The truth about the NEC and Postal Executive

[Martin Walsh]

Whilst it is the case that any candidate can say in their election address that they stand for this and that they support this policy their policies and their opinion counts for nothing unless they can get the majority of the 17 voting members to support their amendment or policy !

The executive going forward is made up of 9 elected members of those standing on the postal side in addition to the chair and vice chair .

The first 9 elected in the NEC elections will automatically obtain 9 of the 13 PEC posts . The remaining 4 posts will be elected in line with those who have stood for election for the postal exective .

Now the reason why one individual cannot change the union or indeed the policy of the postal executive is that only if you gain a majority of the 17 voting members will you influence and change the union.

Elections and those who stand on mantras or single polices in particular change policies normally end up changing nothing! The best way to change the union is not by the pec, it is by Branch's putting forward policies which become policy of the union either by conference or the new policy briefings which conference endorsed.

Personally before I vote or recommend anyone, I want to know what the candidate stands for, what platform they have stood on and what they have fought for and if they have pursued the policy that they are advocating within their own branch and what they have done to carry that policy forward .

[Talell]

So what you are saying is that it is a democracy?

[belle smith]

One member on the PEC wont change the union policy, fair enough.
Over a period of time though dingo changing the make up of the PEC will change the policy. I for one will be happy to elect anyone who was opposed to the 2 previous agreements as opposed to the incumbents who in my personal opinon sold us out.

[fishtank]

Surely it's better to use your vote for one positive reason even if it is a single mantra rather than vote for the same old faces for no other reason than their names were there last year.
Most of the membership are not aware of the NEC /PEC members nor their achievements or failings outside their own area and don't have the time or inclination to research them so are left with 3 choices.

1. Vote for a name you recognise from last year...and spend the next year or 2 wondering why nothing changes around here.
2. Vote for someone who's 300 words might contain a single policy that means something to you.
3. Don't bother voting at all.

I know options 1 and 3 suit those in post dingo but it doesn't do much for the union,democracy or the membership.
You talk about changing the union through the Branch structure but as already discussed many Branches are failing their members and anyway that is more about changing union policy.
The real change needs to be in union attitude and that cannot be achieved with the same old faces.

Here we are,in vital talks with the employer over our future...again...and still the membership are in the dark over all of the issues set out in PEC Doc 52/11.
Embarrassing or what?

[BPeters]

Won't be first time we have been promised the biggest or most unprecedented consultation. Usually means nowt. We pretend to listen to you then ignore what you say. Can't change nothing with same old faces

[Martin Walsh]

Belle, the NEC and PEC elections will now take place every two years and not every year.

I seem to remember a certain John Keggie who was one of the leaders along with a young Dave Ward of the anti employee agenda campaign. In fact John Keggie got elected on the back of it to DGSP and then agreed the Way Forward which was by far the most controversial National Agreement, far more so than the BT 2010 agreement.

Dave Ward led the oppostion against PBS and the Way Forward and stood on the platform as the candidate for change and got elected along with the current outdoor secretary and a couple of others that are still on the PEC.

So standing on the Platform for change means nothing unless you have a strategy to take that platform forward. No one elected person on the PEC or NEC can decide to put out an LTB, only a collective postion can or the DGSP.

In my view if you want to change things you can only do so on the following basis.

That a number of candidates all stand on the same platform and attempt to take control of the NEC and PEC based on their stated policies.

or secondly that the policies which you believe should be supported, get carried and become the policy of the union.

Of course you can combine this and after the Way Forward and PBS shams we did both of those and thats how we changed the union in 2001/2002 and 2003.

[hans solo]

its not about changing the way our union makes policy or agreement how its made up
fact is its jobby and its a new union we need not one that sold out to new labour or still to come conservatives cos they will
gmb unite any other will do me

[belle smith]

Belle the NEC and PEC elections will now take place every two years and not every year.

Didn't know that, but didn't say otherwise.

I seem to remember a certain John Keggie who was one of the leaders along with a young Dave Ward of the anti employee agenda campaign. In fact John Keggie got elected on the back of it to DGSP and then agreed the Way Forward which was by far the most controversial than the BT 2010 agreement.

I wasn't around then, but it certainly isn't more contaversial with the members and ex-members in my office who were around at the time.

[fishtank]

What the union will come to realise is that the BTA is far more unpopular and toxic at grass roots level over the whole country than the Way Forward(i was around) ever was.

The reason for that is the reaction to it.
The Way Forward provoked anger and anger is a positive emotion when change is needed.
The BTA and the way it was sold and subsequently implemented has provoked nothing but bitterness,apathy,disengagement and disillusion within the membership...all negative emotions.

I'm not surprised that someone who was anti-Way Forward but pro-BTA would try to paint the first as the more controversial.
Personally.i was against both but i know which will do the most lasting damage to the union.

[Martin Walsh]

The reason why I believe that the way forward was more controversial than the 2010 BTA agreement was that I have witnessed the fall out of both. The fall out on BT 2010 was in principle about the door to door issue concerning winners and losers , longer delivery spans and whether management are applying the agreement correctly. Mail centre closures were happening before the agreement and will happen regardless of whether there is a national agreement.

The impact of the Way Forward had a far greater impact on terms and conditions as it removed Saturday premium payments , the ex phg payments created a unigrade , removed Night duty allowance , removed improved holiday pay ,reduced overtime caluclations , transfered the ex IWM payments to basic pay and abolished double time overtime on Saturdays. In addition the leiu days were removed like the Queens birthday and consolidated in to annual leave. All offices revisions were based on the PBS scheme which was based on BSI ( ahead of its time ) , the working time directive came in reducing the amount of hours people could work on overtime etc , remember back then Royal Mail had a huge over time culture , plus changed ways of working , stopped resigns etc happening.

Now believe me the fall out was massive. Some members took the union to court over the fact they that they believed that the second ballot was not conducted correctly as a load of ballot papers were not dispatched from the Wolverhampton mail centre. You have to remember that the first way forward agreement was rejected and as a result a special conference was held. That conference was stormy to say the least.

When the second ballot on the way forward was conducted there was outrage as Keggie ingnored some of the special conference motions. The second ballot narrowily got accepted. John Keggie, who was living in Stonleigh in Surrey at that time recieved threats and things in the post which were at the least threatening. On top of that John Keggie survived a recount on a no confidence motion at conference by one branch. That branch had a divisonal rep attached to it and he lost the next election to the divsional rep as a fall out. As someone who experienced first hand the fall out of both agreements there is no compasssion. That is not to lighted the fact that some members are unpset of disillusioned with the BTA agreement believe me I have seen that and reps as well. Their concerns have to be addressed however will a second BTA 2 agreement be supported.

Look I think Tony Bouch is a good candidate and will add something to the executive as he has proven himself in terms of policy and disputes. I do not know Kye enough to comment so I wont. However the postal executive does a lot more than just meet as a PEC and NEC they have to deal with National Appeals ( attacks on reps ) , delivery issues , mail centre issues and a whole range of membership issues. Personally I know all the candidates and they all have a case for being elected , however I know that no one who will get elected will change dramatically anything. The only way the union can really change is that annual conference or the new style briefings we carry polices which are supported by the majority of the union and not slogans by indivduals.

[fishtank]

we carry polices which are supported by the majority of the union

The BTA wasn't even supported by the majority of those entitled to vote.
It has no real mandate amongst the rank and file,
The whole business plan it is based around with regards to park&loop is deeply flawed,
It is unnecessarily complicated in the places where it should be simple,
It is vague in the places where it should be clear,
It does not address the management culture,
It offers no protection for members,
The mailcentre rationalisation programme section was so good London had to renegotiate it's own.
The transformation lump sums and colleagueshares are being ignored,
The less we say about World Class Mail the better.

This agreement will continue to damage the Union and Royal Mail until either one or both parties see sense...what worries me is are our negotiators up to negotiating it's replacement?
We need the NEC/PEC to be more than nodding dogs when policy and agreements are placed before them.

[Martin Walsh]

Fishtank all your points are valid !!

However just like this farce of a govenment has been elected not by those who are eligable to vote , the reality is national agreements will be endorsed by those who choose to vote.

Prepare your self for BTA 2011 /2 as that is the only way members issues can be adressed !!

[Cut Off King]

Who cares anymore

Most people are resigned to the fact that with every new agreement our T&C will be further reduced

Eventually ( and very soon )the job will pay the minium wage, and then most people will leave RM because why kill yourself running around @ 100% BSI for the same wage as working in a shop @ say 75% BSI.

Any power that the CWU had to improve postal workers T&C's has been given away by CWU HQ over the past 10-15 years. ( And before anyone quote the basic pay rises we've had, T&C's is NOT JUST ABOUT MONEY, ITS ABOUT TIME TO DO THE JOB PROPERLY, its about PROVIDING A HIGH QUALITY FIRST CLASS SERVICE FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE UK )

Most members that I know are only members because they see it as an insurance policy against being draged into the offfice /sacked --- They trust the LOCAL reps but NOT the CWU.

[fishtank]

Most members that I know are only members because they see it as an insurance policy against being draged into the offfice /sacked --- They trust the LOCAL reps but NOT the CWU.

I'm not here to back up HQ...you know me better than that but you also have to understand that almost every agreement that the local rep uses to protect their members is a national agreement negotiated at national level.
The idea of collective bargaining and national negotiation is sound even when the agreement itself isn't.

[VoteTonyBouch]

Most members that I know are only members because they see it as an insurance policy against being draged into the offfice /sacked --- They trust the LOCAL reps but NOT the CWU.

I'm not here to back up HQ...you know me better than that but you also have to understand that almost every agreement that the local rep uses to protect their members is a national agreement negotiated at national level.
The idea of collective bargaining and national negotiation is sound even when the agreement itself isn't.

Thats spot on. There are issues with agreements, support/training for local representatives applying the agreements, getting RM to abide by them, commucations etc but the principle of National negotiated agreements is the right way to go.