EC Member calls for 'No' campaign

sol · Post by **sol** » 23 Oct 2007, 22:17

EC member, Dave Warren, one of the five to vote against the deal has explained why he is opposed to the deal and will campaign for a No vote.

"The CWU executive voted by 9 to 5 to recommend the deal with Royal Mail. Dave Warren, one of the five explained to Socialist Worker why he voted against it and is campaigning for a â€˜Noâ€™ vote. There is a lot of anger amongst CWU members. This is reflected in a poll on the â€˜royal mail chatâ€™ site. At the time of writing this 32expressed their opposition to the deal, 67 in favour. How representative this is remains to be seen.

â€œPensions, flexibility and pay remain the key issues of the dispute, and I have strong reservations about what the deal has to say in these areas.

On pensions, after 2010, you will only be able to retire on full benefits at age 65.

For manual workers who do a physically demanding job this is a big issue.

Changing our pension scheme from one that is based on your final average salary to one that is based on career average earnings will almost certainly have the effect of reducing benefits for many.

On flexibility the union has conceded the employersâ€™ position almost completely. Local reps are going to be forced into agreeing â€œefficiency dealsâ€

smokerjim · Post by **smokerjim** » 23 Oct 2007, 22:24

Dave Warren for GS!

lovejoy · Post by **lovejoy** » 24 Oct 2007, 08:07

smokerjim wrote:

Dave Warren for GS!

Please lets not fall into the trap of thinking the 5 people who voted No did so for us!!!

The PEC elections are coming up and this is a 'think about number 1 situation'

It is very easy to say 'i voted no' - it is popular and devoids you of any responsibilitity

The NO votes on the PEC are no more than political positioning!

One of the ammendments was that the planned MC closures should halt. Reading is one of the MCx earmarked for closure. Reading is in Dave Warrens branch - for him to vote YES would have been political suicide!!

Dave Warren to DG(S)? Even i'll hand in my card if that happens!!!!!!!!!!

BELIAL · Post by **BELIAL** » 24 Oct 2007, 08:43

Lovejoy ,it seems you are in a position to to have deep insight into the motives of the no voters, I have no such knowledge and therefore am unable to make such judgements.

However surely in an imperfect world the crucial point is they voted no ,which is a vote to protect our pay and conditions. They can indulge in political posturing, as you assert, as much as they like, so long as they DO the right thing

sol · Post by **sol** » 24 Oct 2007, 09:34

Lovejoy. Surely the test of anybody who voted NO is do they campaign for a No vote?

Post by **evilc** » 24 Oct 2007, 09:41

lovejoy wrote:
smokerjim wrote:

Dave Warren for GS!
Please lets not fall into the trap of thinking the 5 people who voted No did so for us!!!

The PEC elections are coming up and this is a 'think about number 1 situation'

It is very easy to say 'i voted no' - it is popular and devoids you of any responsibilitity

The NO votes on the PEC are no more than political positioning!

One of the ammendments was that the planned MC closures should halt. Reading is one of the MCx earmarked for closure. Reading is in Dave Warrens branch - for him to vote YES would have been political suicide!!

Dave Warren to DG(S)? Even i'll hand in my card if that happens!!!!!!!!!!

Lovejoy is quite right Reading is Dave Warren's branch, I have known Dave since his days as a Delivery rep and he has always stood up for the members that voted him in,he would of voted yes if he thought the agreement was better for the members as a whole.

lovejoy · Post by **lovejoy** » 24 Oct 2007, 12:44

sol wrote:Lovejoy. Surely the test of anybody who voted NO is do they campaign for a No vote?

Not really because they are campaigning for the same reasons as they voted - so they look good!!

leelatic · Post by **leelatic** » 24 Oct 2007, 13:59

lovejoy wrote:
sol wrote:Lovejoy. Surely the test of anybody who voted NO is do they campaign for a No vote?
Not really because they are campaigning for the same reasons as they voted - so they look good!!

Thats mind reading surely? Could it not be that they think,like a great many of us, that the deal is a joke?

Malatesta1954 · Post by **Malatesta1954** » 24 Oct 2007, 14:07

The deal might be a joke but Dave (he's gone missing again) Warren for GS that's hilarious. Reminds me of heads and holes.

Post by **stephen500** » 24 Oct 2007, 14:10

I won't be voting for anyone who voted 'yes', so that leaves the 'no' voters on the pec and new candidates.

BELIAL · Post by **BELIAL** » 24 Oct 2007, 14:12

YEP the NO voters look good to me . Praps the yes voters wanted to vote no but realised that would make them look good by supporting our fight

leelatic · Post by **leelatic** » 24 Oct 2007, 17:37

stephen500 wrote:I won't be voting for anyone who voted 'yes', so that leaves the 'no' voters on the pec and new candidates.

Do we know who voted yes yet?

DanteSH · Post by **DanteSH** » 24 Oct 2007, 17:42

Reject the deal
An open meeting to discuss a campaign to win a No vote in the CWU ballot
Saturday 27 October 2.30pm
Vernon Square campus of SOAS, Penton Rise, London WC1X, Just off King's Cross Road,
nearest tube, King's Cross

"We, the undersigned, call upon CWU postal branches, CWU representatives, and ordinary CWU members to sponsor, support and attend an Open Special Conference to organise the maximum No vote in the forthcoming ballot. We would like to remind you just why this deal should be rejected.
lFlexible workingâ€”potentially every day
lPensions destroyed in the futureâ€”working until 65
lContinued threats to mail centres
lUncertainty over continued payments for Door to Door
lA pathetically below-inflation pay deal
lAgreement to changes in start times which were initially imposed
lLong days and short days agreedâ€”for example the possibility of a nine-hour Friday
lPotential working in neighbouring offices and work outside normal duties
lNo amnesty for sacked reps

The conference will be held in London on Saturday 27 October and we urge the maximum attendance. Initial signatories to this appeal include:

Dave Warren PEC member
Angela Mulcahy Area processing rep East London postal
Paul Turnbul
Dave Chapple vice-chair Bristol & district amal
Pete Firmin vice-chair London West End amal
Geoff Breeze Southampton CWU member
Merlin Reader Local rep, Mount Pleasant
Presley Antoine Delivery unit rep WEDO
Paul Garraway political officer South Central No1
All names in a personal capacity

Post by **dvbuk55** » 24 Oct 2007, 18:16

[quote="lovejoy
Please lets not fall into the trap of thinking the 5 people who voted No did so for us!!!

The PEC elections are coming up and this is a 'think about number 1 situation'

It is very easy to say 'i voted no' - it is popular and devoids you of any responsibilitity

The NO votes on the PEC are no more than political positioning!

One of the ammendments was that the planned MC closures should halt. Reading is one of the MCx earmarked for closure. Reading is in Dave Warrens branch - for him to vote YES would have been political suicide!!

Dave Warren to DG(S)? Even i'll hand in my card if that happens!!!!!!!!!![/quote]

Did you mean political positioning or political posturing? I would have thought those PEC members who have been persuaded to accept the deal are more culpable of that by pandering to the political leanings of the leadership. I would not vote for anyone who voted to accept this deal to be a member of the PEC in future.

Anyway you look at it this is really a sell out and a cop out. Neither the leadership nor the PEC ayes have done themselves any favours in future ballots whether it be for election or action.

Having said that I do not believe we are going to achieve anything better by referring it back to Wimbledon.

DanteSH · Post by **DanteSH** » 24 Oct 2007, 19:07

Jane Loftus is an SWP member and president of the CWU - where is she? Why is Darren Warren leading the no vote charge and not her?

ROYALMAILCHAT

EC Member calls for 'No' campaign

EC Member calls for 'No' campaign

There is an initial meeting to organise a campaign!

Jane Loftus?