R M National Attendance Procedure : Branch Ballot Result

[Martin Walsh]

TBT i have only just seen your response , I realise forced branch mergers are not ideal but if the branch is not functioning in the way it was intended you have to do something.

I believe the union needs to restruture at Branch level , the problem is that my fear is whatever you restructre too you may get the same results as there is not a massive que of reps wanting to become Branch officials.

I agree some Branch`s are too big , and some are too small , some cover to big a geography area. However dont be misguided into thinking we should have smaller branch`s as prior to 1992 we had over 700 hundred branch`s and a lot of them was competely useless and used to abuse both the unions money and facility time. Yes I know some do now. But the difference back then was Royal Mail used to give ever Branch Secretary release and they decided to stop that down to cost.

Equally the landscape is totally different , in our 1500 delivery offices we have only around 3 quarters where there are reps , there is a high turnover of local reps , if you then asked those reps to now oversea legal and medical claims , finances , ill heath retirment , death grants , orgainisng and a range of other issues then my guess is we will see a lot more local reps leaving.

TBT sometimes we need to understand what really is happening before we act, this site maynot always allow you to do that. The recent CWU Reps survey had 772 responses , with two thirds of the respondents being 40 to 55. 78.8% was from white british , 11.9% white other , 4% asian and 2.5% black.

62% returned from of those who responded work in delivery , 18.5% processing , 12.5 Distrubution , 3.8% network and 2% in parcel force.

76.3 % say thhat have adequate support and facilities to carry out their role.

60% say they have a subsititue rep

75% say they have regular meetings with reps in the area.

672 respondents say that have regular contact with area reps

534 respondents say they have regular contact with safety reps

184 respondents have regular contact with divisonal reps

474 respondents have regular contact with branch secretary

70% say they have sufficent training to carry out their roles as a local rep.

76% of reps believe that local managers respect their role as a local rep

57% of reps are allowed to hold members meetings during work time.


Of course their is room for improvement and this needs to happen quickly but out of those 772 responses it is not all doom and gloom either.

However we now need to as a union ensure that local reps , area reps , Branch Secretaries , Divisonal Reps and PEC members are doing the job properly in line with why they were elected. In addition where Branch`s are not operating properly then they need to be forced to or the reps have their postions withdrawn.

[dvbuk55]

Well there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Strictly speaking that survey doesn't actually tell us anything other than the union structure as it is, doesn't work and many pay lip service to its effectiveness. The information shown is pointless, what is needed is a solution to the problem. Perhaps a more accurate picture would be painted by surveying the whole membership asking if they feel that membership is value for money, if they feel there is sufficient information and communication from all levels Rep, Branch, Area/Div Reps, if they feel that agreements reflect the wishes of the membership, if they know where the Branch Office is and who the branch officials are, if they know who the Area/Div Reps are. The structure is flawed as if the head is dismembered and behaves of its own accord, the union needs to re-engage with the membership and quickly. It won't be a question of merging branchs but merging the union unless they get the finances under control.

[newtimes]

" In addition where Branch`s are not operating properly then they need to be forced to or the reps have their postions withdrawn."
How would you force them and withdraw their positions.
My understanding is that we organise at ground level, elect the reps who attend branch meetings to take our views forward and that is pushed up the structure. Our failure is at the ground level, there is no education or motivation. A prime example of this is where I work when the vote was taken to accept the revision which was total crap it was taken when the people who it did effect were not there. The rest wanted the money and their duties were not changing. This has divided the office even more, the manager was highly skilled at that. I said "was" because he has now gone. He did stayed long enough to get his Christmas bonus and has left the office in a total mess.

[fishtank]

" In addition where Branch`s are not operating properly then they need to be forced to or the reps have their postions withdrawn."
How would you force them and withdraw their positions.

Rule 6.3
Where a Branch fails to fulfil its obligations in respect of organising and recruiting
in any area, business or business division, the NEC may, either directly or via the
Industrial Executives, consider allocating organising and recruiting rights, together
with any existing members, to an alternative Branch.

Rule 14.3.4
A Union Representative accused of being involved in conduct that brings the
Union into disrepute may have their credentials or office suspended pending the
outcome of the discipline process.

[POSTMAN]

LOL as the kids say,it's a funny old game as wassisname said,on one side you've got happy smilie reppy who's got all the tools at his/her disposal,including loads of time and training,great rapport with management,the area rep comes to dinner at the weekends with the Div rep fortnightly,and all the other bollox mentioned,yet the other side says the workplace is a s**t hole,700+ of our members have dared to grass on management to uncle Bobby,the reps forums are awash with we need help we're sinking the world is ending.

And the loony militants on this site are full of s**t?

[dvbuk55]

" In addition where Branch`s are not operating properly then they need to be forced to or the reps have their postions withdrawn."
How would you force them and withdraw their positions.

Rule 6.3
Where a Branch fails to fulfil its obligations in respect of organising and recruiting
in any area, business or business division, the NEC may, either directly or via the
Industrial Executives, consider allocating organising and recruiting rights, together
with any existing members, to an alternative Branch.

Rule 14.3.4
A Union Representative accused of being involved in conduct that brings the
Union into disrepute may have their credentials or office suspended pending the
outcome of the discipline process.

Well the tools are there, as identified by you ft, BUT who is going to apply them? You can see it all now CWU HQ to each Branch - "Are there any problems in your area?" - to which the reply will always be "Everything is wonderful and can we just say you guys at HQ are doing a wonderful job " well those who can be bothered to respond - there's probably more arse licking between the two than in a gay dogging site.

Has anyone at HQ asked for a reason as to why those branchs who didn't respond recently failed to respond? Of course not!

[fishtank]

It's easy to screw with statistics...
62% of 772 respondents were from delivery.
So 478 delivery reps of which 76% have adequate support and facilities to carry out their role.
So 363 delivery reps have adequate support and facilities to carry out their role.

We have around 1400 delivery offices so over a thousand offices either have no rep,have a rep that doesn't have adequate support and facilities or have a rep that couldn't be arsed filling in the rep's survey.
Shocking statistic.

[Pinky 1]

It's easy to screw with statistics...
62% of 772 respondents were from delivery.
So 478 delivery reps of which 76% have adequate support and facilities to carry out their role.
So 363 delivery reps have adequate support and facilities to carry out their role.

We have around 1400 delivery offices so over a thousand offices either have no rep,have a rep that doesn't have adequate support and facilities or have a rep that couldn't be arsed filling in the rep's survey.
Shocking statistic.

That's mine ........ i asked him

[dvbuk55]

It's easy to screw with statistics...
62% of 772 respondents were from delivery.
So 478 delivery reps of which 76% have adequate support and facilities to carry out their role.
So 363 delivery reps have adequate support and facilities to carry out their role.

We have around 1400 delivery offices so over a thousand offices either have no rep,have a rep that doesn't have adequate support and facilities or have a rep that couldn't be arsed filling in the rep's survey.
Shocking statistic.

That's mine ........ i asked him

Did he say why? Did he feel undervalued by the full time union officials, did he feel that regardless his opinion, like the members, would have no effect anyway? Judging from the statistics he was in the majority................and that is a definite indictment of the union organisation. Now that the union has those figures what action should they take?

[Martin Walsh]

Or Fish did the Branch not bother sending them to the local reps ?

The Eastern Region had 102 responses
East Midlands 56
London 98
North East 25
Northern Ireland 20
North West 66
Scotland 72
South East 105
South West 82
Wales 28
West Midlands 64
York and Humber 29

Unclassified 25 -


Now it so easy to mock results when they dont suit what you want but it surprised me as well. Yes the return is lower than you would like but bearing in mind a lot of offices do not have reps or have been amalgamted within one building it it worth considering.

I have long campaigned for a change to the Branch Structure and still believe in this. However would it not be intresting if those who did not return the forms came from the same branch`s who did not return the ballot paper on the attendance procudre.

[newtimes]

" In addition where Branch`s are not operating properly then they need to be forced to or the reps have their postions withdrawn."
How would you force them and withdraw their positions.

Rule 6.3
Where a Branch fails to fulfil its obligations in respect of organising and recruiting
in any area, business or business division, the NEC may, either directly or via the
Industrial Executives, consider allocating organising and recruiting rights, together
with any existing members, to an alternative Branch.

Rule 14.3.4
A Union Representative accused of being involved in conduct that brings the
Union into disrepute may have their credentials or office suspended pending the
outcome of the discipline process.

Thank you, there is a procedure, but could it be said that the true failure is further up the food chain and they should be removed.
Quote from dvbuk55 "The union is in total disarray and needs a damn good shake up from top to bottom" and I think this sums up the whole situation. Most days I view this forum and see the daily conflict in our work place, most of theses problems would not exist with a strong grass route network organising their union. Its easy to slag something off, I may be seen taking that option . A solution would be to decentralise the union, employ no one and when work needs to be done in work time the union repays that wage cost to RM and have education schools open to all. With all the social networks and modern communication we do not need a HQ, have many hubs. Just an idea like.

[Martin Walsh]

Look it is all too easy to pass the blame further up the food chain !! The issue is that when Branch`s fail to do their job then the spotlight must be pointed at the Branch. They recieve a huge rebate of members money which should be used to represent the members within their Branch.

Currently there is 2 million of the unions money which went to Branch`s sitting in an account where the branch has got over a years rebate and therefore the money does not go to the Branch.

It is very easy for people to say the union is in disarray !! The problem is you can make the mistake of changing the union structure and you could well end up with the same reps in place some of which are the real problem as they are not doing the job they should.

I know that some Branch`s are working really well and reprsent the members in a good way and look after the reps. I accept that there are some Branch`s who are a mess and it is the thought of the reps , some branch`s are trying to do a good job but have to large a geography area and some are from what you would call less than militant areas and of course you have some branch`s who have membership apathy.

We have a good divisonal structure which if used right can get a whole divison supporting a policy and this has led to management being forced to make up fixed term contract and move away from later start and 100bsi. Equally we have divisons which do not support each other and are not functioning right.

It is the easier thing in the world to criticise and say the union needs and overhaul but there is not a massive que of members wanting to become reps at any level. Why cause it is a thankless job , where you get blamed for all the sins of the business and you get often stabbed in the back.

Now I believe that the only way we are going to reorganise properly is if those reprsentivie are told they have a job and have to do it or otherwise they are going to have their postions withdrawn from them.

At the moment this does not happen because Branch`s nominate and recommend officers of the union and the PEC hence why some branch`s which are clearly not functioning are allowed to survive.

I could name you Branch`s which are a mess and I could name you a number who are very good branch`s.

[dvbuk55]

It is very easy for people to say the union is in disarray !! The problem is you can make the mistake of changing the union structure and you could well end up with the same reps in place some of which are the real problem as they are not doing the job they should.

You're bang on there dingo it is easy to say the union is in disarray because it is - as you so aptly put in your post. Branch Offices not working, Divisions not working, Reps not working. Should we not look to those who have the time and are well paid to set matters right. It is easy to criticise because it warrants a critical look. How many times has it been said that the average member feels disenfranchised, that they have been imbued with a winners and losers critique from people who should know better. There isn't a queue of people waiting to take on the mantle of union responsibility - well why is that not surprising? From the lowest tier of membership dingo to the area/div and branch level there is a huge divide and it is time the union took steps to realign the relationship and it is people like you who should be taking these matters to the highest level. If there is a failure on behalf of whichever level then that needs to be rectified not talked about in the abstract.

[fishtank]

I could name you Branch`s which are a mess and I could name you a number who are very good branch`s.

I don't think you should do that but i do think HQ should.

Now I believe that the only way we are going to reorganise properly is if those reprsentivie are told they have a job and have to do it or otherwise they are going to have their postions withdrawn from them.

And i totally agree with that.

[newtimes]

There is a major problem with the "ownership" of our union, I pay my subs to be part of a movement which in the past has given us all so much. Now a days its like buying a service from a multi national company. I want to be active and be part of it not just be a number so the top tier has a mandate to push through what they think its good for us. No way, and the more this happens then we on the ground will lose all what the past generations fought to give us. Its like watching a train crash in slow motion and being powerless to stop it.