What will a Strike achieve?

[Schiff]

Quite interesting Lee that your collection guys couldn’t give you a clear answer on why there is likely to be IA. That is because like 99.9% of posties they don’t understand what this dispute is about. Virtually all you read on here is people’s own thoughts and interpretation of things. Chinese whispers are abundant and if you looked back at every thread on this dispute since it started there are probably thousands of things that people claim to know or have heard we will be doing under RM proposals. In fact if you glued it all together we will be working 25 hours a day, 8 days a week for free. This in my opinion is one of the CWU’s biggest problems and failings. They scaremongered from early on with loads of stories breaking one after the other that it became a bit like the Labour manifesto at the last election - slightly unbelievable and therefore people become confused. As I said earlier ask most posties why they’re striking and it comes down to “Rico Back is a big nasty man cos Terry told us he is”

Spot on!

Absolutely everyone has their own idea of how bad the job will be if we don't "win" this dispute and equally everyone has their own idea of what a win looks like. Some think that they are voting for no more than one or two days of strike action whereas others think that we will simply walk out and stay out like the miners in the 80s. Some want to ensure that VRs are available on current terms for those who want them. Others think that we need to avoid all job losses so must fight VRs being offered.

With the current union Laurel and Hardy leadership in place we are just going to end up in another fine mess. Industrial action will hardly be noticed due to the effects of Corona virus over the next few months.

[ssdd]

That is because like 99.9% of posties they don’t understand what this dispute is about.

Really? I think you underestimate your workforce...

[ssdd]

Some think that they are voting for no more than one or two days of strike action whereas others think that we will simply walk out and stay out like the miners in the 80s.

And some are voting to get RM round the table and actually cooperate; NOT for a strike! (although PREPARED to strike if necessary)

[k979aaa]

Would we be talking about a strike NOW or six months ago if they had implemented the deal they struck just two years ago? But the man from Hamburg said NO!

[tpost]

A strike will achieve nothing this time because you are dealing with a determined employer who is hell bent on cutting our terms and conditions and the freedom to do want it wants quickly. I believe this could be our miners strike as a new Tory government with a massive majority and the press on their side does not bode well. The union thinks a huge strike vote will get RM around the table but senior management don’t care . I have spoken to a few managers, many who have sympathy with us as the changes will affect them as well and even they seem in the dark on what’s going to happen. The union is better off negotiating the changes and accepting you are going to lose jobs due to the reduction in Mail volumes, but even negotiating may be out of the question as perhaps RM don’t want an agreement and are going for a victory on their terms. We have a hard battle ahead if we go out.

[GRS]

This myth that we need a large yes vote to get RM round the negotiating table and yet in the next breath the same people (including the CWU) say they the business have no interest in negotiating. Which is it??

[LaggyBand]

All this chatter doesn’t alter the fact that if we don’t threaten to strike, we’ll definitely be worse off.

If no resistance is offered they’d take as much as they can, really simple business strategy.

[mickeymacca]

This myth that we need a large yes vote to get RM round the negotiating table and yet in the next breath the same people (including the CWU) say they the business have no interest in negotiating. Which is it??

And if they can't capitalise on the 97% they received only a few months ago, then I can't understand how a bigger Yes vote will make any more ground in negotiations. We are voting to go out and I expect that to be the course of action that will follow.

[GRS]

All this chatter doesn’t alter the fact that if we don’t threaten to strike, we’ll definitely be worse off.

If no resistance is offered they’d take as much as they can, really simple business strategy.

Without doubt. I just fear momentum has been lost and we’re just clutching at disappearing straws. Maybe a different strategy was/is needed after the high court decision than just going down the same route of striking. Last time we had 75% turnout. Will it be as high this time - I doubt it and will it be 97% yes vote. If not then RM will see that people are wavering and carry on turning the screw.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

All this chatter doesn’t alter the fact that if we don’t threaten to strike, we’ll definitely be worse off.

If no resistance is offered they’d take as much as they can, really simple business strategy.

Without doubt. I just fear momentum has been lost and we’re just clutching at disappearing straws. Maybe a different strategy was/is needed after the high court decision than just going down the same route of striking. Last time we had 75% turnout. Will it be as high this time - I doubt it and will it be 97% yes vote. If not then RM will see that people are wavering and carry on turning the screw.

They tried.

https://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communi ... 69&t=93628" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


and RMs response:

https://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communi ... 69&t=94046" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[LaggyBand]

All this chatter doesn’t alter the fact that if we don’t threaten to strike, we’ll definitely be worse off.

If no resistance is offered they’d take as much as they can, really simple business strategy.

Without doubt. I just fear momentum has been lost and we’re just clutching at disappearing straws. Maybe a different strategy was/is needed after the high court decision than just going down the same route of striking. Last time we had 75% turnout. Will it be as high this time - I doubt it and will it be 97% yes vote. If not then RM will see that people are wavering and carry on turning the screw.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the vote result is very similar. Some votes might be lost due to the reasons you touch on but some might be gained by those who *were* new to it all and didn’t know much so decided to not vote at all, but now see that RM are just playing tricks with their propaganda, and/or they’ve spoken about it with colleagues and are now on board with the union side.

The only reason why anyone would vote no is they have either been tricked, or they prefer to cut labour costs in order to hand it to shareholders.

It really is straightforward when you boil it down. The private corporate model is duty bound to put shareholder profits above anything else. Why not strip back workers’ satisfaction/livelihood as much as you can to do that?

The only reason why you wouldn’t is
A) there’s a law preventing you; or
B) it inadvertently affects the shareholder kickback that you were trying to boost in the first place.

The mechanism of striking is B. It’s an expected, natural, required consequence of the corporate model. Vote YES.

[clashcityrocker]

The only reason why anyone would vote no is they have either been tricked, or they prefer to cut labour costs in order to hand it to shareholders.

Or they cannot financially even consider 1 day of strike action.

[LaggyBand]

The only reason why anyone would vote no is they have either been tricked, or they prefer to cut labour costs in order to hand it to shareholders.

Or they cannot financially even consider 1 day of strike action.

The one bloke at my place in that position still voted yes.

There must be less than 3% of people in the financial situation you describe given the vote last time. Probably like 1% given some of the 3% would fall into my tricked category.

In fact, whilst we’re adding really slim categories, you might as well add in those who mistakenly mark No when they meant to put Yes.

[Caesar]

I think many will vote yes in the hope that the threat of a strike will result in an agreement.
Personally I don't think that RM will give much. They paid big money for a boss who is anti Union so I really do think that they have planned for this.

[ssdd]

This myth that we need a large yes vote to get RM round the negotiating table and yet in the next breath the same people (including the CWU) say they the business have no interest in negotiating. Which is it??

And if they can't capitalise on the 97% they received only a few months ago, then I can't understand how a bigger Yes vote will make any more ground in negotiations. We are voting to go out and I expect that to be the course of action that will follow.

But we never had a so-called 'offer' with the last ballot. This time we do, and if we get another massive yes vote, despite this 'offer', I'm sure this will gather attention.