Do you support the Posties striking?

[Southover Street Seagull]

It COULD be either one, but who threw the toys out the pram? Eh?

What the hell are you on about who threw their toys out of the pram?

How the hell do I know? I am not privvy to what went on at the meeting facilitated by ACAS and the TUC!

 

[The Large One]

It COULD be either one, but who threw the toys out the pram? Eh?

:thud:

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

:thud:

It's painful isn't it?
I'm going to make some lunch!

 

[Woodchip]

What the hell are you on about who threw their toys out of the pram?

How the hell do I know? I am not privvy to what went on at the meeting facilitated by ACAS and the TUC!

Exactly, so if it was the Union that pulled out of talks would you still be happy to back them?

Oh, and apologies as it appears that your strikes may actually be working. However, how much is it costing you not to work for the 4/5 days? Does it make the 6.9% worthwhile?


TLO, I think I've sussed it. Dad was "head of shop?" in the early 80's in the milk trade, and they threatened to strike over something ridiculous like the company offering 4% and the union wanting 5% so milkmen left the unions hand over fist (Dad included). Since then he has always been anti-union.

I have had the benefit of working either in a trade where you are automatically part of the union or worked for major companies where the union works alongside the company, so see no point in wasting £10 a month on something that I probably see the benefits of anyway.

Apologies for those people who's cages I have rattled, but I still think any strike action is wrong.

Now, onto that work...

 

[The Large One]

Exactly, so if it was the Union that pulled out of talks would you still be happy to back them?

Oh, and apologies as it appears that your strikes may actually be working. However, how much is it costing you not to work for the 4/5 days? Does it make the 6.9% worthwhile?


TLO, I think I've sussed it. Dad was "head of shop?" in the early 80's in the milk trade, and they threatened to strike over something ridiculous like the company offering 4% and the union wanting 5% so milkmen left the unions hand over fist (Dad included). Since then he has always been anti-union.

I have had the benefit of working either in a trade where you are automatically part of the union or worked for major companies where the union works alongside the company, so see no point in wasting £10 a month on something that I probably see the benefits of anyway.

Apologies for those people who's cages I have rattled, but I still think any strike action is wrong.

Now, onto that work...

Nope, Dad was anti-Union as well. It made for supper-time discussions being quite lively.

Not spending £10 a month on something you already benefit from is very different from being anti-Union.

But back to your original question, you're still missing the point. If, and it's a f***ing massive 'IF' the Unions did pull out of the talks, would you have stopped to consider WHY they might have pulled out. Or would you have made an assumption that they're hell-bent on disruption. And what could they possibly hope to gain by being 'disruptive'?

I can see you still see strike action as wrong. But then, so do the Unions. It's not something they do lightly, and it's always their last course of action. But then, I don't think you've actually stopped to consider it from their point of view.

 

[London Calling]

The strikes have already helped our cause, they have brought an employer who was not willing to negotiate to the table, also many of the conditions that the employer sought to force upon us have been dropped. RM originally offrered us an unconsolidated lump sum as pay, that has now gone up to 6.9% over a two years I believe.
The only trouble now is that RM have said we can have that pay rise if we agree to our pensions being reduced. I for one would rather my pension is protected than have a pay rise.

Good luck mate but sort my post out afterwards - even if you do live in Brighton.

 

[Woodchip]

Nope, Dad was anti-Union as well. It made for supper-time discussions being quite lively.

Not spending £10 a month on something you already benefit from is very different from being anti-Union.

But back to your original question, you're still missing the point. If, and it's a f***ing massive 'IF' the Unions did pull out of the talks, would you have stopped to consider WHY they might have pulled out. Or would you have made an assumption that they're hell-bent on disruption. And what could they possibly hope to gain by being 'disruptive'?

I can see you still see strike action as wrong. But then, so do the Unions. It's not something they do lightly, and it's always their last course of action. But then, I don't think you've actually stopped to consider it from their point of view.

TLO, I wouldn't consider 8 days of talking compared to 4/5 days of striking as the union trying to avoid strike action. They may well have done their most to avoid it, but the figures don't add up, IMO. How many days of strikes has the CWU imposed on posties this year, compared to every other union imposing on their union members? I understand that RM management might be a bunch of Thundercunts to work with, but surely you must agree it's starting to take the piss now. Maybe posties should try for a staff buyout, then they can run it how they see fit (to an extent).

The most they can get from it is getting their name in the press, and as Bernie Ecclestone says "it's inches in the press isn't it". There is no such thing as bad publicity (unless you're Britney Spears).

 

[British Bulldog]

That's about right.

Actually, I think I probably f***ed up on what I meant to say. I hate unions, when they go heavy-handed and threaten strike action (tubes, firemen, posties, whomever). Unions have done some good, but of late they appear to be too quick to threaten strike action. Nearly a week on strike is verging on being silly.

Have you considered that heavy handed management maybe the reason why there are more strike ballots going on around the country? Network rail signalmen have threatened strike action a number of times over the last few years and there's allways more to it than just the issue of pay. It's all very well people looking at these situations from the comfort zone and safety of they're own jobs but how would you feel if your management were trying f*** you over with working conditions and pensions? Would you just lay down and accept it?

I say good luck to the posties they have my full support.

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

TLO, I wouldn't consider 8 days of talking compared to 4/5 days of striking as the union trying to avoid strike action. They may well have done their most to avoid it, but the figures don't add up, IMO. How many days of strikes has the CWU imposed on posties this year, compared to every other union imposing on their union members? I understand that RM management might be a bunch of Thundercunts to work with, but surely you must agree it's starting to take the piss now. Maybe posties should try for a staff buyout, then they can run it how they see fit (to an extent).

The most they can get from it is getting their name in the press, and as Bernie Ecclestone says "it's inches in the press isn't it". There is no such thing as bad publicity (unless you're Britney Spears).

There have been eight days of strikes so far since the dispute started in the summer. During the break between the strikes the CWU and RM spent five weeks talking, which is a bit more than eight days of striking isn't it?
I see you have ingnored my post in which I say this is the first national posta strike in eleven years?
Hardly a militant union that strikes just for the fun of it are we?

 

[The Large One]

TLO, I wouldn't consider 8 days of talking compared to 4/5 days of striking as the union trying to avoid strike action. They may well have done their most to avoid it, but the figures don't add up, IMO. How many days of strikes has the CWU imposed on posties this year, compared to every other union imposing on their union members? I understand that RM management might be a bunch of Thundercunts to work with, but surely you must agree it's starting to take the piss now. Maybe posties should try for a staff buyout, then they can run it how they see fit (to an extent).

The most they can get from it is getting their name in the press, and as Bernie Ecclestone says "it's inches in the press isn't it". There is no such thing as bad publicity (unless you're Britney Spears).

Sorry, mate, but I'm going to have to 'thud' you again.

:thud:

You still don't get it, do you? Unions don't 'impose strikes'. They are balloted for by their members. The unions are nothing without members, and it's they who decide. In this instance, it's the union membership who decided, with a heavy heart, on a majority for strike action, after a damn sight more than this previous 'eight day's negotiating.

This 'eight days' negotiations was in order to avoid strike action. Prior to that Royal Mail had spent months pissing their staff about.

 

[Woodchip]

There have been eight days of strikes so far since the dispute started in the summer. During the break between the strikes the CWU and RM spent five weeks talking, which is a bit more than eight days of striking isn't it?
I see you have ingnored my post in which I say this is the first national posta strike in eleven years?
Hardly a militant union that strikes just for the fun of it are we?

Sorry dude, I missed that one.

I suppose it's my fault for scanning papers when I'm barely awake at 8 in the morning (only been up 30 minutes by that point).

TLO, I can't believe you "thudded" me twice in one thread. You're dumped.

Anyone know what percentage of members it takes for the strike to happen? Is it a straight majority or is it unbalanced one way or the other.

I've still not done this bloody work!!! Why can't NSC be banned from work?

 

[Stat Brother]

Thought it would be nice to have all postie threads together, (i've been here & spring cleaning for the last 2 days)

 

[goldstone]

Yeah cos thats so easy isn't it? when you may have spent 20 years doing one job. No, you could not be more wrong. Stay and fight for better conditions.
You don't even believe what you just wrote, just writing to be controversial.

I absolutely do believe what I wrote.

If I was in a job that didn't pay me enough then I would look for another one. There really are plenty around.

I would not under any circumstances consider strike action.

In the real world, if you don't like your job you find a new one. That's the way the world works.

 

[The Large One]

I absolutely do believe what I wrote.

If I was in a job that didn't pay me enough then I would look for another one. There really are plenty around.

I would not under any circumstances consider strike action.

In the real world, if you don't like your job you find a new one. That's the way the world works.

It's the way YOUR world works. Thankfully, not all of society thinks that way.

If you're a postman, and that's what your skills are, and then someone comes along to royally f*** up your working conditions, what are you going to do? Stay and fight for your job, or let someone f*** you up the arse over it? And who else are you going to work for?

And for the 47,000th time, THIS STRIKE IS NOT ABOUT PAY.

 

[Buzzer]

I absolutely do believe what I wrote.

If I was in a job that didn't pay me enough then I would look for another one. There really are plenty around.

I would not under any circumstances consider strike action.

In the real world, if you don't like your job you find a new one. That's the way the world works.

and if you quite like the job that you signed up to but the management kept moving the goalposts over your contract of employment - the one that you and the management have a legal and moral obligation to honour?

 

[British Bulldog]

I absolutely do believe what I wrote.

If I was in a job that didn't pay me enough then I would look for another one. There really are plenty around.

I would not under any circumstances consider strike action.

In the real world, if you don't like your job you find a new one. That's the way the world works.

What a strange world you live in!

 

[Nibble]

I absolutely do believe what I wrote.

If I was in a job that didn't pay me enough then I would look for another one. There really are plenty around.

I would not under any circumstances consider strike action.

In the real world, if you don't like your job you find a new one. That's the way the world works.

Your'e a bit of a knob.

 

[goldstone]

It's the way YOUR world works. Thankfully, not all of society thinks that way.

If you're a postman, and that's what your skills are, and then someone comes along to royally f*** up your working conditions, what are you going to do? Stay and fight for your job, or let someone f*** you up the arse over it? And who else are you going to work for?

And for the 47,000th time, THIS STRIKE IS NOT ABOUT PAY.

Fight for their jobs What they're doing is their best to ensure there's no Post Office left to work for. Idiots!!

 

[Woodchip]

If you're a postman, and that's what your skills are, and then someone comes along to royally f*** up your working conditions, what are you going to do?

Work for The Home Delivery Network (bodgers formerly known as White Arrow).

 

[Southover Street Seagull]

Fight for their jobs What they're doing is their best to ensure there's no Post Office left to work for. Idiots!!

No they are not, the Government and RM management are doing that all by themselves.