What is wrong with our union

[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

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

Hate to break the bad news to you dvbuk, but Chas and Dave have spilt up, would you Adam and Eve it

[dvbuk55]

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

Hate to break the bad news to you dvbuk, but Chas and Dave have spilt up, would you Adam and Eve it [/quote]

Nooooooooooooo! My typical archetypal cockney couple getting a divorce aaaaaaaargh gutted - though I must admit I could never tell which one was the bearded lady

[geopip]

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 f*cking facts right before spouting your sh!te 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

Well mouth all mighty you show me where we had members clambering for an all out until we win strike action? What do you think the Officers of the Union gain by calling off a strike, they still get paid while we on strike, of course you think they don’t want to upset the Labour Party but we gave this Government more headaches than any other Union.

You want to get your f*ucking facts right, I’ve been to enough national briefings to see reps sitting on their hands or telling us they are struggling to get members to support the strike action and there were loads of members telling us they want to carry on supporting the strike but couldn’t keep it up over too long a period.

I have spoken directly to more members and reps than you could shake a stick at so don’t tell me I’m spouting sh!te to you. It was the views a lot of our members were feeding back, that’s until the strikes were called off then all of a sudden they could have stayed out forever.

We are one of the only Unions left in this Country who can deliver a national strike, but in reality our members don’t express a great desire to strike and it is only by reps drumming up the support that we take strike action and I don’t blame the members we have been poorly led by the current leadership of Ward and Hayes which has seen us lurch from one strike to another and the members are sick and tried of it

So you rude f*ucking arse wipe stick it up your tail pipe as far as it will go and stop spourting your Sh!te to me.

[MinisterofCucumber]

Who has the most convincing argument?

Godric argues that the union bottled it mainly because of loyalty to the Labour Party.

Geopip argues that they had no choice but to go to negotiation before the strikes collapsed. He bases this on feedback from reps.

My view is that if you have to go on strike, then you do it properly.

It looks like all the strike has achieved is an agreement that worsens terms and conditions. There will be no time to return to strike before the general election.

Who does this favour?

I'm with Godric. He has a right to be angry.

[BELIAL]

Got to admit it is getting a bit wearing all these union generals bigging up their heroic acts and blaming the troops for their defeats.
Overwhelming ballot for action then strikes on off on off on off,then go stand in the corner for months and we might let you know what we decide. If you ask me,after treating people like that it's a bloody miracle that there are any members left

[geopip]

Who has the most convincing argument?

Godric argues that the union bottled it mainly because of loyalty to the Labour Party.

Geopip argues that they had no choice but to go to negotiation before the strikes collapsed. He bases this on feedback from reps.

My view is that if you have to go on strike, then you do it properly.

It looks like all the strike has achieved is an agreement that worsens terms and conditions. There will be no time to return to strike before the general election.

Who does this favour?

I'm with Godric. He has a right to be angry.

What seems to be missing from both your and Godric’s views is what were Royal Mail doing before the strikes? They were making wide sweeping changes without this Union and its member’s agreement. What happened after the strikes Royal Mail were forced around the table and had no choice than to reach agreement with the Union.

Were the strikes to stop change? No we were never going to stop change, it was about negotiating change and seeking reward for the membership through change.

I’m glad you have already had sight of the agreement perhaps you could share the detail with us all.

You had no vote in what Royal Mail were imposing on us, however you along with the rest of the membership will have a vote on any final agreement the choice will be the members not any representative of the Union.

[MinisterofCucumber]

Geopip wrote:

"What seems to be missing from both your and Godric’s views is what were Royal Mail doing before the strikes? They were making wide sweeping changes without this Union and its member’s agreement."
That is not the way I see it.

Management used the hitlerian tactic of threatening to do something bad unless the union agreed to something not quite so bad. I am not aware of an example of the union calling management's bluff. The employer cannot change the terms of your contract without consulting you. If some people had changes imposed on them and others didn't, a claim of discrimination could be won. I have been searching for a definition of 'executive action' but I can't find one. I think this is a mandelsonian invention.

The only changes that were happening before the strike were being implemented by local agreement where poorly trained reps were left to negotiate on their own by our corrupt union hierarchy. A lot of the time, nationally agreed policies were being broken because Labour union 'middle management' were turning a blind eye. If RM were allowed to break policies, they would just do it. When I discovered that my managers had broken the pay protection and substitution policies, they eventually had to pay out about £50,000. Would they have done this unless they had to?

No, they coughed up because they would have lost an Employment Tribunal.

Why is the union so reluctant to take cases to ET?

Is it because it would divert funds away from supporting union officials who are embryo Labour politicians.

[stokes11eg]

You've got it in one! Management threatening to do something bad, and thereby bullying the union into accepting
a slightly less but non the less deplorable set of agreements.From the start the Unions should have said no, and supported every single person who felt their contract to be breached,in going to a tribunal. A few (won) set of test cases would have nipped this in the bud. Those that wanted to refuse changes to their contract should have been given their correct redundancy payout, if that's the road they wanted to walk down.

[The truth!]

Geopip wrote:

"What seems to be missing from both your and Godric’s views is what were Royal Mail doing before the strikes? They were making wide sweeping changes without this Union and its member’s agreement."
That is not the way I see it.

Management used the hitlerian tactic of threatening to do something bad unless the union agreed to something not quite so bad. I am not aware of an example of the union calling management's bluff. The employer cannot change the terms of your contract without consulting you. If some people had changes imposed on them and others didn't, a claim of discrimination could be won. I have been searching for a definition of 'executive action' but I can't find one. I think this is a mandelsonian invention.

The only changes that were happening before the strike were being implemented by local agreement where poorly trained reps were left to negotiate on their own by our corrupt union hierarchy. A lot of the time, nationally agreed policies were being broken because Labour union 'middle management' were turning a blind eye. If RM were allowed to break policies, they would just do it. When I discovered that my managers had broken the pay protection and substitution policies, they eventually had to pay out about £50,000. Would they have done this unless they had to?

No, they coughed up because they would have lost an Employment Tribunal.

Why is the union so reluctant to take cases to ET?

Is it because it would divert funds away from supporting union officials who are embryo Labour politicians.

Mister C the employer can and have changed terms and conditons without agreement. Of course they consult before hand but they can and did introduce change without agreement last year.

People like to quote facts well last year Royal Mail introduced over 700 revisons but only 436 by executive action. Given the fact the union had a national policy of no savings until there was a national agreement there were offices who were happy to agree change.

The offices who had executive action decided to fight, because Royal Mail didt want to negotate with this union anymore. We were taking strike action at least 4 months before the national ballot and in the case of some offices in Scotland over 6 months. The fact is that despite the carraige of a motion at conference which called for a national ballot this did not take place until months later due to some areas needing to do some more work with the members. The polls which the union did proved that.

We got a massive yes vote but lets be honest the support for strike action UK wide was not as good as 2007, I have seen the figures which were varified by reps In additon some offices were into their 20th strikes whilst others were on their second.

Now in terms of this agreement judge it on the facts of when you read it , all be it I think some want it to be bad heaven knows why ?

[OnAFlyer]

Now in terms of this agreement judge it on the facts of when you read it , all be it I think some want it to be bad heaven knows why ?

It doesn't matter what's in the agreement, a lot of people on here have already made up their minds to vote no. It could be £500 a week basic and they'd still vote no because RM wanted them to work an hour later on a Saturday. It's all about fighting RM for some people and going against the establishment. (In a safe kind of way)

What is a 99.9% certainty is that the majority will vote for whatever the CWU recommends. Personally I only care about how much my take home pay will increase. (lumps sums are an irrelevance) I go to work to earn money, I don't really give a monkeys what I have to do for it as 40 hours is 40 hours.

[dvbuk55]

,

[
Mister C the employer can and have changed terms and conditons without agreement. Of course they consult before hand but they can and did introduce change without agreement last year.

People like to quote facts well last year Royal Mail introduced over 700 revisons but only 436 by executive action. Given the fact the union had a national policy of no savings until there was a national agreement there were offices who were happy to agree change.

The offices who had executive action decided to fight, because Royal Mail didt want to negotate with this union anymore. We were taking strike action at least 4 months before the national ballot and in the case of some offices in Scotland over 6 months. The fact is that despite the carraige of a motion at conference which called for a national ballot this did not take place until months later due to some areas needing to do some more work with the members. The polls which the union did proved that.

We got a massive yes vote but lets be honest the support for strike action UK wide was not as good as 2007, I have seen the figures which were varified by reps In additon some offices were into their 20th strikes whilst others were on their second.

Now in terms of this agreement judge it on the facts of when you read it , all be it I think some want it to be bad heaven knows why ?

Well here we go again - massaging the facts to fit the case. 700 revisions 436 by EA , which is roughly two thirds - that in itself speaks volumes on the value of local negotiations - advocated yet again in this agreement. Ah yes - the policy of no savings - brought in AFTER revisions and change had taken place.

The reason the national ballot didn't take place was because the National Union didn't want to rock the boat. Shown especially with the number of offices waiting for local ballots to be sanctioned. Scotland and London and others as you state had been out for months on and off BUT still RM wasn't being drawn to the table
UNTIL the National Ballot was eventually called - the support then wasn't for the changes to come but for the changes already in place. The support for strike action wouldn't be as good because the membership had decreased over the two years between 2007 and 2009 AND many many offices had a dearth of part timers who saw no point in joining the union in the intervening years. Even so the support for strike action in my unit was solid, more so than the 2007 action, despite the fact that our office was 60/40 FT to PT and it should not have passed your attention that the majority thought that the interim agreement was a cop out and that Royal Mail would have needed to get agreement sooner, certainly before Xmas.

What we have achieved will be shown in the agreement. Cynics may well say that if it is worth its salt it shouldn't need more than a week of perusal to judge it.
As for people wanting a bad agreement I feel the opposite is true, they WANT a good agreement but fear the worst and certainly some of the scenarios posted on here do nothing to allay those fears. With talk of longer Saturdays, decapped D2D, no strike agreements, later start times and winners and losers it can surely only get better!!!!!!

[Godric]

Well mouth all mighty you show me where we had members clambering for an all out until we win strike action? What do you think the Officers of the Union gain by calling off a strike, they still get paid while we on strike, of course you think they don’t want to upset the Labour Party but we gave this Government more headaches than any other Union.

You want to get your f*ucking facts right, I’ve been to enough national briefings to see reps sitting on their hands or telling us they are struggling to get members to support the strike action and there were loads of members telling us they want to carry on supporting the strike but couldn’t keep it up over too long a period.

I have spoken directly to more members and reps than you could shake a stick at so don’t tell me I’m spouting sh!te to you. It was the views a lot of our members were feeding back, that’s until the strikes were called off then all of a sudden they could have stayed out forever.

We are one of the only Unions left in this Country who can deliver a national strike, but in reality our members don’t express a great desire to strike and it is only by reps drumming up the support that we take strike action and I don’t blame the members we have been poorly led by the current leadership of Ward and Hayes which has seen us lurch from one strike to another and the members are sick and tried of it

So you rude f*ucking arse wipe stick it up your tail pipe as far as it will go and stop spourting your Sh!te to me.

wtf are you slavering about 76% yes vote for strike action and you come out with pish that the members had little desire for strike action and who mentioned all out strike not i, support for the strikes were solid we had royal mail on the ropes again with a massive backlog of mail and a 2nd time you didn't have the backbone to stay the course, the union leadership was shamed into this strike after months of strikes by a rising number of offical strikes, the union ignored demands to call for national strike for months and that is the facts, you don't know what the hell you are talking about, this is obvious attempt by the by the union leadership to shift the blame on us, we knew the what was/is at stake and it is obvious you clowns don't give a damn as it is us that have to deal with the consequences of your failures and not you

and i will give you one last fact the union leadership is so far up the labour party's arse to care and listen to what the membership want

[Godric]

Who has the most convincing argument?

Godric argues that the union bottled it mainly because of loyalty to the Labour Party.

Geopip argues that they had no choice but to go to negotiation before the strikes collapsed. He bases this on feedback from reps.

My view is that if you have to go on strike, then you do it properly.

It looks like all the strike has achieved is an agreement that worsens terms and conditions. There will be no time to return to strike before the general election.

Who does this favour?

I'm with Godric. He has a right to be angry.

What seems to be missing from both your and Godric’s views is what were Royal Mail doing before the strikes? They were making wide sweeping changes without this Union and its member’s agreement. What happened after the strikes Royal Mail were forced around the table and had no choice than to reach agreement with the Union.

Were the strikes to stop change? No we were never going to stop change, it was about negotiating change and seeking reward for the membership through change.

I’m glad you have already had sight of the agreement perhaps you could share the detail with us all.

You had no vote in what Royal Mail were imposing on us, however you along with the rest of the membership will have a vote on any final agreement the choice will be the members not any representative of the Union.

and wtf were you lot doing about it ... sod all .... the membership was calling for a national strike ballot for months while you lot stood back and did nothing you had to be shamed into calling a national ballot as more and more offices went out on offical strike and that is the facts, remember we are YOUR boss and not the other way around we pay your wages

[Big Daz]

76 % sounds great untill you put it into contex of a crap turnout and the figure only just gets above 50%, however what really counts is what happend on the national strike days. The turnout for those who striked was superb

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Too many abusive comments on this thread.

Any more and people will be temporarily banned.

OK emotions are high but if you can only debate by saying f**k off, c***s, bastards or any other expletives then either you cannot form a cohesive argument clearly enough and need to educate yourself to do so, or you think its acceptable to Bully and Harass people who have a different view.

So here it is:

1. 1 more insult the perpetrator will be banned.
1. 1 more insult and the thread will be locked.