What is wrong with our union

[fishtank]

Geopip wrote:

"And the real truth is the members doing the job right every day as the Union has been banging on about for years ..."

I must have missed the union's campaign against 'job and knock'.

Perhaps there could be an effort to educate members what the results of some of their behaviours will be in the long run.

The members are not strong because they have no idea what is going on.

Who does that benefit?

The union should televise the PEC agreement debate on its TV station.

To be fair the union did launch a "doing the job properly" campaign.
But the mistake was their's to begin with for allowing job and finish to be part of the SDD agreement.

[belle smith]

Geopip wrote:

"And the real truth is the members doing the job right every day as the Union has been banging on about for years ..."

I must have missed the union's campaign against 'job and knock'.

Perhaps there could be an effort to educate members what the results of some of their behaviours will be in the long run.

The members are not strong because they have no idea what is going on.

Who does that benefit?

The union should televise the PEC agreement debate on its TV station.

To be fair the union did launch a "doing the job properly" campaign.
But the mistake was their's to begin with for allowing job and finish to be part of the SDD agreement.

Don't think they would have been able to. and how popular would it have made them. They did ballot us for strike action on the SDD and we voted no.
I do however think they could and should have made it clear in 2007 when theses 2 muppets were doing the rounds :cfo :lfo saying "we simply want people to work all the hours they are paid" Have made it clear that we always did until they changed it. That we had no problem working all our hours but without flex.

[The truth!]

Belle smith is spot on ! In 2003 this union got a no vote! Only one division got a yes vote for strike and some branchs. Allan Leighton and his managers were getting agreements locally in over a hundred offices including job and finish. Royal mail had announced to the union the world had changed and they would introduce sdd without a national agreement.
The sad thing some offices were encouraging this by agreeing to the revisions.

Had it not been for the fact that London had achieved a yes vote for strike over London weighting then maybe the union would not be talking about this national agreement. London took two days officail action which led to unofficial action in southall dartford and west London . The rest of London went out to support them including Romford. Action spread to Southend Chelmsford covertry postmouth Warrington and others. We were out for 2 weeks fighting for this union.

On the back of this dispute the union got a national agreement which delivered £26.28 pay rise. The ending of the 6 day duty pattern with everyone having as a miniumn a 5 day week. The mtsf 2 agreement. It was not possible to remove job and finish as to many offices broke ranks and done deals with Leighton.

So don't tell me about fighting for a better deal or action been there and got the tee shirt. To many blame the union eiher centraly or at branch level instead of looking at your own office. The union in my view always starts there. I often see how an office can become strong when they were previously weak purely on the basis of a rep or an office committee holding meetings and informing members what is due to come in. Some of you on here talk a good fight why don't you become reps and influence the fight. You may even enjoy it.

[smudger83]

vote yes

[MinisterofCucumber]

The Truth,

You claim that what is wrong with the union can be sorted out by members voting out bad reps.

If this is the case, why are my views supported by existing reps?

History shows us that when a majority is favoured at the expense of a minority, that majority will have the voting power. The Nazis were voted in on the basis that the majority benefited from the slave labour of a minority. The union is meant to protect all its members, not just a majority. Transparency and an awareness of what is going on is essential if fairness is desired.

There are too many places in RM where a minority of workers are used as 'donkeys'. Seniors and favourites use bullying techniques to manage the 'donkeys' and are rewarded with cushy duties.

If a decent rep goes to disagreement, the IR framework means that the matter is taken out of their hands by 'middle management' reps on paid release. These are likely to be 'bought men' if, for example, they have taken out mortgages on the basis of their wages, union expenses and Labour councillor expenses (about £10,000 a year).

What we need is a way to make the actions of union officials transparent and available to scrutiny. Disputes and their outcomes could be posted anonymously on a forum like this.

The internet is a technology that has great potential for fighting tyranny. Why is the CWU not making the most of it?

[fishtank]

Belle smith is spot on ! In 2003 this union got a no vote! Only one division got a yes vote for strike and some branchs. Allan Leighton and his managers were getting agreements locally in over a hundred offices including job and finish. Royal mail had announced to the union the world had changed and they would introduce sdd without a national agreement.
The sad thing some offices were encouraging this by agreeing to the revision.

Totally agree The Truth!.
Nothing causes division more than local units agreeing locally what suits them locally.
Who in their right mind would support local agreements?

[REDLETTER]

If someone called themselves 'The Handsome', do you think they would be more handsome than someone who didn't use this title?

If someone called themselves 'The Clever', do you think they they would be cleverer than someone who didn't?

If someone calls themselves 'The Truth', does that mean they are more truthful than someone who doesn't?

My point about lawyers is that unless you keep changing them, there is a good chance they can get nobbled by the opposition. I imagine this sort of thing goes on when the stakes are high.

"To correct his post . The union has not paid the labour party a penny apart from it's mandatory fees as the union carried e6 and won't do unless the pension defcit is resolved. However as is right annual conference decides as every Cwu branch which reprsents every member of the Cwu decides."

The Truth?

I know of one union official on paid release who is also a Labour councillor and states he is sponsored by the CWU.

How does the CWU sponsor him?

Is he the only example?

The twat told me I had to take a paycut and there was nothing anyone could do about it. I raised a grievance and got pay protection. I had to write to MPs to get about 30 of my workmates their money.

When the idiot starts his election campaign, a few of us are going up to his ward and are going to follow him around singing a song about how useless he is.

We have an area rep who is also a local councillor, this I find to be a conflict of interests, How can you represent a union and its members when you are also acting as a "political" councillor! With a total allowances of over £25,000

The contact email is not a CWU one but the local council one!

This persons partner is also a councillor and has no employment stated. But has under the "Name of Person or Body making Payments" as The Labour Party and the CWU.

How many other are there? I am not against the Labour party, there could well be Reps who are active in other parties, but the example is from my own experience.

[dvbuk55]

Belle smith is spot on ! In 2003 this union got a no vote! Only one division got a yes vote for strike and some branchs. Allan Leighton and his managers were getting agreements locally in over a hundred offices including job and finish. Royal mail had announced to the union the world had changed and they would introduce sdd without a national agreement.
The sad thing some offices were encouraging this by agreeing to the revision.

Totally agree The Truth!.
Nothing causes division more than local units agreeing locally what suits them locally.
Who in their right mind would support local agreements?

Well I've said it before - whichever way the wind blows for some people and the reason for the No vote in 2003 was two fold, there wasn't a good enough campaign for a YES vote, the membership were taken for granted and the fact there was a song and dance about London weighting which overshadowed the national campaign and ultimately lost the vote.

[Big Daz]

there could well be Reps who are active in other parties, but the example is from my own experience.

That'll be me then

Was at a meeting last night at a drinking establishment


Come and join me if want http://join.greenparty.org.uk/membership/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Godric]

This forum which postman set up has many benefits, but one of it's disadvantages is that it has posts like mister cucumber
which states things which are either not true or are misleading and there protrays the union in the wrong light.

To correct his post . The union has not paid the labour party a penny apart from it's mandatory fees as the union carried e6 and won't do unless the pension defcit is resolved. However as is right annual conference decides as every Cwu branch which reprsents every member of the Cwu decides.

The union does not just use one firm of solictors. Yes Simpson millar is used for personal injury claims on the postal side but not on the bt side where Edwards duthie is used. We also use Patterson brewer for employment law. Plus we use tom hendy for advice on employment law cases and injunctions.

Now in terms of face to face negotations or exchanging letters. Well I am a negotator and you have to do it face to face, you know when their under pressure and you know when their not. Yes we deal with issues in email and letters but these talks would not be finished now if it was done by email or letter only.

Now with regards to forums like this , well the Cwu website did originally have members forum but it got submerged into a north versus south fight and got dropped. These forums are ok but I get a lot of stick from coming on here cause like dingo and lovejoy I know what's happening and know that I will be told I am giving in or a sell out when us 3 have probably seen more action in fighting for the benefit of the members then anyone on here. The fact we recognise what is coming is not the same as accepting that change.

Now in terms of getting rid of branchs well I am lost for words. Who would do conduct code and attendance interviews. Who would negotate for a unit, create policy etc.

Now in terms of no more local agreements. Well on one hand we have people jumping up and down on delivery spans and saturdays yet when the union states that's down to local offices to agree , the union gets accused of allowing local talks to undermine the national agreement. For the record 150 the broadway will never agree the revisions of 1500 delivery units, 64 mail centres and 11 rdcs. After the way some have slagged the pec off why would you want them too!

the truth is the union leadership does not have a f*cking backbone, the last 2 strikes we had royal mail on the ropes and twice the union leadership backed down from a position of strength leaving the membership high and dry with our arses raped by royal mail management ... when the leadership develops a backbone then you can come on here and lecture us until then go and take a flying f*ck to yourself ya bunch of spineless f*cking cowards

If all members had the same strong belief and willingness to remain on strike until the National Union got a deal worth having that you and others have voiced on this forum, then the Union negotiators could holdout for as long as it took. However most of our members would not even go for an all out strike and the talk of more than one day made for the shuffling of feet.

An old but true cliché is a Union is only as strong as its members and the last thing a negotiator would ever want to do is to be in negotiations whilst a strike was crumbling around them and I believe that was the fear due to the reports coming back from across the Country. And the real truth is the members doing the job right every day as the Union has been banging on about for years would have delivered the biggest killer blow to Royal Mail and there plans, but hey we are where we are it not spineless to know when to deal.

look what planet are you on we never called off the strikes that was hayes/ward and the executive so get your facts right before spouting your rubbish to me ... both the 2007 and 2009 strikes were solid minus a few bad areas but that is always the same , we had them on the ropes both times with massive backlogs of mail and both times the union backed down against the wishes of the majority of the membership, remember the last strike was started by postmen and the union had to be shamed into take a national ballot as more and more offices went out on strike, we had the courage ... the union at a senior level never, they didn't want to upset the labour party because they are more interested in party politics than fight for the guys that pays their wages .... US the membership ... if they want to play party politics then they should resign from their positions in the union because one is contradicting the other and at the end of the day it is "US" the membership that has to face the brunt of their new deal/sell out with royal mail management

[dvbuk55]

Yes you are right there godric some people seem to have selective memory, especially when it involves the membership outside of London without whom there would be no deals or agreements. Both strikes were called off at HQs request not the memberships - you really do have to question those who blatantly misquote the facts and the reason for it.

[rockytony67]

Belle smith is spot on ! In 2003 this union got a no vote! Only one division got a yes vote for strike and some branchs. Allan Leighton and his managers were getting agreements locally in over a hundred offices including job and finish. Royal mail had announced to the union the world had changed and they would introduce sdd without a national agreement.
The sad thing some offices were encouraging this by agreeing to the revision.

Totally agree The Truth!.
Nothing causes division more than local units agreeing locally what suits them locally.
Who in their right mind would support local agreements?

Well I've said it before - whichever way the wind blows for some people and the reason for the No vote in 2003 was two fold, there wasn't a good enough campaign for a YES vote, the membership were taken for granted and the fact there was a song and dance about London weighting which overshadowed the national campaign and ultimately lost the vote.

Up to your old tricks again dvbuk, blame London posties for all the problems we face in this job I'm just of for a song and dance never mind a year to go, you and Night Tonic can have your retirement parties together

[Godric]

Yes you are right there godric some people seem to have selective memory, especially when it involves the membership outside of London without whom there would be no deals or agreements. Both strikes were called off at HQs request not the memberships - you really do have to question those who blatantly misquote the facts and the reason for it.

they are playing the blame game on the membership hoping that we have forgotten why the strikes were called of, their is a good reason for this it covers up the fact the union at a senior level have no backbone and are a bunch of cowards and they are not willing to face up to the fact that they are shafting the people who pay their wages in collusion with royal mail management

it is the old addage say it often enough and it becomes fact

[dvbuk55]

Belle smith is spot on ! In 2003 this union got a no vote! Only one division got a yes vote for strike and some branchs. Allan Leighton and his managers were getting agreements locally in over a hundred offices including job and finish. Royal mail had announced to the union the world had changed and they would introduce sdd without a national agreement.
The sad thing some offices were encouraging this by agreeing to the revision.

Totally agree The Truth!.
Nothing causes division more than local units agreeing locally what suits them locally.
Who in their right mind would support local agreements?

Well I've said it before - whichever way the wind blows for some people and the reason for the No vote in 2003 was two fold, there wasn't a good enough campaign for a YES vote, the membership were taken for granted and the fact there was a song and dance about London weighting which overshadowed the national campaign and ultimately lost the vote.

Up to your old tricks again dvbuk, blame London posties for all the problems we face in this job I'm just of for a song and dance never mind a year to go, you and Night Tonic can have your retirement parties together

Down the Queen Vic with Chas and Dave - now what was that song they made famous for Londoners - erm, erm Oh Yes Rabbit Rabbit Rabbit? My retirement party will be something to behold, apparently it is being organised by the managers at my delivery office and I am not invited - now I can't understand that

[SWIM]

someone said that CWU(hq) is just another dept of RM.
makes you wonder sometimes..