I agree with all of RM's proposals bar 1

[chrisj]

I think the analogy is actually not that bad but based on the wrong premise...

Just look at the so-called democratic decision of the people being trashed as regards Brexit. One can still oppose things and object conscientiously. In terms of strikes - everyone is protected one way or another... Otherwise, there will be mayhem!

There are people that stand to gain very little from the present strife and possibly strikes. In fact, those category might not only lose pay but they might be the first to be shown the door. Why vote Yes and let others push you off the cliff whilst they are all attached to harnesses...

People joining lately might have come from a hard place and thus job is not a game; they have not even benefitted from the good times - some posties have comfortable homes and will.s still retire much better off than some current good graduates - all for shoving letters through a door or sorting etc. Hard but anyone can do if they put their minds to it - lots of desperate people out there - otherwise why would anyone work for Yodel etc all or sports direct or Amazon warehouse?"

[sweepster70]

Why should we accept a hell of a lot less than what we have now, We are asking to roughly keep what we have and a half decent pensionfor when we retire.
Remember Moya taking how good privatisation would be for us all, how they would invest and be able grow the business.
If Royal Mail wasn't unionised things would be a lot different. We would be the Yodels, Hermes, Deliververoo's, Uber, ect
The proposed pension is a disgrace. If this is the best in the industry, then we are and I mean the whole country, are having the piss taken out of us
Regarding Brexit, that is your view, others might think differently.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Unless of course you are all willing to strike for everyone on the DC pension to be given the same benefits being offered to pre 2008 staff? Then we can talk about solidarity.

Where have you been. They are

Pillar one: A lasting pension solution that delivers a decent wage in retirement for all members in both the DB and DC schemes

Rather than trying to keep propping up the DB scheme (that was closed to new entrants nearly a decade ago) and continue with clearly inadequate DC arrangements, the CWU will be seeking a lasting pension solution that ends two-tier provision and delivers a decent DB ‘Wage in Retirement Scheme’ for all our members in both DB and DC schemes.

[fishtank]

Your third mistake is to think that I work for the CWU. Incorrect. I work for RM. RM works for its shareholders.

Whether you like it or not your employer chooses to work with the CWU, this is a long standing relationship that has benefited both parties over the years.

As a loyal employee you should respect that relationship. Only a fool would believe that the rhetoric expressed by both sides during periods of conflict is a true reflection of the working relationship both sides have.

Your anger towards the union is not reflected by your employer who generally sees the union as a useful interface between employees and employer. You are in an isolated position not just among union members but also as a representative of the company position.

[clashcityrocker]

I don't understand your argument here. If the converse were true and after a democratic vote it was found that members had decided not to strike, should the members who voted to strike still be allowed to strike? No, they would have to abide by the majority decision so why should it be different the other way around?

There have been times when people have taken unofficial action. Should they too be expelled from the union for not toeing the line of the Central Committee?
People have different circumstances. People have different levels of political education.
You don't build a mass movement by having a little clique of self righteous prigs deciding what others can and can't do.

Should all early starters be expelled? People who use their cars?
People who don't use the correct equipment? People who nest their D2D?
People who voted for Brexit against union advice/
How many people are you going to expel?
How are the CWU finances at the moment?

I will stand on the picket line for as long as it takes. What I won't do is assume I am some sort of superior moral being because of it.
I won't belittle my colleagues because they chose to take a different course of action.
You hate the sin, not the sinner.

[chrisj]

Unless of course you are all willing to strike for everyone on the DC pension to be given the same benefits being offered to pre 2008 staff? Then we can talk about solidarity.

Where have you been. They are

Pillar one: A lasting pension solution that delivers a decent wage in retirement for all members in both the DB and DC schemes

Rather than trying to keep propping up the DB scheme (that was closed to new entrants nearly a decade ago) and continue with clearly inadequate DC arrangements, the CWU will be seeking a lasting pension solution that ends two-tier provision and delivers a decent DB ‘Wage in Retirement Scheme’ for all our members in both DB and DC schemes.

There will be no harmonisation of the Pensions unless the DB members even want to take a bigger reduction.

I respect you a lot but please mark my words those in the DC pensions shall never be moved... And the CWU will soon drop the idea altogether - it is a non-starters.

They are talking quietly about it but members shouting g the loudest are those in DB scheme. Those that have the DC have almost all accepted their fate yet most (some ignorantly) are still ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with the group that has the most to gain from any possible strikes whilst the part-timers and relative newer staff have the most to in more ways than one.

Newer joiners just do not think or see things the same way - they have a good job and good conditions and even better pensions than some blue chip.companies - why strike for a few more pence on the hourly rate or later starts and pipeline changes - just not worth it; this is better than the dole!

[glfp]

You keep banging on about democracy but your argument to anyone that doesn't agree with you is to be purged. How very democratic.

Democracy would be for every postal worker to vote Yes or No.
Why should you have to be in the Union to do this?
I joined RM not the CWU
Glad I'm out - wouldn't want a penny going to momentum.

As for a previous question.
If I could get the lump sum now and forgo a few pennies per hour and a bit less pension that the CWU may / may not get ( have been paying in to my own for 22 years - I rely only on myself for my future) and go to the back of the "redundancy queue" then the answer is Yes I would.

I firmly believe that strikes at christmas will be the downfall of RM workers.


Alles bestens
Graham

[UrbanPirate]

Your third mistake is to think that I work for the CWU. Incorrect. I work for RM. RM works for its shareholders.

Whether you like it or not your employer chooses to work with the CWU, this is a long standing relationship that has benefited both parties over the years.

As a loyal employee you should respect that relationship. Only a fool would believe that the rhetoric expressed by both sides during periods of conflict is a true reflection of the working relationship both sides have.

Your anger towards the union is not reflected by your employer who generally sees the union as a useful interface between employees and employer. You are in an isolated position not just among union members but also as a representative of the company position.

WORK WITH! NOT WORK FOR! Very different things. RM would not want me to strike just because they work with the union who oppose their proposals. I do not oppose the current proposals so why would I support strike action. It doesn't make any sense. I do not think it is the right course of action. I think it will be damaging.

[jetblack]

....

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I think nesting D2D's is a qualitatively different occurence than contravening the democratic will of a trade union manifest through a lawful ballot.
You are right in one way - its not a question of morality. Or rather, if it is, or can be considered so, its only insomuch as our values/ethical and moral decisions have practical consequences.
What is the practical outcome of a) individuals flouting a democratic mandate and b) workers working when their colleagues are on strike ???
a) ballots become immaterial and superfluous to any meaningful decision making process. When a social contract can be broken at will the contract is rendered null and void. That is, the union itself is rendered null and void. Given that a union is set up to protect and enhance the rights and working conditions of its members, I personally would say that this outcome is nothing short of disasterous.
b) the effectiveness of a collective withdrawal of labour is seriously undermined, potentially leading to 1) a lengthy and costly strike and 2) ultimate defeat for the union.
Many precedents for the above but Nott.s miners and 1984 immediately spring to mind.

Lets put it like this - should someone be allowed to participate in future decision making (forgetting for the minute the 'moral' question as to wether its right and proper for them to reap the benefits (like some sort of human cuckoo) gleaned by the sacrifices of their colleagues) if they have ignored decisions reached by the democratic and consensual decision making process previously ? The problem is is that if you do allow them to you are offering no disincentive for them not to abide by the collective will in future. All carrots and no stick. Of course, if you do allow them to you have saved a couple of quid in union subs and made yourself feel like Ghandi - but potentially undermined the whole fabric of the trade union itself.

I do not oppose the current proposals so why would I support strike action. It doesn't make any sense. I do not think it is the right course of action. I think it will be damaging.

Fair enough. Vote No. And if enough of your colleagues see things the same way all well and good. You have this platform at least to put your case forward - though it has to be said that you are coming up short at the minute.
But what you definitely should not do is if the ballot comes back as a Yes vote, take it upon yourself to go against the general will of your fellow workers. You can't pick and choose like that. You don't have that right - not as a member of the union you don't.
Of course, if you aren't a member of the union then that is a different question altogether.
In short, you can't have your cake and eat it and not expect those around you not to be very upset indeed at your actions if you do (and thats me trying my best here to abide by forum rules BTW)

[banner]

I wonder if this sounds ethical?

I joined a company that offers generous terms and conditions brought about over generations of collective bargaining. I joined the union because I believe it affords me great protections should I get into any difficulties during my working life. I also get to have a say on the outcome of any discussions the union has with the employer and enjoy the gains from any deals that are made. Everything is fine as long as there is no dispute and if there is a dispute, the collective will of any democratic decision taken by my union must completely agree with my individual position or else I will just do what I want to do.

So in summary, I want all the benefits that come with being a member of a union but will not sacrifice myself to the democratic will of a union, even though standing together is the only thing that gives a union its strength and legitimacy, which I had no problem partaking in when I joined the union.

[UrbanPirate]

....

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I think nesting D2D's is a qualitatively different occurence than contravening the democratic will of a trade union manifest through a lawful ballot.
You are right in one way - its not a question of morality. Or rather, if it is, or can be considered so, its only insomuch as our values/ethical and moral decisions have practical consequences.
What is the practical outcome of a) individuals flouting a democratic mandate and b) workers working when their colleagues are on strike ???
a) ballots become immaterial and superfluous to any meaningful decision making process. When a social contract can be broken at will the contract is rendered null and void. That is, the union itself is rendered null and void. Given that a union is set up to protect and enhance the rights and working conditions of its members, I personally would say that this outcome is nothing short of disasterous.
b) the effectiveness of a collective withdrawal of labour is seriously undermined, potentially leading to 1) a lengthy and costly strike and 2) ultimate defeat for the union.
Many precedents for the above but Nott.s miners and 1984 immediately spring to mind.

Lets put it like this - should someone be allowed to participate in future decision making (forgetting for the minute the 'moral' question as to wether its right and proper for them to reap the benefits (like some sort of human cuckoo) gleaned by the sacrifices of their colleagues) if they have ignored decisions reached by the democratic and consensual decision making process previously ? The problem is is that if you do allow them to you are offering no disincentive for them not to abide by the collective will in future. All carrots and no stick. Of course, if you do allow them to you have saved a couple of quid in union subs and made yourself feel like Ghandi - but potentially undermined the whole fabric of the trade union itself.

I do not oppose the current proposals so why would I support strike action. It doesn't make any sense. I do not think it is the right course of action. I think it will be damaging.

Fair enough. Vote No. And if enough of your colleagues see things the same way all well and good. You have this platform at least to put your case forward - though it has to be said that you are coming up short at the minute.
But what you definitely should not do is if the ballot comes back as a Yes vote, take it upon yourself to go against the general will of your fellow workers. You can't pick and choose like that. You don't have that right - not as a member of the union you don't.
Of course, if you aren't a member of the union then that is a different question altogether.
In short, you can't have your cake and eat it and not expect those around you not to be very upset indeed at your actions if you do (and thats me trying my best here to abide by forum rules BTW)

yawn. You sound like a broken record. I get it. You like saying social contract. Democratic mandate. Cool. Doesnt mean anything. Il do as i please thankyou very much. Maybe I will leave. Maybe alot of others will leave also based off your suggestions. Less money for the CWU in the long run. All this talk of solidarity but its nowhere to be seen any other time. Im alright jack. What is so hard for you to understand. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE UNIONS CURRENT POSITION SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING IT!

[Lounge Lizard]

That other 45% would be totally within their right to go in as they accept the proposals RM are offering. That is democracy. Not what is being spouted here.

That is the total opposite of democracy FFS!

Steve,
Yes, if 55% vote Conservative and 45% vote Labour in a General election then us 45% would be totally within our rights to not pay taxes to the Tory government as we don't like what they are offering.

Guys, just no. False analogy.


Your first mistake is thinking business is in any form Democratic. Its not.
Your second mistake is to think that the CWU have any legal basis to force me not to work. They do not.
Your third mistake is to think that I work for the CWU. Incorrect. I work for RM. RM works for its shareholders. Its shareholders want profits. Its RM who pays me, with those profits. Where as I pay the CWU to represent me! Perhaps not for long as the level of debate and intellect shown here by its members really does shine a light on it as an institution. Yeh they do some good, but they are also capable of doing damage. Which they will do now. Change averse, but businesses must change to maintain competitiveness.

People saying that people shouldn't be aloud the benefits the union get us if they don't support them. Well how about these same people should be the first to go if they do irreversible damage to the business due to this strike action? Sounds about right?

if 55% vote Conservative and 45% vote Labour in a General election then us 45% would be totally within our rights to not pay taxes to the Tory government as we don't like what they are offering.

You all need to get this analogy out of your heads because it doesn't compare.

A trades union is a team of workers that is more effective than however many individuals, the union leaders representing and acting on behalf of the workers.
If you were in a football team might we assume that, if you disagreed with him, you would often take no notice of the captain who is there for the benefit of all team members ?
And if that's another "false analogy" I'll come up with a different one.

[jetblack]

Il do as i please thankyou very much.

You are on your own.

[UrbanPirate]

That other 45% would be totally within their right to go in as they accept the proposals RM are offering. That is democracy. Not what is being spouted here.

That is the total opposite of democracy FFS!

Steve,
Yes, if 55% vote Conservative and 45% vote Labour in a General election then us 45% would be totally within our rights to not pay taxes to the Tory government as we don't like what they are offering.

Guys, just no. False analogy.


Your first mistake is thinking business is in any form Democratic. Its not.
Your second mistake is to think that the CWU have any legal basis to force me not to work. They do not.
Your third mistake is to think that I work for the CWU. Incorrect. I work for RM. RM works for its shareholders. Its shareholders want profits. Its RM who pays me, with those profits. Where as I pay the CWU to represent me! Perhaps not for long as the level of debate and intellect shown here by its members really does shine a light on it as an institution. Yeh they do some good, but they are also capable of doing damage. Which they will do now. Change averse, but businesses must change to maintain competitiveness.

People saying that people shouldn't be aloud the benefits the union get us if they don't support them. Well how about these same people should be the first to go if they do irreversible damage to the business due to this strike action? Sounds about right?

if 55% vote Conservative and 45% vote Labour in a General election then us 45% would be totally within our rights to not pay taxes to the Tory government as we don't like what they are offering.

You all need to get this analogy out of your heads because it doesn't compare.

A trades union is a team of workers that is more effective than however many individuals, the union leaders representing and acting on behalf of the workers.
If you were in a football team might we assume that, if you disagreed with him, you would often take no notice of the captain who is there for the benefit of all team members ?
And if that's another "false analogy" I'll come up with a different one.

You are correct. That is another false analogy. The captain in that scenario is more likely the DOM not the CWU. Try again...

[UrbanPirate]

Il do as i please thankyou very much.

You are on your own.

I think you'll find im not