CS alternate payment.

[fishtank]

It's easy to say on here the colleague share money should be paid and the CWU have said it in the room a thousand times but it is not going to be paid , so do the CWU try and get new money paid or not as Royal Mail aim to lengthen the agreement not walk away from it.

That really depends on the strings attached to it.
Do we want to sell out more jobs,terms and conditions for another lump sum deal,a lump sum we've been promised twice already,once by Leighton and the second time by the BT2010 agreement?
If there is new money available why not use it to improve the basic pay deal for 2013 onwards rather than use it as a bribe to further destroy the job?

[Cut Off King]

The CWU are in talks which have so far got an agreement in principle on World Class Mail's , MTSF and Job Security , it's not far off an agreement on the attendance procedure , it is in talks on revisons in delivery offices , pay , and a replacement for colleague share.

And a one off payment of £££ to ensure that the shorter sighted members vote YES to accept it.

[Martin Walsh]

Fish I think Royal Mail are thinking about the reverse postion do they want to accept less savings in order to get revisions in quicker.

[fishtank]

Fish I think Royal Mail are thinking about the reverse postion do they want to accept less savings in order to get revisions in quicker.

That's only ever going to be a holding position.
Get the revisions in and working then look to realise the savings.
Besides it's not that that they would be doing us any favours by "accepting" less savings.
The delivery methods revisions just don't produce savings whether they want them to or not...anybody who knows how the job works could have told them that was the case 2 years ago and probably saved 100 revisions "failing".
Anyway i thought the revisions weren't savings based?

[Martin Walsh]

Well I think the CWU and Royal Mail Have people in two different camps each. Some on the Union and believe the agreement is sound and the only problem is the wrongful application of the agreement by some which is causing problems.

The other camp which some senior managers and senior reps are in is that the revisons process is to complicated , is open to abuse , too slow and does not work cause there is too many issues such as BSI and the ARK process which causes problems and maybe it would be better to have revisons which make a move in terms of productivity but work and are not based on either 100 BSI or the Upper Decile which does not exist.

It will be interesting to see which camp wins especially as Price Waterhouse is now analyizing whether the savings in delivery offices ever really existed in the first place.

[fishtank]

I think if everybody was really honest the truth lies somewhere in between.
If every rep was 100% knowledgeable and 100% honest and 100% involved and every manager and planner was 100% knowledgeable and 100% honest and every delivery and delivery office was built the same and staffed by the same members who all wanted the same thing you might have a sound agreement.
As for whether savings exist...they always do on paper.

[pants123]

thank you Dingo, you always pull out the stops as to knowing a lot of info, and makes interesting points.
i know that revisions were suppose NOT to be savings based, but i think thats wrong, they were always to save money, and work the delivery staff to beyond breaking point to make the savings...
for me bringing in all this new equipment, vans and so on, most cost a a lot of money to maintain, especially the van share..
bikes and people who used their car on delivery before most have made royal mail massive saving,, so i cannot understand the logic of the 2010 agreement.. as i feel it was all about savings and making bigger profit.. but it most be costing royal mail a fortune to sustain this so called Modernization rubbish..

this is just my view and i could be wrong.. thanks for all the info mentioned