not on facebook
ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (UPDATED 2017)... HERE

ANNOUNCEMENT : NEW CORONAVIRUS FORUM... HERE



union reps.

26 Jun 2020, 21:04

Just like the US president, should reps be restricted to a certain amount of time before handing over to someone else?
There`s always plenty of talk on here about good reps, bad reps, reps that are in the managers pocket etc etc.etc. Would it be a fair idea to restrict reps to, say, five years before being replaced. There are plenty of people who would love to take up the job but, as we all know, long standing reps tend to have the support of the senior men and people that stand against them tend not to get elected.
Standing the existing rep down after a certain period would encourage those interested in the job to stand against fellow newbies and maybe bring a fresh brain to the table. It would also put an end to reps getting too close to management as, long term, there would be no advantage for the minority of reps who are looking out for themselves.
I`ve worked in a number of industries over 40+ years and unfortunately I`ve come across a number of reps who put themselves and their mates first, Including one who, when his mate was on the redundancy list, threw just about anybody he could under the bus in an attempt to save him. (he wasn`t saved).
anyway, personal stories aside, what are your thoughts?

union reps.

26 Jun 2020, 21:51

Wouldn't touch the job with a barge pole! Not sure where you get the idea plenty of people would like the job.

union reps.

26 Jun 2020, 22:26

.
Last edited by Dindin on 27 Jun 2020, 18:17, edited 1 time in total.

union reps.

27 Jun 2020, 07:43

ihatedogs wrote:Just like the US president, should reps be restricted to a certain amount of time before handing over to someone else?

No it would cost far too much to continually train new reps.
You also learn on the job and removing reps after a set time would leave members in a situation where they are continually represented by someone without the experience to do the job.
I do think the idea of "elected unopposed" should be jettisoned. If you don't have the support of the members then you can't be the rep.
And those on full time release should have to go back on the floor and do the job for 2 weeks every year. They sign for a duty don't they?

union reps.

27 Jun 2020, 15:20

thankless task. and called worse than shite of some members. mind you. some do deserve it, but most reps are good people, and FOR the members.

union reps.

27 Jun 2020, 15:22

Would consider it....if i got paid extra

union reps.

27 Jun 2020, 16:17

yubin282 wrote:Would consider it....if i got paid extra


Put that down on your bio when you apply.
See how many votes you get.

union reps.

27 Jun 2020, 16:56

I was a rep once but left as i was pushed out by reps higher up who had 0 backbone.

union reps.

27 Jun 2020, 18:02

It's a thankless task and you get slated by gobshytes on all sides.

Its an old tale but I'll tell it again...

1st thing the screws do is make it look like you're getting special treatment. The resident idiots are all over this. Divide and rule works. If you were spoken to and baselessly accused of some of the conspiracy theories the numps come up with, outside of work, you'd knock some f***ers out cold. But you take it, f**k only knows why. Trying to negate the Divide and Rule thing possibly.

You get minimal training until you're judged to have a face that fits. Not agreeing with the union line will not endear you. My training amounted to " this is a phone, if you get in trouble use it and a grown up will help you."

You then try drag everyone who definitely DOES know better, out of the s**t on a regular basis, for infractions caused cutting corners.

We have another rep now who you can't get out of the callers/PHG with a crowbar (oh the irony'! I know I know)

"Oh we wish you were still rep at least you blah blah blah" comes the refrain from the same folk who slagged you off to your face.

Anyone who STILL wants to be a rep for the RIGHT reasons needs their head examined.

union reps.

27 Jun 2020, 18:29

Other half is a shop steward for a national union. They hold local elections every 5 years. Each name has to be nominated and seconded and votes are cast accordingly. Gets rid of the useless ones, keeps the good ones and brings fresh blood to replace the useless. The newbies shadow the reps in meetings, disciplinaries etc...and attend training courses in their first year.

union reps.

28 Jun 2020, 09:17

I've been a unit rep for two years and have over 37 years service and to be fair it's a thankless job and the stress it can create on yourself is unreal but I do it for non political reasons and I treat every member the same irrelevant of how many years they have been in the buisness it's about day to protection of members within the unit and if anyone in my unit wanted me step aside I'd gladly give them the opportunity to do this thankless job

union reps.

28 Jun 2020, 13:37

Union is a waste of space, can't understand why people give them money to do f*** all.

union reps.

28 Jun 2020, 14:01

Been there done it, no way would l do it again EVEN IF I WAS PAID TO DO IT.
Unless you're prepared to be in the doms pocket and be hated by the rest of the staff, keep well away.

union reps.

28 Jun 2020, 14:11

The majority of reps do it for themselves and don’t care about their members.

They are in the pockets of the DOMs

union reps.

28 Jun 2020, 14:28

I always wondered why Cwu doesn`t pay their reps, even a small payment will perhaps attract better reps?
In my office no one wanted the rep job and the one who wanted it is usseles.

We pay on average £3 per week x 100 k members, that`s £300 k per week, from RM members alone.

What is Cwu doing with all those money?

union reps.

28 Jun 2020, 15:05

Janet Brum wrote:What is Cwu doing with all those money?


A huge chunk of it goes back to Royal Mail to pay for all of the full release bods.

A large chunk of it pays the wages of the national officers and their SPADs.

A big chunk goes into the pension hole for the above and their predecessors.

There's a lot of money needed to keep the social clubs sorry I meant branches going.

There's umpteen pointless trips to court.

The tea and custard cream bill is eye watering.

Then there's Lovejoy's broadband bill.

And some posters.

union reps.

28 Jun 2020, 15:32

Woody Guthrie wrote:
Janet Brum wrote:What is Cwu doing with all those money?


A huge chunk of it goes back to Royal Mail to pay for all of the full release bods.

A large chunk of it pays the wages of the national officers and their SPADs.

A big chunk goes into the pension hole for the above and their predecessors.

There's a lot of money needed to keep the social clubs sorry I meant branches going.

There's umpteen pointless trips to court.

The tea and custard cream bill is eye watering.

Then there's Lovejoy's broadband bill.

And some posters.


In other words ,it’s a racket

union reps.

28 Jun 2020, 15:55

If you could wind the clock back 50 years and outlaw unions completely, I would think you would find your workplace and take home pay and pensions ,sick pay and general rights in the work place a very different place that you experience today. Despite the disenchantments that a lot on here, have now.

union reps.

28 Jun 2020, 16:08

deltaforce wrote:If you could wind the clock back 50 years and outlaw unions completely, I would think you would find your workplace and take home pay and pensions ,sick pay and general rights in the work place a very different place that you experience today. Despite the disenchantments that a lot on here, have now.


Without a doubt but that has mainly come about as a result of the power of an organised trade union movement , not the particular set of skills of individual national officers in a particular union.

We're lucky, despite what some will say about couriers we are a single employer industry. That gives you more power than most unions especially if you can maintain a high level of union membership.

union reps.

28 Jun 2020, 18:37

I don’t think time-limited appointments for unit reps would work purely because there aren’t generally enough people wanting to be reps. It would be a disastrous policy for the union to force out a good rep when there’s no one to replace them with. The union will always claim there isn’t enough money in the pot to pay reps directly.

Further up the food chain, a 2 term limit, or something similar, would be a great idea to give a well needed kick up the arse to branch secretaries and divisional reps. Far too many of those people are strangers to problems on the front line, and their priority is protection of their own position.

The ballots for those positions, and attempts to get members involved in the democracy of their union, are nothing short of pathetic.

Previous page Next page


Page 1 of 2   1, 2