VOTE KYE DUDD VOTE FOR CHANGE

[kyedudd007]

Minister of cucumber,

I think POL can no longer been seen as a weaker area of the union after the way our members in that section have supported us. A 93% yes vote in a strike ballot is excellent, if I am elected I will try my best to keep that level of support going.

Regards

Kye

[Talell]

Ok, but now for the most important issue:

Will you campaign to introduce a standard naming format for LTB's (i.e. LTB 999/99: (no variation in this whatsoever))?

each one is different atm and it's a pain when gmail doesn't automatically apply a label to them.

think of all the productivity lost among union reps having to manually file every LTB to a LTB folder in their email!

[davidwilshire]

So what has Kye Dudd got to offer?

Since coming back to Bristol I have had the time to judge Kye Dudd.

In 2009 at Annual Conference my Branch oppossed the HQ motion for rolling strike action. One of few in the hall to do so. We believed that the national attack from Royal Mail needed to be met with a national strike ballot from the CWU. This is not to say it was unanimous in our Branch meeting but Kye Dudd as a young delegate backed the call for a national ballot straight away to support those in London and Scotland. History proves this was the right call as once the dispute went national only two days of strike action was needed to bring Royal Mail back to the table. Had the national ballot been held immediately it would have meant members in London and Scotland loosing far less money in the medium term. After Conference Kye came to a number of offices with me to argue for them to join the rolling strike action and then attended picket lines at all the major sites around Bristol. (We had 21 sites on strike during the rolling strike action).

Kye has been involved in negotiations with senior managers in his capacity as Branch ULR and Youth Officer. I have also taken Kye into negotiations with Royal Mail on a range of functions and he dont just sit there.

Kye is young (or a lot younger than most on the NEC/PEC) but this should be seen as a benefit and one that will bring a different angle to CWUHQ rather than the usual "we know best" mantra. Kye has an opinion and is not afriad to express it. His election address proves this.

Kye is a more than capable speaker and it makes a change to see someone of his age speak out even when it is againgst the Leadership.

Kye would not have lasted in this Branch if he had been anything other than hard working and capable.

I know Kye has something to add at CWUHQ and that is why my Branch was more than happy to endorese his nomination.

VOTE FOR CHANGE - VOTE FOR KYE DUDD

[Tamsky]

Kye has my vote - we badly need young blood from the shop floor on the Execs.

[VoteTonyBouch]

Ok, but now for the most important issue:

Will you campaign to introduce a standard naming format for LTB's (i.e. LTB 999/99: (no variation in this whatsoever))?

each one is different atm and it's a pain when gmail doesn't automatically apply a label to them.

think of all the productivity lost among union reps having to manually file every LTB to a LTB folder in their email!

Personally I think LTBs are an outdated method of presentation / communication.

The CWU give exactly the same platform to for example a ladder being risk assessed as we do to high level pay negotiations. This can never be right and its no wonder members do not read them on notice boards.

I would rather see branded communications from each department / function - for example - delivery brief 1/11, mail centre update 4/11, Pay bulletin 8/11 with the number rising as each relevant publication goes out to branches / members.

LTBs could be maintained for formal branch communications on issues such as rises in subs etc etc.

Tony

[BPeters]

I agree

[Big Daz]

Kye

On the Saturday question, how do you propose to convince the public, offcom and parliament of the merits of the change you are proposing?

Should not the needs of postal users determine the shape and size of the postal service provided rather than postal workers desired attendance patterns?

Have not the CWU leadership accepted the desire for more Saturdays off through attendance patterns in BT2010?

The population is growing we need job creation and a alteration to Saturday element of the USO is not conducive to that.

Nice idea but I going to have to say that the cons outweigh the pros.

[belle smith]

Just a point on the Saturdays, I personally preffer the new arrangements on Saturdays since the 2010 BTA, i now get 1 in 4 off as opposed to the 1 in 6 i previously had. although i know finnish later at 14:10 were previously it was 13:00.

Although thats better for me, for many in my office in their words "later Saturdays is the worst part of the agreement!" Considering that BTA also contains longer delivery spans, the CWU rubber stamping RM's unreasonable work standards and a cut in take home pay for many members, thats a very strong statment.

SATURDAYS
The leadership keep opposing a change to a Monday-Friday service due to supposed job losses. The reality is they are accepting huge job losses anyway and we are getting nothing in return. It’s time to listen to CWU members and stop telling them what’s good for them.

I would suggest that most members would not be opposed to moving Monday to Friday service, Should the union leadership really be adopting a paternalist attitude towards their members? I think Kye has a point here, if you substute "saturdays" for almost anything else in BTA i think most are sick to the back teeth of being told whats good for us by higher up members of the union.

ps. Daz he never proposed that the USO should be changed to accomadate the prefferd attendance patterns of postal workers, simply that the union should stop opposing moving to a Monday to Friday service.

[davidwilshire]

Today is the day to vote for Tony Bouch and Kye Dudd. New blood is once again needed as some have become way too comfortable. Please ensure you vote

[BPeters]

Just voted for you and Tony lad. Better go just been asked to go walk-sorting. Tarrah and good luck. We want Saturdays off.

[vanman]

Sorry about this Kye, but shouldn't you have named this thread

"VOTE KYE DUDD VOTE TO LOSE ONE JOB IN SIX!"

because that is what moving to a Monday to Friday spec would mean, and precisely why Annual Conference overwhelmingly defeated the idea.

If you seriously want to be on the PEC, shouldn't you be protecting jobs, not having a manifesto to do away with them.

[dvbuk55]

Well as strange as it may seem, by voting for a 5 day Mon to Fri, the job losses wouldn't necessarily be as black and white as it would seem and may be some form of protection. The work for six days would have to be cleared in 5, consequently deliveries would have to be adjusted accordingly and more duties provided to cover the work. In addition there would have to be a Saturday crew to do SGSDs, callers and collections, maybe a small IPS crew coupled with the CSS, which could be done on SA or overtime.

[vanman]

I'm sorry DVBUK but your view of a Mon-Fri spec is not what Kye's election address states:

"SATURDAYS
The leadership keep opposing a change to a Monday-Friday service due to supposed job losses. The reality is they are accepting huge job losses anyway and we are getting nothing in return. It’s time to listen to CWU members and stop telling them what’s good for them"

This means doing away with Saturday deliveries full stop. No matter which way you look at it - it means 1 job in 6 goes.

As this was overwhelmingly defeated at Annual Conference, how can someone hoping for election to the PEC be so out of touch with the rest of the Country, let alone expect to be able to pursue a policy completely opposite to that which Conference wants. After all Conference is the supreme decision making body of the Union - not the PEC.

[dvbuk55]

I'm sorry DVBUK but your view of a Mon-Fri spec is not what Kye's election address states:

"SATURDAYS
The leadership keep opposing a change to a Monday-Friday service due to supposed job losses. The reality is they are accepting huge job losses anyway and we are getting nothing in return. It’s time to listen to CWU members and stop telling them what’s good for them"

This means doing away with Saturday deliveries full stop. No matter which way you look at it - it means 1 job in 6 goes.

As this was overwhelmingly defeated at Annual Conference, how can someone hoping for election to the PEC be so out of touch with the rest of the Country, let alone expect to be able to pursue a policy completely opposite to that which Conference wants. After all Conference is the supreme decision making body of the Union - not the PEC.

Actually vanman, mine was a personal view, nothing at all to do with Kyes' election address, merely a comment on the issue. 1 in 6 is pure conjecture because
the workload would have to be apportioned differently. It is a complex issue but not as stark as you would suggest.

[fishtank]

As this was overwhelmingly defeated at Annual Conference, how can someone hoping for election to the PEC be so out of touch with the rest of the Country,

Out of touch with the rest of the country vanman?...really?
And you base that on Annual Conference.....

I don't agree with Mon-Fri but i'm not foolish enough to believe that the majority of the membership don't....and really it's only their opinion that counts,not Branch delegates.
I know who is out of touch with the membership and it isn't Kye Dudd.