Royal Mail strike off
Deal Means Postal Strikes Off
5th November 2009
The CWU has today announced that the postal strikes planned for Friday 6th November and Monday 9th November have been called off.
CWU and Royal Mail have reached an interim agreement that was unanimously agreed by the union’s Postal Executive today.
The interim agreement will provide a period of calm for the CWU and Royal Mail to reach a full and final agreement. The interim agreement guarantees that modernisation will be introduced with agreed job security and improved terms and conditions for postal workers. It also addresses all the issues included in the long running local disputes.
The strike ballot remains in place.
Dave Ward, CWU deputy general secretary, said: “There needs to be exceptional efforts to improve trust and relationships between CWU and Royal Mail. As a result both TUC and ACAS will have a continuing role to keep the discussions and agreement on track.”
The details of the agreement are embargoed until 12noon Friday 6th November 2009.
Chunks of the sw leaflet that went into offices this morning (hope its not too long:
There’s a new offer from
Royal Mail—which has led to the
suspension of strikes. Management
made that offer because postal
workers have fought.
A few weeks ago Crozier and
Mandelson were confident that the
union would fall apart and that the
strikes would collapse.
Instead the vast majority of postal
workers have struck absolutely solidly.
They have defied the threats and the
bullying, ignored the media onslaught
and given two fingers to the lies from
management.
But the level of action has not yet
been enough to win.
That’s why it’s a serious mistake to
stop the strikes. Postal workers are
going in without having a deal to look
at. It’s giving management and the
government the breathing space they
have been hoping for.
Royal Mail are under pressure because
the strikes have built up a backlog, and
because the traffic increases all the
way until Christmas. And the general
public backed the workers, not the
management.
Now Crozier & Co will hope to string
out the negotiations, get into January
with all the backlog cleared, and then
go on the offensive again in 2010.
It won’t be a period of calm—it
will be a period of preparation for
war by management.
The full details of the deal were not
available as this leaflet was written, but
it’s clear that parts of it could be very
similar to the 2007 deal:
There is no agreement to withdraw
the executive action. Parts of it are
up for renegotiation, but do you trust
management?
What happens if Royal Mail insist on
the measures going through? Are offices
supposed to fight on their own?
The whole point of this year was a
struggle to get from local agitation to
national agreements. Now the flow is
the other way round.
What’s been gained so far does not
match the courage and sacrifice of
postal workers across Britain. Instead of
stopping strikes, the CWU should step
them up and demand support from the
rest of the working class.
Fight together
The postal workers have already
inspired others.
Look at the other groups that are
fighting now: BA workers held a 3,000
strong mass meeting to launch a ballot
for strikes at Christmas; bus workers
are striking across Britain against a pay
freeze, bin workers in Leeds are in their
ninth week of all-out strike—and it’s
spreading to Brighton and other areas;
firefighters from South Yorkshire to
Essex are striking over “modernisation”.
This is a mighty army if it strikes
together!
Demand your reps at the CWU
national briefing call for the strikes to
be put back on.
No cooperation with management.
Lift all disciplinaries/sackings now.
Comment by up the posties!! — 6 November, 2009 @ 11:59 am
#1 “The full details of the deal were not
available as this leaflet was written, but
it’s clear that parts of it could be very
similar to the 2007 deal”
How can you demand that the strikes are back on before you know the details of what’s been agreed?
Comment by Armchair — 6 November, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
Reply to 2: I think past experience is a big part. As soon as Xmas is out of the way Royal mail will go back on the offensive.
Comment by up the posties!! — 6 November, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
all strikes end in compromise
keeping the workers united is key
what plant are people living on
Have your own revolution, sell your own papers but dont undermine working class solidarity
my trade union before my party
Comment by sean — 6 November, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
Well I don’t live on a plant, but I think the first duty of any socialist is to tell the truth. I’m not a postie, I’m a supporter and I put the firt post up to contribute to debate. However I am convinced that calling off the strikes is a mistake. I’ve a suspicion that lots of postal workers will discover that soon by their own experience, when the bullying, the constant demands for speed-ups etc either continue unabated, or maybe after a short tactical cease-fire to get crimbo out the door.
When you’ve got the other guy where it hurts - squeeze…
Comment by up the posties!! — 6 November, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
Bt the way post 4 starts off with an obvious untruth. All strikes do NOT end in compromise. The miners strike didn’t in 84-85, nor in ‘72 or ‘74. The Wapping dispute didn’t. The strikes to free the Pentonville 5 didn’t. I could go on.
Comment by up the posties!! — 6 November, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
this site is so funny……its attack the SWP first etc etc. The reality is many postal workers will feel let down about stopping the strikes… until after xmas doh. work it out its the same old story of our side letting the bosses off the hook.
Comment by sunbob — 6 November, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
7 No one has ‘attacked’ the SWP! One poster disagrees with the leaflet. If you are so thin-skinned i guess politics- even Parish politics, let alone far-left politics, is really not for you…
Comment by RobM — 6 November, 2009 @ 1:07 pm
Actually I’d say post 4 was an attack on the SWP and implicitly anyone in any other party that doesn’t just give the nod to whatever a left TU leader has agreed. That’s not thin-skinned its reality.
Comment by up the posties!! — 6 November, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
But talk about the settlement. Has the CWU leadership made the right call?
Comment by up the posties!! — 6 November, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
9, yes 4 ‘attacked’ (or disagreed with) the SWP ‘and implicitly anyone in any other party that doesn’t just give the nod to whatever a left TU leader has agreed.’ That’s me and most of the rest of us here which makes Sunbob’s comment “this site is so funny……its attack the SWP first etc etc.” appear a little over the top to say the least!
Comment by RobM — 6 November, 2009 @ 1:27 pm
rob- lets be honest this sites main hobby is attacking the SWP. Anti fascism- attack the SWP, Postal workers- attack the SWP bore bore. Its not about skin thickness, because I couldn’t really give a shit. Its so funny as the people seem to believe there posts are really important lol
Comment by sunbob — 6 November, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
Hi JJ!
Comment by external bulletin — 6 November, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
Thought so- you are JJ and I claim my Twix. lol.
Comment by RobM — 6 November, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
Jinx, EB. its his inability to pass a Turing test that gives him away every time. lol.
Comment by RobM — 6 November, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
I come from a syndacalist point of view
Comment by sean — 6 November, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
Why is the democratically elected leadership of a trade union fair game for criticism, but a small far-left party, representative only of its own mwmbers not?
I would hope that the SWP would agree with me on that.
Personally it used to piss me off during my 15 years as a postal worker to have well meaning students selling papers outside work lecturing anyone who listened to them about what we should be doing, but there you go.
Do all strikes end in compromise? Yes, most do. Some end in total defeat, some in total victory (although these usually aren’t recognised as such).
What the Union has to take account of is that the struggle has to be sustained through the sacrifices of all members, not just the most committed and militant.
I will say that at least the SWP leaflet recognises that the strikes have achieved something.
Comment by Armchair — 6 November, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
If the vote on the exec was unanimous doesn’t that mean SWP member Jane Loftus voted for it? But the SWP are opposed? Will she be forced to apologise like Sue Bond from PCS exec was when she voted for the pensions deal in 2005?
Comment by Neil — 6 November, 2009 @ 2:37 pm
Postal Executive members: http://www.cwu.org/postal-executive.html
Comment by Rory — 6 November, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
Further sw coverage.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=19500
If Jane Loftus is the chair, then she wouldn’t have had a vote surely? Not unless its tied which it wasn’t.
Comment by up the posties!! — 6 November, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
Well she voted no in the 2007 dispute, when she was also chair.
It depends upon the rule book, it is common for the chair to have either a vote or a casting vote, but not both.
Even in situations where the chair has no vote, iIf the chair dissents they could vacate the chair to the Vice chair and then register their dissenting vote.
It would be highly irregular for a union to issue a press release saying their exec was unanimous of the president was opposed.
Incidently, the argument from the SWP’s leaflet “Postal workers are going in without having a deal to look at. ” Is simply untrue.
The Postal exec is comprised of elected lay members who are also postal workers, they have looked at the deal on behalf of the whole postal membership. The Postal exec is empowed to make decisions on strike action under rule.
It is impossible to judge from outside, but this may be a very effective consolidation of the strike, giving people the sense of having achieved something, and holding the union together including the waverers.
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 November, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
if she chairs but disagrees with the result because the SWP now tell her its a bad deal (as they did withPCS) will she be forced to resign as chair of CWU or from SWP
we should be told
Comment by tim — 6 November, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
It’s no good ‘consolidating a strike’. You have to consolidate some actual concrete gains surely. And people will surely have a sense of having achieved something if they actually have achieved something.
I think a crucial issue will be what’s happening in the offices that were fighting so hard before the national action. If they go back and have to do whatver it was that was causing the local dispute it would be very bad. Those are the offices where ppl had given up weeks of pay, not just 2 days and they need to feel that it was worth it.
Comment by up the posties!! — 6 November, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
The big fight is still come, when the Tories begin a full privatisation of the service.
Comment by Seán — 6 November, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
Up the posties!!
Will Jane Loftus now go to the membership and throw her weight behind her comrades calling for a resumption of the strike?
Was she out leafleting with you this morning?
Comment by Neil — 6 November, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
If she did in fact disagree with the decision of the exec of course.
Comment by Neil — 6 November, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
#25
“Will Jane Loftus now go to the membership and throw her weight behind her comrades calling for a resumption of the strike?”
Well she didn’t in 2007. I understand that to have done so would have required to have formally registered her dissent (in addition to voting against), which she did not do; and which would have required her to relinquish the chair.
This is a tactical decision, over what value you place on holding the chair, and it is not possibel to judge wthout more knowledge of the internal affairs of the CWU than i have.
Personally, i think that Jane Loftus’s decision in 2007 was probably correct, but Ii continually pulled the SWP’s tail over it becasue Jane Loftus’s behaviour was at varaince with the formal politics of the SWP. So they were syaing one thing and doing another.
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 November, 2009 @ 4:11 pm
Neil it would be better if you actually had something to say about the dispute, rather than just using it as another feeble opportunity to try and beat the swp up a bit. That’s basically all you seem to be interested in doing, and no I don’t know what Jane L was doing at 5am this morning.
I hope Andy is right about the settlement tbh. Right I’m off now.
Comment by up the posties!! — 6 November, 2009 @ 4:15 pm
#27
I agree that an organisation should consider very carefully before giving up such an important position like the Presidency of the union.
Still I wonder what a rank and file postie must think when on the one hand s/he is confronted with the ra-ra revolutionary SWP on the picket line and then contrast that with the behaviour of their elected reps at the highest level of the union.
I’m also reminded of this time last year (also on the weekend of Socialism) when the PCS strikes were called off. I’m trying to imagine a situation where the SP would be issueing a leaflet totally at odds with the behaviour of Janice Goodrich, Chris Baugh et al on the PCS exec.
If only we had a bendy stick!
Comment by Neil — 6 November, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
Notable that, at the time of writing, all the comments are on this thread and not on the thread which actually details the deal reached. This is analysis in general, rather than a concrete analysis of a concrete situation.
Is the deal progress for postal workers or not? Can’t judge? Then don’t comment, otherwise you run the risk of appearing an expert in other people’s struggles, but incapable of waging your own.
The deal is an important step forward for the union. I believe it will be generally welcomed amongst the workforce, although there will be difficulties ahead - when was the latter not true?
The deal will allow the union to regroup around a modernisation agreement which brings improvements in terms and conditions. This was not on offer before.
Further the deal offers all branches and offices, which had changes imposed, a guarantee of local negotiations to revise local staffing, with assistance from outside where necessary. Before the deal there was no opportunity for this.
The final deal will be clearer, but this deal contains sufficient guarantees of progress. Do you think the unanimous position of the Executive was an accident, or based on an understanding of the deal?
Comment by StevieB — 6 November, 2009 @ 5:07 pm
There was no chance of the strike going ahead if Royal Mail conceded (for now) their draconian programme of decimation prior to privatisation. The CWU were publicly demanding that all that was wanted was negotiated change and only the failure of management to back off, albeit for now would mean the strikes continued.
The problem is whether the CWU can pick up the fight in the months ahead - after Christmas is less favourable, but Brown who is going to get licked anyway I less likely to want a fight before May.
This is no victory, but it is no defeat, either. It’s not very useful at this point to split on whether the strike should or should not have continued now. It may have been a mistake not to demand that all job cuts were scrapped, rather than negotiate the change, but it was the position taken by the CWU. My feeling is that a fight now was probably more advantageous given that it was a national action.
However, Mandelson and Crozier have backed off for now and although they will come back again,it would be wrong to dismiss out of hand the agreement. My reading of the posties (which I admit is not comprehensive), they have mixed views and that is not surprising.
At the moment what Sean says (#4) is correct about keeping workers united - that wouldn’t always be the case as victory is more important, but unity is key now.
Comment by Howard T — 6 November, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
swp happy toi take money from cwu for socialist worker
now its shock horror union leadership sell out
its their historical role
just as trade unions work, operate and are bound by capitalism
i am sick and tied of calling it a sell out every time a dispute ends just to out left others
no one even knows the terms of the agreement yet
Comment by sammy — 6 November, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
32- oh come on- Charlie Kimbers article does not call the “deal” a sell out. I guess if enough people distort (like Sammy does) the SWPs position it becomes the reality, but this isn’t what socialists (revolutionary or otherwise )should be doing. Concrete analysis is important and of course this is difficult without knowing all the terms of the deal, but as a user of the postal service it seems to me that calling of action before Christmas to possibly start it again afterwards (if agreements cant be reached) is a mistake (not irretrevable, but a serious tactical error).
Comment by Four Goals — 6 November, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
Neil is of course talking shit about pcs (as he does about most things). The 3 party members on the pcs nec voted to continue the strike action. Janice and pals sold us out, and there is a hell of a lot of anger in the local offices about this. We need to make certain the same doesn’t happen over the cscs.
Meanwhile in the post, I don’t know what prospect there is of unofficial action. Or have we backed off so billy can become an mp?
Comment by Keith Watermelon — 6 November, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
Much of this comment is stupid posturing.
The deal is an interim one that has some concrete gains, and also a changed attitude from management.
the postal exec know the stakes, and wouldn’t call of the strike lightly.
All this silly talk of sell ut doesn’t take into account the complexity of keeping the union together through a protracted dispute. You all talk about Christmas as if that means the strike would be getting stronger, but postal workers with families would be feelig the loss of earnings. And the union leadership nneds to know it can actually deliver the strike action it calls.
For all of you saying that the strike shoud,go on, do you give up a day’s pay every time they striike?
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 November, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
‘32.swp happy toi take money from cwu for socialist worker
now its shock horror union leadership sell out’
To not criticise a bad deal for that reason (ie cash) would be the worst most appalling opportunism. But, whatever happens in the post offices up and down the land, SW can’t be accused of that thankfully.
Comment by up the posties!! — 6 November, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
‘All this silly talk of sell ut’
who said sell out? mistake is the term being used, and I reckon Charlie Kimber has a better connection to what was being said by posties this morning than u do.
And can you possibly restrain yourself from calling ppl u don’t agree with stupid?
Comment by up the posties!! — 6 November, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
Dear Andy .No its not “stupid postering” to think that the strike weapon is most effective for the CWU in the build up to Christmas. Personally I’m not in a position to give up a days pay (I’ve just been made redundant) but if I could I would have (of course this would have needed to be called for by the CWU).
My sense isn’t that postal workers are enthusiastically backing this agreement (I’m sure they are not thinking, “oh well, at least we have some money for Christmas, who cares how hard our jobs become afterwards….”. One aspect that hasn’t been touched on, but which could have influenced the decision is the role of temp workers-everyone knows that the CWUs legal action was unlikely to succeed (however strong the merits of its case) but once Christmas is out of the way it does become harder to mount the scabbing operation that the PO had in place.
Comment by Four Goals — 6 November, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
Question to Andy. What are the “concrete gains (post 35)” that have been negotiated?
Comment by Four Goals — 6 November, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
#37
“And can you possibly restrain yourself from calling ppl u don’t agree with stupid?”
I said the posturing was stupid, not the people doing the posturing.
Even clever people say stupid thngs sometimes.
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 November, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
“who said sell out? “
Well at least one blog by a member of the LRC national executive committee and editorial board of Labour Briefng has described the deal as an “almighty sell out”
http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/just-what-the-hell-is-the-cwu-leadership-up-to/
So the term is being bandied about.
but even the question of it being a “tactical mistake” nneds to be informed by some nous about how to keep the less militant sections involved. You are all talking about this issue as if the CWU membeship are a stage army.
#38 “Personally I’m not in a position to give up a days pay (I’ve just been made redundant) but if I could I would have (of course this would have needed to be called for by the CWU). “
I am not saying you shoudl give up a days pay. I mad eth epoint to drive home the idea that when you have a strike your members lose pay, and that means some members are reluctant to strike.
For people not affected by the issues, and not losing pay, to be stridently confident that it is a tactical mistake to call of the strike is all very well. But many postal workers have aleady lost pay, and are coming up to Christmas. the union exec needs to take into account the need to all go out together, all go back together. And they need to assess not only the willingnes of the most militant sections to fight, but also the least militant sections,
#31 Howard T is wrong when he says: “At the moment what Sean says (#4) is correct about keeping workers united - that wouldn’t always be the case as victory is more important, but unity is key now.”
Holding the union together is vital, especially given the serious battle that may come if the Tories win the election.
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 November, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
#30
“What are the “concrete gains (post 35)” that have been negotiated?”
See Steve B’s comment at #30
Comment by andy newman — 6 November, 2009 @ 9:13 pm
#34 Way to miss the point Brother Watermelon. The reference to the PCS was to point out that when a difficult decision has to be made a serious political organisation does not try to have its cake (retain the Presidency) and eat it too (be the super militant revolutionary purests to the rank and file). So to all SWP members if you think the deal is a mistake then was Jane Loftus wrong to vote for it? (I personaly would like to read it a few more times and talk to some posties before passing judgement on the deal)
Comment by Neil — 6 November, 2009 @ 9:38 pm
I very much agree with StevieB’s analysis at (30) and also with Andy’s take on the situation.
However, although I disagree with the arguments put forward in the SWP leaflet at (1), SWP members and supporters have played an extremely positive role in supporting the CWU’s struggle.
And, whatever disagreements people may have with this leaflet, the hard work by SWP people such as Charlie Kimber for example, should be praised and not slagged off.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 6 November, 2009 @ 9:40 pm
Andy and Karl, spot on.
The point is that it’s a continuing struggle involving real people with real concerns, not regiments of militant cartoon proletarians straining at the leash only out be sold out by the dastardly traitors in the union leadership.
And I’ll give it to the SWP, I think they are reasonably close to realising that - not because they’ve got someone in the leadership, surely?
Comment by Armchair — 7 November, 2009 @ 12:07 am
The main point to take here is that this neither a victory or a defeat, but that this fight has merely been put on hold. It could be an astute move - after christmas Royal Mail will have no excuse to hire an army of strike breakers, and we will be that much closer to a general election where the last thing Brown will want is industrial action on a national scale by a Labour sponsoring union.
And one thing that no one has mentioned - the strike ballot still stands, the posties can go out again without having to go through another ballot, an important fact and a nice sword to hold over the management.
Comment by K&CDan — 7 November, 2009 @ 12:44 am
Loving the masturbatory SP positions on this.
Another example of the failure to understand how unions work in the context of the modern capitalist system and that they are NOT revolutionary vanguard movements and never have been.
Comment by Lawrence Shaw — 7 November, 2009 @ 10:39 am
Do tell us more Lawrence about how unions work in the context of the modern capitalist system. Enlighten us revolutionaries who have been working in unions for decades. I don’t remember anyone in the SP claiming unions are revolutionary vanguard movements. If we did that would make us syndicalists but we somehow keep stupidly insisting on the necessity of working class political representation. If we’re wankers what does that make you?
Comment by Doug — 7 November, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
“46.The main point to take here is that this neither a victory or a defeat, but that this fight has merely been put on hold. It could be an astute move - after christmas Royal Mail will have no excuse to hire an army of strike breakers”
They will be able to hire strike breakers. It is only illegal for agency workers to do the work of striking workers. If you have 1 strike day a week then it is perfectly legal for agency workers to clear the backlog on the other 6 days.
The union has dropped the court case to stop the agency workers, given up the backlog of mail caused by the national and local strikes and is talking about winning significant concessions when there are none.
Read the royal mail chat forums (www.royalmailchat.co.uk). There are hundreds of posties (who seem to be the more militant ones) on it and the bulk of them are calling this a sell-out. Many will not support a strike again and more than a few are leaving the CWU.
Comment by Akimov — 7 November, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
I was in the SP for years.
Dispute called off? That’ll be the failure of the full-time officials who are all in truck with the bosses. Unless its in a union they control of course, in which case it is a tactical masterstroke.
Watching all the sects bicker on here about posture is like an episode of Robot Wars.
Comment by Lawrence Shaw — 7 November, 2009 @ 4:42 pm
You clearly didn’t learn much when you were in the SP then did you. I suspect you’re one of those Chris Brennan types who actually did sweet FA, and never liked being asked to do something because you were much too important and your great political knowledge and expertise was never recognised or appreciated. How close am I? And what are you doing in the great class war now daddy - or does deliberately distorting the views of others, sneering from your lofty perch and robot wars get you through the day?
Comment by Doug — 7 November, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
I did stalls every fucking week and door knocked for years, fought hard within my union and got threatened by the BNP out on the streets in Stoke.
Yeah mate, fuck all. [ABUSE DELETED]>
Anytime you want to meet up and discuss this in person Doug, I would love to.
Comment by Lawrence Shaw — 8 November, 2009 @ 12:24 pm
Foul language and veiled threats, charming. Well something has got your goat. Sniping references to ’sects’ suggest a hostility and/or cynicism towards revolutionary organisations - why? What’s your alternative? None? The Labour Party? You still haven’t explained why you choose to wilfully distort SP views about the role of trade unions and tu officials. Anger and bitterness aren’t a very sound basis for political analysis.
Comment by Doug — 8 November, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
so basically the trot line is
its a sell out
and we didnt even get to sell many papers
Comment by sammy — 8 November, 2009 @ 3:03 pm