GENERAL STRIKE

[jakehake]

Royal Mail doing their best to 'Divide and Conquer'.

I don't know the level of support amongst managers at RM - the ones going in on strike days get amplified on social media but I suspect a lot of them are suss enough to know they'll be next when RM 'improve'.

Solidarity to all posties!

Union against Union now

 

[Regardless]

Union against Union now

That sounds all rather unseemly, and a bit OTT from the CWU leader.
The strife remains between the CWU and the Royal Mail’s behaviour- including the incentives RM offers its managers. If those managers happen to belong to UNITE, it’s hardly that union’s fault.

 

[raefil]

That sounds all rather unseemly, and a bit OTT from the CWU leader.
The strife remains between the CWU and the Royal Mail’s behaviour- including the incentives RM offers its managers. If those managers happen to belong to UNITE, it’s hardly that union’s fault.

Job done.

Divide and rule

 

[jakehake]

That sounds all rather unseemly, and a bit OTT from the CWU leader.
The strife remains between the CWU and the Royal Mail’s behaviour- including the incentives RM offers its managers. If those managers happen to belong to UNITE, it’s hardly that union’s fault.

If the other Union negotiates and accepts a deal that incentivises those Union Members to be responsible for imposing rules/firing members of another Union that don't agree with those "revisions" it's not exactly creating a collaborative process in said workplace is it.

The Union process is alien to me in almost every workplace I've been but I can see why in this instance it's incompatible to have two Unions agreeing opposing agreements and thinking it's good for their members in the long term

 

[Jack Daniels]

I fully agreed first thing. Then I go down the Post Office to send a parcel and endure the usual 30 minute queue for a function that is all automated in French POs and get dressed down by the really miserable and rude staff as usual for not following her abrupt unclear instruction. They really dont do themselves any favours our way. Everyone in line mainly elderly and polite and generally in accord that theyve been suffering this sort of poor service with a grimace for years. Next time I might seek an altternative that might or might not be more expensive but will save me from a bit of a depressing experience. And nothing to do with pay here. Theyve been like this for years here.

You do realise that Post Office Counters is completely separate from my lot, Royal Mail?

Obviously not.

 

[Portishead]

You do realise that Post Office Counters is completely separate from my lot, Royal Mail?

Obviously not.

Thanks. Not sure many people do or would distinguish easily Their lack of service might be partly a reason for RM getting tarred with the same brush, even if it is misplaced. From a consumer point of view, Post Office Counters are the face of the postal service thats available and if their service is poor, it does RM no favours in terms of PR or public support for the end to end service

 

[raefil]

Thanks. Not sure many people do or would distinguish easily Their lack of service might be partly a reason for RM getting tarred with the same brush, even if it is misplaced. From a consumer point of view, Post Office Counters are the face of the postal service thats available and if their service is poor, it does RM no favours in terms of PR or public support for the end to end service

I use the Post Office in Bamber Bridge. The service there is always first class.

 

[Regardless]

If the other Union negotiates and accepts a deal that incentivises those Union Members to be responsible for imposing rules/firing members of another Union that don't agree with those "revisions" it's not exactly creating a collaborative process in said workplace is it.

The Union process is alien to me in almost every workplace I've been but I can see why in this instance it's incompatible to have two Unions agreeing opposing agreements and thinking it's good for their members in the long term

I guess the devil will be in the detail of what's actually in the pay-awards agreed by the unions - something we don't know (I guess it's not in the public domain).

First of all, my guess is that it is the middle managers and lower senior managers who are the UNITE members who are benefitting from this bonus scheme... I would be surprised if the most senior managers are union members - and if they are, I doubt that the unions would be directly involved in negotiation of their remuneration packages. In my experience of a different big company, I expect the 'big bosses' agreed the incentive package at board level - and this was cascaded down in the form of goals and objectives to an array of different departments and individual managers. So by the time incentive schemes have filtered down into the measurable objectives at those levels, they'll have been 'sanitised' to an extent. (Perhaps the 'divide and rule' comment is appropriate here)

I find it highly unlikely that UNITE would be negotiating pay award schemes that gave incentives to managers based on explicit actions to impose unagreed rules on other staff. Far more likely that the union negotiated a basic framework for the bonus scheme. IMO, at most, UNITE negotiators MIGHT have been aware that bonuses might be achieved by delivering certain headcount reductions, introduction of certain new working practices and X% efficiency savings etc.

It's a manager's job to identify and deliver such efficiency improvements, so UNITE couldn't be blamed if they allowed their members to accept such a bonus scheme. The problem is then HOW those 'efficiencies' are achieved - but that's (probably) another matter.

There is always something of a conflict where middle and relatively senior managers are union members. It's perfectly reasonable for them to be union members because they are themselves just employees. But the potential for some conflict is clear.

 

[Regardless]

You do realise that Post Office Counters is completely separate from my lot, Royal Mail?

Obviously not.

I made up a special Advent Calendar for my daughter at uni... to remind her of home every morning. Ran to just catch the last post, only to be told that the my 'first class stamp' wasn't going to be getting me a first class service!! She won't be getting it for the beginning of Advent.

Boooooooooo.

 

[jakehake]

I guess the devil will be in the detail of what's actually in the pay-awards agreed by the unions - something we don't know (I guess it's not in the public domain).

First of all, my guess is that it is the middle managers and lower senior managers who are the UNITE members who are benefitting from this bonus scheme... I would be surprised if the most senior managers are union members - and if they are, I doubt that the unions would be directly involved in negotiation of their remuneration packages. In my experience of a different big company, I expect the 'big bosses' agreed the incentive package at board level - and this was cascaded down in the form of goals and objectives to an array of different departments and individual managers. So by the time incentive schemes have filtered down into the measurable objectives at those levels, they'll have been 'sanitised' to an extent. (Perhaps the 'divide and rule' comment is appropriate here)

I find it highly unlikely that UNITE would be negotiating pay award schemes that gave incentives to managers based on explicit actions to impose unagreed rules on other staff. Far more likely that the union negotiated a basic framework for the bonus scheme. IMO, at most, UNITE negotiators MIGHT have been aware that bonuses might be achieved by delivering certain headcount reductions, introduction of certain new working practices and X% efficiency savings etc.

It's a manager's job to identify and deliver such efficiency improvements, so UNITE couldn't be blamed if they allowed their members to accept such a bonus scheme. The problem is then HOW those 'efficiencies' are achieved - but that's (probably) another matter.

There is always something of a conflict where middle and relatively senior managers are union members. It's perfectly reasonable for them to be union members because they are themselves just employees. But the potential for some conflict is clear.

It was in the post I quoted



And there is the Unite signatory. Seems fairly public knowledge?

 

[Regardless]

It was in the post I quoted



And there is the Unite signatory. Seems fairly public knowledge?

I hadn't noticed the signed letter of the tweet earlier, and perhaps it's kind of(maybe, possibly) in line with what I guessed at. "IMO, at most, UNITE negotiators MIGHT have been aware that bonuses might be achieved by delivering certain headcount reductions, introduction of certain new working practices and X% efficiency savings etc."

It depends just how prescriptive the resource plan TM1 actually is as to whether it is 'fair' or not. It does give the impression of being a rigid pre-agreed plan - not subject to negotiation. What TM1 SHOULD say, is something like "deliver a viable structure with at least X% reduction in FTE staff following normal consultation with unions and staff" "Agree new working practices which include X, Y and Z changes". Maybe TM1 does actually say something like that... in which case the UNITE union will be able to refute the CWU's charge.

 

[Took My Heart]

Unite, GMB and Unison make an awful lot of noise about challenging bosses and challenging power either in government or the opposition but I find they are a source of constant disappointment.

Unite should have had joint negotiations with CWU and no deal arranged which harms other workers. The whole point of unions is the strength in sticking together

 

[222Mark]

Unite, GMB and Unison make an awful lot of noise about challenging bosses and challenging power either in government or the opposition but I find they are a source of constant disappointment.

Unite should have had joint negotiations with CWU and no deal arranged which harms other workers. The whole point of unions is the strength in sticking together

A lot of the problem is caused by different bargaining groups using other unions, we fought for single table bargaining even though we have 2 different unions on site, but it enables us to work together and negotiate as one for the entire workforce and that includes managers upto a certain level.

I was with the Liverpool dockers reps recently and one of the major issues they had was that they had 6 different bargaining groups within their dispute, it created so many problems that it's one of the main reasons it went on so long.

Looking at the likes of Royal Mail, NHS and the education sector they are all in the same position, different bargaining groups with different unions.

 

[raefil]

 

[Winkytinky]

Michael Spicers room next door springs to mind 😁

 

[Winkytinky]

Burley trying to make out the media hold power to account 🤣

 

[raefil]

Burley trying to make out the media hold power to account 🤣

 

[Libertine]

Burley trying to make out the media hold power to account 🤣

Is this Kay Burley whose Twitter profile picture is her sat between Truss and Sunak. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[Flippin_lump]

BT and unions agree pay rise of up to 16% to stop more strikes

Most workers will get a wage rise of £1,500 in a deal that is set to halt walkouts at the telecoms giant.

www.bbc.co.uk

Seems the money was there after all

It's not enough per month is it. About 130 quid.. can't even do overtime at BT until April. Going to lose quite alot of staff I reckon.

 

[Portishead]

I use the Post Office in Bamber Bridge. The service there is always first class.

Youre lucky you have one locally. Theres no reason in the 2020s that we dont have parcel and stamp machines that weigh and size like in every French PO, to avoid long queues for what is a very basic service.