would have taken home £75 on top of my basic - I took home £22 extra. A hit of £53.

-------------------------------------------------------

So if I may be so rude to suggest not expecting Royal Mail to engineer disputes or changes when its better for them is naive.

[Brain Fury]

No, I am saying that they will engineer the situation to make it acceptable. Which makes the 3 year legally binding bit meaningless.

Real World RM example:

Royal Mail wanted to make more profits on D2Ds and deliver more of them. But as they paid us up to 3p per leaflet their profitability wasn't good. (worth £30 - 40 for an average delivery)

So they tell the Union we are not going to pay you to deliver Door 2 Doors from now on, but you'll still deliver them.

The Union and members panic and hammer out a new deal of a delivery supplement of £21 a week, but we also give up grandfather rights on early shift allowance worth £15 a week, but the number of leaflets becomes unlimited.

So situation engineered, Union accept a deal which made members worse off. Me personally delivered 5 D2Ds one week recently - under the old scheme and with shift allowance I would have taken home £75 on top of my basic - I took home £22 extra. A hit of £53.

-------------------------------------------------------

So if I may be so rude to suggest not expecting Royal Mail to engineer disputes or changes when its better for them is naive.

But it was agreed by the CWU right? Was it voted on by the membership too? And Isn't it the CWU that are asking for the protection of terms and conditions to be made legally binding? And RM have agreed. Sounds like your issue might be with the CWU rather than RM.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

But it was agreed by the CWU right? Was it voted on by the membership too? And Isn't it the CWU that are asking for the protection of terms and conditions to be made legally binding? And RM have agreed. Sounds like your issue might be with the CWU rather than RM.

Yes it was agreed by the Union, and yes I have an issue with the CWU over it, as indeed do most in Deliveries. However, it still doesn't alter the fact that Royal Mail engineered the situation.

They started with a deal the Union wouldn't accept and knew it. The finished with a deal, using scare tactics, around about what they were aiming for. If its okay I'll have an issue with the Union and its members for being so naive and an issue with Royal Mail for being less than honest and engineering the situation.

Perhaps I am a strange character but I think its actually the duty of members of a Union and employees of a business to question both the motives and drives of both organisations, to blindly accept that either will work for my interests alone is a road to heartache and disappointment.

[123456]

i think that politics plays a big part in our lives,especially if your a member of a big union like most of us are.you have labour and the con dems posturing and spouting a lot of hot air between them,and royal mail and the union posturing.now i believe a great deal of this posturing is it at our expense,do they shut the doors at meetings at national level and giggle amongst themselves about how they can help each other out!!! keeping us mushrooms in the dark.its a cynical outlook but i for one sometimes feel that the agenda of political life both at work and in mainstream politics is somehow laughing its socks off while we sit and wonder what the consequences are going to be......if only someone would have an agenda that we could openly rely on..say it our it is kinda thing..we arent stupid!!!ARE WE..

[borders]

But it was agreed by the CWU right? Was it voted on by the membership too? And Isn't it the CWU that are asking for the protection of terms and conditions to be made legally binding? And RM have agreed. Sounds like your issue might be with the CWU rather than RM.

Yes it was agreed by the Union, and yes I have an issue with the CWU over it, as indeed do most in Deliveries. However, it still doesn't alter the fact that Royal Mail engineered the situation.

They started with a deal the Union wouldn't accept and knew it. The finished with a deal, using scare tactics, around about what they were aiming for. If its okay I'll have an issue with the Union and its members for being so naive and an issue with Royal Mail for being less than honest and engineering the situation.

Perhaps I am a strange character but I think its actually the duty of members of a Union and employees of a business to question both the motives and drives of both organisations, to blindly accept that either will work for my interests alone is a road to heartache and disappointment.

Spot on TBT , just reading the comments between MR Fury and your good self tells the story. two different outlooks from two people on opposite sides of the fence. no matter what you write TBT , Mr Fury has largely defended the business and its conniving ways and he will obviously feel he is entitled to.

[Brain Fury]

But it was agreed by the CWU right? Was it voted on by the membership too? And Isn't it the CWU that are asking for the protection of terms and conditions to be made legally binding? And RM have agreed. Sounds like your issue might be with the CWU rather than RM.

Yes it was agreed by the Union, and yes I have an issue with the CWU over it, as indeed do most in Deliveries. However, it still doesn't alter the fact that Royal Mail engineered the situation.

They started with a deal the Union wouldn't accept and knew it. The finished with a deal, using scare tactics, around about what they were aiming for. If its okay I'll have an issue with the Union and its members for being so naive and an issue with Royal Mail for being less than honest and engineering the situation.

Perhaps I am a strange character but I think its actually the duty of members of a Union and employees of a business to question both the motives and drives of both organisations, to blindly accept that either will work for my interests alone is a road to heartache and disappointment.

It's perfectly alright and indeed very sensible to question the motives of both Royal Mail and the CWU and the naivety of the members. What hope does it leave you though?