Clarification required from CWU

[andy2007]

I've noticed a few posts where people have been concerned about the risk of being disciplined for willful delay, if the boycot of DSA goes through. Now I'm no legal expert. But the way I see it: there have been many cases in the past, where one or more sites have taken unofficial IA, and other people have (quite rightly) refused to touch work from the striking site. Now as far as I'm aware, no-one has been sacked for willful delay in those cases. Yes, people have been suspended. But then their site has gone out, and they've kept their jobs. So how does that differ from boycotting the DSA?
In the first case, we boycotted mail from one or more areas. In the second, we would be boycotting mail from a specific type of customer (the leeches). How could one mean the risk of sackings, and the other merely suspension?

But what we urgently need, is confirmation that the CWU will protect anyone/everyone facing willful delay charges in relation to the boycot, if it goes ahead. Otherwise, they're incredibly unlikley to get a yes vote. Come on HQ. Pull your finger out, and clarify the situation, before you blow it!

Now as for me: it took me a while to decide. But if/when the ballot happens, I'll be voting yes. And it's worth those of you in Deliveries bearing in mind, that if it's done properly, you shouldn't see much DSA anyway. Because it would mean many failures, for it to get that far into the system. It's those of us in Logistics, who would (if we stand firm) stop it in it's tracks.

[k979aaa]

I've noticed a few posts where people have been concerned about the risk of being disciplined for willful delay, if the boycot of DSA goes through. Now I'm no legal expert. But the way I see it: there have been many cases in the past, where one or more sites have taken unofficial IA, and other people have (quite rightly) refused to touch work from the striking site. Now as far as I'm aware, no-one has been sacked for willful delay in those cases. Yes, people have been suspended. But then their site has gone out, and they've kept their jobs. So how does that differ from boycotting the DSA?
In the first case, we boycotted mail from one or more areas. In the second, we would be boycotting mail from a specific type of customer (the leeches). How could one mean the risk of sackings, and the other merely suspension?

But what we urgently need, is confirmation that the CWU will protect anyone/everyone facing willful delay charges in relation to the boycot, if it goes ahead. Otherwise, they're incredibly unlikley to get a yes vote. Come on HQ. Pull your finger out, and clarify the situation, before you blow it!

Now as for me: it took me a while to decide. But if/when the ballot happens, I'll be voting yes. And it's worth those of you in Deliveries bearing in mind, that if it's done properly, you shouldn't see much DSA anyway. Because it would mean many failures, for it to get that far into the system. It's those of us in Logistics, who would (if we stand firm) stop it in it's tracks.

Depends on the timing of the action as to whether how much DSA their is at any point in the system but a more pertinent point is where do we all stand in regards to disciplinary action.

[Danelectro]

still no clarification I see,yet the font page of the voice says support the boycott.

[POSTMAN]

Unfair competition has plague the postal industry since its introduction seven years ago.
The union has long campaigned against unfair cherry picking and consistently called for a regulatory regime that ensured fair competition.
Recently, the union saw evidence that the regulator had understood thethread of the CWU’s argument when changing the cost structure for companies accessing the Royal Mail.
However, the regulator’s policy then somersaulted and saw positive encouragement for greater competition that went further than access arrangements.
Since the end of the monopoly Royal Mail alone had delivered the final mile.
That changed this year when TNT Post introduced end-toend delivery services in West London and announced their intention to expand, again to carefully selected areas.
Seeing the increased threat,CWU used a postal sector conference (reported in detail on pages 8 & 9) to announce action to defend the universal service and attack a threat that damaged the financial viability of Royal Mail.
General secretary Billy Hayes and deputy general secretary Dave Ward launched a new campaign that included the intention to ask postal workers throughout the UK to boycott the handling and carriage of competitors’ mail in the Royal Mail system.
Activists will meet in March to discuss tactics to implement the boycott.

[Danelectro]

Activists will meet in March to discuss tactics to implement the boycott.

Yeah I was hoping on clarification before the meeting in March,I mean surely the legality of a boycott has been checked with the CWU legal team by now? or are they hoping that if enough of us back a boycott then safety in numbers is enough?

Its been a fair while since a boycott has been proposed and its still not any clearer what a boycott would mean to your average member and nor can a rep give a clear answer to any questions a member might ask.Yeah we get the picture that the regulator is bent and the markets rigged against us but if a boycott is a serious proposal then I would like to know from the kick off where we stand if we take that action.

[manchesterpunk]

.