What exactly is the postal strike about?

Most of the time with a strike, you can point to a specific "sticking point" between the employers and employees, which causes the strike and which, when resolved, leads to the end of the strike.

You know the sort of thing. Management propose a pay rise of 0.5%, the unions demand 8% and then they both sit down and agree on 3.73% tapered over 5 years backdated to last January 1st with productivity gains agreed.

Well, OK, what is the "sticking point" in the Royal Mail dispute?

Any thoughts?

I have just listened to Billy Hayes, leader of the Communication Workers Union, on Any Questions? He was asked this specific question. And answer came there none. He went on about job losses in the past and how awful the current management are. But we were left none the wiser as to what is the actual nub of the strike.

I've read an article by Billy Hayes in the Mirror and he presents a smorgasbord of vague grievances, the most specific of which is this:

Royal Mail will not agree to independent experts agreeing what constitutes a fair day's work. At the moment postal workers are being bullied to carry unmanageable workloads and being disciplined when they fail.

The sooner this gets to Acas the better. But I think Acas will find that they need to attempt to knit fog in order to try to settle the dispute. Good luck to them. It is almost seems that the strike is about a very broad topic: "Who runs the Post Office?"

The unions and management need to be careful because the answer may be, in the end, "TNT or DHL", as their business goes elsewhere. Already, Amazon have cancelled their £25million contract with the Royal Mail.