London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Scampthedog nothing unusual in that position that the union or some members think they have achieved something when they have not. The business made it very clear that the first hour was paid without all savings being realised. I guess that's what will have to be thrashed out in any new agreement. as always the measurement of these types of schemes have proven to be very difficult to validate and agree upon. That is why it must be totally transparent moving forward. I agree with Phunt73 that if a decent pay rise is proposed and some scope to achieve a SWW that will sway the vast majority.
I totally agree 4 pillars is as you describe and if it is revised both parties can then deliver the savings as per the agreement. I personally don't see SWW as the biggest issue important yes but not an insurmountable challenge.
Well as a long standing employee of Royal mail working as an lgv driver I visit quite a lot of different DO's and mail centres and I'm not sure where your 1000,s of employees that demand the SWW are based, because the majority I speak to couldn't give a toss about it really. They would much rather have a decent pay deal and the talks resolved so we can get on with making Royal mail what it needs to be to compete.
I don't wish to put a damper on your positivity, JB (in fact I applaud it) ...but its not the way RMG sees the "Shorter Working Week " that matters here...it is how the CWU sees it that counts.
As far as the union are concerned, they have delivered all the savings that were required to be made to gain that extra hour (two hours in October) ...and have said as much on several occasions.
Furthermore, they do not see the "Four Pillars Agreement" as just vague talk regarding something or some other thing that might or might not take place in the future...they see it as having been brokered by a well respected ACAS mediator, something that was painstakingly thrashed out after much deliberation and protracted wrangling.
In effect: a honourably binding agreement.
This, I feel, not only is the biggest stumbling block to these talks...but also the biggest misunderstood part of this whole process as far as those who do not actually work as a postie.
To outsiders looking in it might seem a trivial thing...and may well be to many posties; I personally could not care less.
But that would not be the view of tens of thousands of other posties. And it is those "other" posties who aren't going to take it (regarding not getting at least an hour that is) lying down.
Problems coming? Looks like it.