Come on Truth give us your thoughts

[fishtank]

A very sobering tale there fishtank - Jackson only managed to hang on for another 11 years - sooooooooooooooooo - no it is too distressing to even contemplate this pair of muppets hanging on until 2021 - get me the rope

Well when the man passed away in 2003 a certain person had this to say of him

Tom Jackson wasn't a bad person and there was never any doubting his commitment to his members. But his essentially right wing politics and his total acceptance of the bureaucratic way of running a trade union caused him to lead the union in a direction virtually the opposite of all others.
After the failure of 1971 the union almost ceased to exist as a national union in the eyes of the members. Terms and conditions were sorted out locally.

Almost ceased to exist as a national union.
Terms and conditions were sorted out locally
I can almost feel myself drifting back to 1971.
Funnily enough the Christmas No1 that year was Ernie (The Fastest Milkman In The West).
If these performance standards go the way i expect.
We may be delivering like Benny Hill shortly.

BTW the certain person was Pete Keenlyside.

[dvbuk55]

Not our Pete Keenlyside? It couldn't be! Surely we have learned some lessons in the intervening years.

It has come to a pretty pass when the National Union of the communication workers finds its membership an embarrassment, does not want to represent us, does not want to negotiate for us, leaves the nitty gritty to the local reps who also have a job and receive no pay, makes unworkable agreements for three years despite the failure of the previous agreement which barely lasted the two year span to keep the dealings between employer and union to a bare minimum - WHAT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO FIND EMBARRASSING AT ALL IS THE RECEIPT OF THE WEEKLY SUBSCRIPTIONS FROM THE 130,000 MEMBERS - so they're not all bad then.

[mailman71]

Just for the history buffs
Tom Jackson and the 1971 strike
Jackson's decision to call his members out on strike over a pay claim in January 1971 was the most costly mistake of his career. The union had submitted a claim for a minimum £3 a week rise, or 15 to 20 per cent, in October 1970. When management made an offer of eight per cent on January 14, Jackson rejected the option of arbitration. Six days later union members walked out for what was the beginning of the first national postal strike.
The stoppage lasted seven weeks and cost the Post Office an estimated £25 million in lost revenue. But the shortage of mail never seemed to bite in the way that Jackson had expected. To win emphatically, he needed the backing of the telephonists - but their union refused positive aid. Jackson's union, moreover, had no strike fund; and, when he appealed to comrades in other unions for help, he found that the fraternal spirit - and ready cash - was in short supply.
With his union facing bankruptcy, Jackson was forced back to the negotiating table after admitting that there was no money left to make any more hardship payments to the 30-40,000 members who had no income at all. The Post Office workers eventually settled for a package which made wage increases dependent on the outcome of an inquiry into the efficiency of Post Office staff and management.
Many strikers were furious that they were being asked to return to work without even the unconditional eight per cent rise offered when the walk-out began. At a rally in Hyde Park Jackson was jeered when he announced the terms of the deal. Members called "Sell-out!" and "Hey, hey, Tommy J, how about our £3 pay?" Although he remained a popular figure, Jackson's reputation in the trades union movement never fully recovered from this debacle. Eventually, in 1982, he took early retirement.

as one of the posties on strike in 1971 and been involved in countless actions since i can honestly say this is one of the worst deals i can remember.
i never thought back in 1971 that the union nearly 40 years on would try and force me to work till 3'oclock on a saturday as well as shaft a lot of their members who stood loyaly by them when asked to take industrial action.

[andy2007]

andy giving money to one section of RM while robbing the other, does divide and conquer mean anything to you?

That's a problem with the deal. NOT with allowing EVERYONE effected by it, to vote on it. Are you really suggesting that we should allow one section to vote on whether to put large numbers of their collegues on the Dole. Without those at risk, having any say in the matter?

The simple fact is: If a deal will directly affect you, you should have a vote on it. IMHO this is a bad deal for all concerned. And only those, short sighted enough to look at the money, are likley to vote for it.

If you're in Deliveries: You're looking at a pay cut, more work to do in less time, and generally being shafted.
If you're in an MC/RDC: You're looking at a program of closures, having the blame for failures, and even accidents, transfered from Management to you. And generally being shafted (via WCM).

Of course things are much worse in Deliveries. I seriously doubt you'd find anyone who'd disagree with that. But does that mean that the rest of us should simply accept the "inevitable", and wait for our conditions to fall to the same level?
Or should we all vote against this disgrace of a deal, and try to prevent the further degredation of our terms and conditions?