When it comes to HQ, I agree with you. In fact, I find it particularly distasteful that they get so much money, and the local and area Reps only get travel expenses! They're the ones on the front line, tackling the day to day problems. They're the ones who have to deal with the disgruntled Members, when we get shafted! I know that they're employed by RM, so they get paid by them. But how about topping up their wages, for all the extra work they do?
I have little time for the HQ lot. But when it comes to the local and Area Reps (at least in my area, anyway), I have the greatest of respect for them. They've done a great deal for us, particularly over the last few years. It's usually a thankless task, but they do it anyway. Well done lads and lasses!
Don't knock Insanity
it's just another outlook on Reality!
I would agree with you 100% Andy regarding local reps etc and we have had some excellent ones in our office, i have made the case that a percentage of our subs should go to local reps. I have often thanked them personally for their un rewarded efforts......
As i'm sure you have read i sadly temporarly come out of the union and am sorry to say for the first time i found myself in dissagreement with unit reps and some area reps. My problem was that although every single person i spoke with in our office was against the deal ( though i'm sure some voted for it which is their choice), the unit and area reps were strongly on the side of the massive majority voting no to the deal, actively forming alliances against the deal ....
Suddenly ( which completely shocked us all ) when they went for their breifings from the union cheifs they completely changed sides even though a massive percentage of the people they were representing in our office were still strongly against the deal..... Now my take on it is, they should have still fought the corner of the majority of the members they represented not towed the party line, i felt this was undemocratic and was the final nail for me hence why i came out of the union. I totaly accepted the ballot result but for the first time found myself( as did many others) dissapointed with their representation, however i still recognise and aplaud the tireless efforts they put in......
What do people feel should they have supported their local membership or should they have followed the unions line and tried to get us to vote yes??????
Cheetah wrote:I would agree with you 100% Andy regarding local reps etc and we have had some excellent ones in our office, i have made the case that a percentage of our subs should go to local reps. I have often thanked them personally for their un rewarded efforts......
As i'm sure you have read i sadly temporarly come out of the union and am sorry to say for the first time i found myself in dissagreement with unit reps and some area reps. My problem was that although every single person i spoke with in our office was against the deal ( though i'm sure some voted for it which is their choice), the unit and area reps were strongly on the side of the massive majority voting no to the deal, actively forming alliances against the deal ....
Suddenly ( which completely shocked us all ) when they went for their breifings from the union cheifs they completely changed sides even though a massive percentage of the people they were representing in our office were still strongly against the deal..... Now my take on it is, they should have still fought the corner of the majority of the members they represented not towed the party line, i felt this was undemocratic and was the final nail for me hence why i came out of the union. I totaly accepted the ballot result but for the first time found myself( as did many others) dissapointed with their representation, however i still recognise and aplaud the tireless efforts they put in......
What do people feel should they have supported their local membership or should they have followed the unions line and tried to get us to vote yes??????
In some respects you are right, they are elected by the local membership to represent them, not to follow the party line. That said, they were subject to all the flattery and paraphernalia of the CWU machine spreading the lie that a yes vote was the only option and what a great deal it was and I am quite sure they were very persuasive in their arguments and of course dismissive of those who argued against it.
In light of the fact that despite the obvious failings of the agreement and against the will of the local membership they allowed themselves to be swayed begs the question are they the right men for the job in hand?
As sure as eggs are eggs there are going to be serious differences of opinion as to what is and isn't agreed and despite the words of the agreement being clearly in their favour could be swayed by the CWU to follow the path of least resistance.
Cheetah wrote:I would agree with you 100% Andy regarding local reps etc and we have had some excellent ones in our office, i have made the case that a percentage of our subs should go to local reps. I have often thanked them personally for their un rewarded efforts......
As i'm sure you have read i sadly temporarly come out of the union and am sorry to say for the first time i found myself in dissagreement with unit reps and some area reps. My problem was that although every single person i spoke with in our office was against the deal ( though i'm sure some voted for it which is their choice), the unit and area reps were strongly on the side of the massive majority voting no to the deal, actively forming alliances against the deal ....
Suddenly ( which completely shocked us all ) when they went for their breifings from the union cheifs they completely changed sides even though a massive percentage of the people they were representing in our office were still strongly against the deal..... Now my take on it is, they should have still fought the corner of the majority of the members they represented not towed the party line, i felt this was undemocratic and was the final nail for me hence why i came out of the union. I totaly accepted the ballot result but for the first time found myself( as did many others) dissapointed with their representation, however i still recognise and aplaud the tireless efforts they put in......
What do people feel should they have supported their local membership or should they have followed the unions line and tried to get us to vote yes??????
In some respects you are right, they are elected by the local membership to represent them, not to follow the party line. That said, they were subject to all the flattery and paraphernalia of the CWU machine spreading the lie that a yes vote was the only option and what a great deal it was and I am quite sure they were very persuasive in their arguments and of course dismissive of those who argued against it.
In light of the fact that despite the obvious failings of the agreement and against the will of the local membership they allowed themselves to be swayed begs the question are they the right men for the job in hand?
As sure as eggs are eggs there are going to be serious differences of opinion as to what is and isn't agreed and despite the words of the agreement being clearly in their favour could be swayed by the CWU to follow the path of least resistance.
Both comments spot on ,and so clearly arguments to maintain membership and transform our union
Cheetah wrote:I would agree with you 100% Andy regarding local reps etc and we have had some excellent ones in our office, i have made the case that a percentage of our subs should go to local reps. I have often thanked them personally for their un rewarded efforts......
As i'm sure you have read i sadly temporarly come out of the union and am sorry to say for the first time i found myself in dissagreement with unit reps and some area reps. My problem was that although every single person i spoke with in our office was against the deal ( though i'm sure some voted for it which is their choice), the unit and area reps were strongly on the side of the massive majority voting no to the deal, actively forming alliances against the deal ....
Suddenly ( which completely shocked us all ) when they went for their breifings from the union cheifs they completely changed sides even though a massive percentage of the people they were representing in our office were still strongly against the deal..... Now my take on it is, they should have still fought the corner of the majority of the members they represented not towed the party line, i felt this was undemocratic and was the final nail for me hence why i came out of the union. I totaly accepted the ballot result but for the first time found myself( as did many others) dissapointed with their representation, however i still recognise and aplaud the tireless efforts they put in......
What do people feel should they have supported their local membership or should they have followed the unions line and tried to get us to vote yes??????
Have to say my view as a unit rep is that I'm there to represent the views of my members, and that is the view I should support irrespective of all the hyperbole from HQ and that is the way I approached it. Also as member on the Branch committee I believe it was my job to represent the views of the reps in my area, and I was the only dissenting view on the committee, but that was the message the reps in my area wanted representing so that is the one I put forward. Unfortunately I know of area reps who didn't ask their unit reps what the view of their offices was, but insisted on adopting the party stance, this in my view can't be right, you cannot be truly representing your members if you do not take cognisance of their views. In essence it doesn't matter what HQ wants, or what I believe, if the members are not happy with what is being offered then it can't be right to go against their wishes.
Cheetah wrote:I would agree with you 100% Andy regarding local reps etc and we have had some excellent ones in our office, i have made the case that a percentage of our subs should go to local reps. I have often thanked them personally for their un rewarded efforts......
As i'm sure you have read i sadly temporarly come out of the union and am sorry to say for the first time i found myself in dissagreement with unit reps and some area reps. My problem was that although every single person i spoke with in our office was against the deal ( though i'm sure some voted for it which is their choice), the unit and area reps were strongly on the side of the massive majority voting no to the deal, actively forming alliances against the deal ....
Suddenly ( which completely shocked us all ) when they went for their breifings from the union cheifs they completely changed sides even though a massive percentage of the people they were representing in our office were still strongly against the deal..... Now my take on it is, they should have still fought the corner of the majority of the members they represented not towed the party line, i felt this was undemocratic and was the final nail for me hence why i came out of the union. I totaly accepted the ballot result but for the first time found myself( as did many others) dissapointed with their representation, however i still recognise and aplaud the tireless efforts they put in......
What do people feel should they have supported their local membership or should they have followed the unions line and tried to get us to vote yes??????
In some respects you are right, they are elected by the local membership to represent them, not to follow the party line. That said, they were subject to all the flattery and paraphernalia of the CWU machine spreading the lie that a yes vote was the only option and what a great deal it was and I am quite sure they were very persuasive in their arguments and of course dismissive of those who argued against it.
In light of the fact that despite the obvious failings of the agreement and against the will of the local membership they allowed themselves to be swayed begs the question are they the right men for the job in hand?
As sure as eggs are eggs there are going to be serious differences of opinion as to what is and isn't agreed and despite the words of the agreement being clearly in their favour could be swayed by the CWU to follow the path of least resistance.
Both comments spot on ,and so clearly arguments to maintain membership and transform our union
You may be right B unfortunately my sentiments don't stretch as far as overthrowing the current regime and the attendant hierarchy - it may be possible but not in my lifetime
Have to say my view as a unit rep is that I'm there to represent the views of my members, and that is the view I should support irrespective of all the hyperbole from HQ and that is the way I approached it. Also as member on the Branch committee I believe it was my job to represent the views of the reps in my area, and I was the only dissenting view on the committee, but that was the message the reps in my area wanted representing so that is the one I put forward. Unfortunately I know of area reps who didn't ask their unit reps what the view of their offices was, but insisted on adopting the party stance, this in my view can't be right, you cannot be truly representing your members if you do not take cognisance of their views. In essence it doesn't matter what HQ wants, or what I believe, if the members are not happy with what is being offered then it can't be right to go against their wishes.MickR
Off
I can accept the democratic vote of majority rules, but if all unit reps had your aproach,and the leadership took on board what has been said by others on this thread and had a more neutral aproach(i.e putting the facts in front of us and letting us make up OUR OWN MINDS) i wonder if the out come would have been different ..... But i do know whatever the result would have been i and others in my office would stiil be proud trade unionists like i have been for the past 30 years.....
Cheetah wrote:I would agree with you 100% Andy regarding local reps etc and we have had some excellent ones in our office, i have made the case that a percentage of our subs should go to local reps. I have often thanked them personally for their un rewarded efforts......
As i'm sure you have read i sadly temporarly come out of the union and am sorry to say for the first time i found myself in dissagreement with unit reps and some area reps. My problem was that although every single person i spoke with in our office was against the deal ( though i'm sure some voted for it which is their choice), the unit and area reps were strongly on the side of the massive majority voting no to the deal, actively forming alliances against the deal ....
Suddenly ( which completely shocked us all ) when they went for their breifings from the union cheifs they completely changed sides even though a massive percentage of the people they were representing in our office were still strongly against the deal..... Now my take on it is, they should have still fought the corner of the majority of the members they represented not towed the party line, i felt this was undemocratic and was the final nail for me hence why i came out of the union. I totaly accepted the ballot result but for the first time found myself( as did many others) dissapointed with their representation, however i still recognise and aplaud the tireless efforts they put in......
What do people feel should they have supported their local membership or should they have followed the unions line and tried to get us to vote yes??????
Have to say my view as a unit rep is that I'm there to represent the views of my members, and that is the view I should support irrespective of all the hyperbole from HQ and that is the way I approached it. Also as member on the Branch committee I believe it was my job to represent the views of the reps in my area, and I was the only dissenting view on the committee, but that was the message the reps in my area wanted representing so that is the one I put forward. Unfortunately I know of area reps who didn't ask their unit reps what the view of their offices was, but insisted on adopting the party stance, this in my view can't be right, you cannot be truly representing your members if you do not take cognisance of their views. In essence it doesn't matter what HQ wants, or what I believe, if the members are not happy with what is being offered then it can't be right to go against their wishes.
I quite agree with your stance and the stance of the area reps was totally reprehensible and the reason why the CWU is losing members. Not only should all reps, unit, area and divisional represent the members but the CWU too.
dvbuk55 wrote:
You may be right B unfortunately my sentiments don't stretch as far as overthrowing the current regime and the attendant hierarchy - it may be possible but not in my lifetime
History is littered with massive upheavals that seemingly sprang from nowhere and brought dramatic change overnight , Nicolae Ceausescu never got his suit back from the dry cleaners
I don't agree. You can't tell someone to go against their conscience to represent someoneelses views. THAT is undemocratic. Everyone is an individual and should make their own choices especially if the decision directly effects them. Anyway you can't personally represent EVERYONE'S views and some delivery menbers were FOR the deal so who is the rep supposed to 'side' with and with what justification?
meercat wrote:I don't agree. You can't tell someone to go against their conscience to represent someoneelses views. THAT is undemocratic. Everyone is an individual and should make their own choices especially if the decision directly effects them. Anyway you can't personally represent EVERYONE'S views and some delivery menbers were FOR the deal so who is the rep supposed to 'side' with and with what justification?
Sorry i strongly dissagree....... Firstly we are paying a fee to the union to REPRESENT the majority...... The rep should canvas the views of his office and support/ represent the majority in his/her unit. The rep can take their own feelings into account but they are not there to represent their personal feelings even if it is opposite to the majority. If it comes to a vote they have their vote, and cast it accordingly on how they feel but then they should represent the majority...... I know the vote was a big yes but in our unit i would estimate 80 to 90%were against that deserves a voice!!!!!
According to your views if the vote had of been a no the leadership would have been within their rights to say right because you voted against us we are not going to represent you
That my freind is undemocratic the union should represent the majority, the rep should represent the majority in their unit and put their side across not simply represent how they feel, we see too much in polotics MP's towing the party line even if is detrimental to their constituents, abstaining to vote because they are against what is being proposed by their leadership ......
meercat wrote:I don't agree. You can't tell someone to go against their conscience to represent someoneelses views. THAT is undemocratic. Everyone is an individual and should make their own choices especially if the decision directly effects them. Anyway you can't personally represent EVERYONE'S views and some delivery menbers were FOR the deal so who is the rep supposed to 'side' with and with what justification?
Sorry I also disagree with meercat.
We are a democratic Union and as such the elected representative should represent the majority view whether they agree or not. If they disagree with their members then they can put their views forward "In a personal capacity". I have seen this done when a rep in my area disagreed with the Branch and sent out email to activists he represented with that term displayed prominently.
Of course as you climb the ladder you have more people to represent so it is entirely possible that an Area Rep or above has to represent the view of the majority of his members, even if that goes against the views of his parent unit.
IMHO Whatever their personal views a rep is there to represent the majority view of their members that's why they are called "Representatives".
All post by me in Green are Admin Posts. Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility. If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
meercat wrote:I don't agree. You can't tell someone to go against their conscience to represent someoneelses views. THAT is undemocratic. Everyone is an individual and should make their own choices especially if the decision directly effects them. Anyway you can't personally represent EVERYONE'S views and some delivery menbers were FOR the deal so who is the rep supposed to 'side' with and with what justification?
Sorry I also disagree with meercat.
We are a democratic Union and as such the elected representative should represent the majority view whether they agree or not. If they disagree with their members then they can put their views forward "In a personal capacity". I have seen this done when a rep in my area disagreed with the Branch and sent out email to activists he represented with that term displayed prominently.
Of course as you climb the ladder you have more people to represent so it is entirely possible that an Area Rep or above has to represent the view of the majority of his members, even if that goes against the views of his parent unit.
IMHO Whatever their personal views a rep is there to represent the majority view of their members that's why they are called "Representatives".
I couldn't agree more Teebs. That's what makes the difference between a good Rep, and someone who's in it for the wrong reasons IMHO. Obviously it would be wrong for anyone to expect a Rep to change his/her mind, because the majority of their Members disagreed with them. But just because they don't agree with us, it doesn't mean that they can't fight for what the majority of us want, despite their personal views.
Don't knock Insanity
it's just another outlook on Reality!
meercat wrote:I don't agree. You can't tell someone to go against their conscience to represent someoneelses views. THAT is undemocratic. Everyone is an individual and should make their own choices especially if the decision directly effects them. Anyway you can't personally represent EVERYONE'S views and some delivery menbers were FOR the deal so who is the rep supposed to 'side' with and with what justification?
Think the main point here is, as others have stated, when you are representing the members whether at unit or Area level you have to represent the majority view, and what your personal view is shouldn't enter in to it, if the majority view concurs with your point of view, all well and good, if not you just have to accept it and put forward the majority view. As I said I canvassed the reps in my area to find out what their members felt about the deal, and the response was that the vast majority were against it, but I am aware of Area reps who didn't ask their unit reps for this information, and only put forward the view from HQ and therefore their own personal view, but their members views were not given any cognisance, now that is undemocratic, actually it is autocratic! You cannot be said to truly be representing your members when you ignore what they feel and want and choose to pursue your own personal agenda.
