Revalations on PEC voting

[kill Joy]

I've thought long and hard about this my first contribution to this wonderful forum. I felt the need because certain people have been hailed as heros who we should promote. I've been as objective as possible in order for you to make your own minds up.

On 11th Oct the PEC voted unanimously on a document that contained the following:

"Pay: We acknowledge that there is going to be no additional money on offer. We may look at options on how that could be re-shaped".

The document was in the names of: Ward, Hayes, Collins, Ellis, Gibson, Pulliger. The only member of the PEC not there was Fishwick. This was open to amendments but there were none to alter this from anybody including Warren who has subsequently clearly stated the below inflation offer as a reason for voting against.

How do I know this - I have the official papers in front of me.

On the day the PEC met to make the final decision (19th Oct) at the TUC the agreement document put to the PEC had the name of all the officers on it. Only after PEC members put there amendments on the table was it announced that Gibson, Collins and Pullinger were taking there names off - I am told there was a near riot. When those individuals gave an explanation to why they didnt want there names to appear Pullinger said the PEC should vote for the deal but he was taking his name off in solidarity with collins and gibson.

I am also told Pullinger was leading on Pensions with Ellis - Why has it been left to the one we know little about to carry the can. Looks like when theres a sh"t job to do he gets it. Remember we loved to hate MTSF - one of the things we went on strike over - Ellis again took the crap.

How do I know this - I have checked the details with 2 reliable sources 1 in favour of deal and 1 opposed.

Now I've got that off my chest I thought I was going to feel better, afraid its made me feel sick.

[BELIAL]

I've thought long and hard about this my first contribution to this wonderful forum. I felt the need because certain people have been hailed as heros who we should promote. I've been as objective as possible in order for you to make your own minds up.

On 11th Oct the PEC voted unanimously on a document that contained the following:

"Pay: We acknowledge that there is going to be no additional money on offer. We may look at options on how that could be re-shaped".

The document was in the names of: Ward, Hayes, Collins, Ellis, Gibson, Pulliger. The only member of the PEC not there was Fishwick. This was open to amendments but there were none to alter this from anybody including Warren who has subsequently clearly stated the below inflation offer as a reason for voting against.

How do I know this - I have the official papers in front of me.

On the day the PEC met to make the final decision (19th Oct) at the TUC the agreement document put to the PEC had the name of all the officers on it. Only after PEC members put there amendments on the table was it announced that Gibson, Collins and Pullinger were taking there names off - I am told there was a near riot. When those individuals gave an explanation to why they didnt want there names to appear Pullinger said the PEC should vote for the deal but he was taking his name off in solidarity with collins and gibson.

I am also told Pullinger was leading on Pensions with Ellis - Why has it been left to the one we know little about to carry the can. Looks like when theres a sh"t job to do he gets it. Remember we loved to hate MTSF - one of the things we went on strike over - Ellis again took the crap.

How do I know this - I have checked the details with 2 reliable sources 1 in favour of deal and 1 opposed.

Now I've got that off my chest I thought I was going to feel better, afraid its made me feel sick.

THanks for your post ,but what is your point / objective.

You've got" official papers" let,s see them.

You were told this and you were told that, and you are another one with "reliable sources", name them for verification.

Sorry if I seem a little sceptical, but there are so many people out there with a vested interest in achieving acceptance of this agreement. Truth seems to be an alien concept to them.

The Truth is simple this is a bad deal for the membership ,we lose all ways, muddy the waters sow doubt it's still a bad deal

[lovejoy]

Kill Joy.............. nice name

These revelations have been floating on here for ages now.

Do you support or are you against the document?

Would be good to hear an analasis if the deal from you?

[geopip]

I've thought long and hard about this my first contribution to this wonderful forum. I felt the need because certain people have been hailed as heros who we should promote. I've been as objective as possible in order for you to make your own minds up.

On 11th Oct the PEC voted unanimously on a document that contained the following:

"Pay: We acknowledge that there is going to be no additional money on offer. We may look at options on how that could be re-shaped".

The document was in the names of: Ward, Hayes, Collins, Ellis, Gibson, Pulliger. The only member of the PEC not there was Fishwick. This was open to amendments but there were none to alter this from anybody including Warren who has subsequently clearly stated the below inflation offer as a reason for voting against.

How do I know this - I have the official papers in front of me.

On the day the PEC met to make the final decision (19th Oct) at the TUC the agreement document put to the PEC had the name of all the officers on it. Only after PEC members put there amendments on the table was it announced that Gibson, Collins and Pullinger were taking there names off - I am told there was a near riot. When those individuals gave an explanation to why they didnt want there names to appear Pullinger said the PEC should vote for the deal but he was taking his name off in solidarity with collins and gibson.

I am also told Pullinger was leading on Pensions with Ellis - Why has it been left to the one we know little about to carry the can. Looks like when theres a sh"t job to do he gets it. Remember we loved to hate MTSF - one of the things we went on strike over - Ellis again took the crap.

How do I know this - I have checked the details with 2 reliable sources 1 in favour of deal and 1 opposed.

Now I've got that off my chest I thought I was going to feel better, afraid its made me feel sick.

Kill Joy I think you are right Ray tends to get the s**tty end of the stick most of the time, firstly because he’s fairly easy going and he tends just to accept the crap jobs passed to him by the postal department and that has included being given difficult debates at Conference which are not proper to his dept and secondly he is an appointed Officer and is not up for election every five years. The last deal Dave Ward did on raising the status of the Postal worker (not a very good deal again) he passed the buck onto Ray to sign off the agreement whilst he went on leave conveniently for three or more weeks and of course in some quarters Ray got the blame for doing the deal a deal he had no real input into.

As far as Terry Pullinger heading up the Pension talks I don’t really know but I will check, I do know however, he feels the pension issues is the biggest we face and he does not agree with the current stance and feels the Union must push the Government harder on the pensions issue rather than the burden falling directly onto our members.

[andy2007]

Why is he agreeing to sign off deals on which he has had little or no input?
Surely it should only be the people directly involved in it who should be signing such documents. Going on holiday is hardly an excuse, when we have fax machines!

Is he gullible, or simply put under undue pressure by others with little moral fibre?

[geopip]

Why is he agreeing to sign off deals on which he has had little or no input?
Surely it should only be the people directly involved in it who should be signing such documents. Going on holiday is hardly an excuse, when we have fax machines!

Is he gullible, or simply put under undue pressure by others with little moral fibre?

The latter I believe mate

[kill Joy]

THanks for your post ,but what is your point / objective.

You've got" official papers" let,s see them.

You were told this and you were told that, and you are another one with "reliable sources", name them for verification.

Sorry if I seem a little sceptical, but there are so many people out there with a vested interest in achieving acceptance of this agreement. Truth seems to be an alien concept to them.

The Truth is simple this is a bad deal for the membership ,we lose all ways, muddy the waters sow doubt it's still a bad deal[/quote]



My objective - The truth, no "alien concept" to me Belial. I chose not to give too much of a person view as I've seen others slated for it. However, like many people here my aim was to provide people with FACTs so they could draw there own conclusions.

Wot inspired me to post the info was people hailing Warren and Pullinger as some kind of working class heroes who should become the next General/deputy Secretarys. I have no problem anyone telling me what they think but one thing I hate is a hipocrit. I judge people by there actions not there words. For me Warren can only justify slagging the Pay element of the agreement if he had voted against a recomendation from ALL the officers that it was enough or at the very least placed an amendment. As for Pullinger telling the PEC to vote for the acgreemnet but removing his name just because others did, well I just dont get that - I dont think Fury took his name off. Wot the feck is that all about! Smacks of opportunism to me.

As far as where I got the info from I dont think it would not be right to expose sources, I have not seen it done elsewhere on this site. I expect you and others have similar contacts and can easily verify wot Iam saying. I supose I could forward the papers I've got but not sure it would serve any purpose. If I did this I would want to ensure it went to a CWU member eg, through a union office - over to you.

[dvbuk55]

THanks for your post ,but what is your point / objective.

You've got" official papers" let,s see them.

You were told this and you were told that, and you are another one with "reliable sources", name them for verification.

Sorry if I seem a little sceptical, but there are so many people out there with a vested interest in achieving acceptance of this agreement. Truth seems to be an alien concept to them.

The Truth is simple this is a bad deal for the membership ,we lose all ways, muddy the waters sow doubt it's still a bad deal

My objective - The truth, no "alien concept" to me Belial. I chose not to give too much of a person view as I've seen others slated for it. However, like many people here my aim was to provide people with FACTs so they could draw there own conclusions.

Wot inspired me to post the info was people hailing Warren and Pullinger as some kind of working class heroes who should become the next General/deputy Secretarys. I have no problem anyone telling me what they think but one thing I hate is a hipocrit. I judge people by there actions not there words. For me Warren can only justify slagging the Pay element of the agreement if he had voted against a recomendation from ALL the officers that it was enough or at the very least placed an amendment. As for Pullinger telling the PEC to vote for the acgreemnet but removing his name just because others did, well I just dont get that - I dont think Fury took his name off. Wot the feck is that all about! Smacks of opportunism to me.

As far as where I got the info from I dont think it would not be right to expose sources, I have not seen it done elsewhere on this site. I expect you and others have similar contacts and can easily verify wot Iam saying. I supose I could forward the papers I've got but not sure it would serve any purpose. If I did this I would want to ensure it went to a CWU member eg, through a union office - over to you.

Well it is very good of you to share the facts with us BUT there is little substance in the post. What you say may or may not be true anonymous contributory revelations from undisclosed sources are about as much use as a snowball in hell.

[andy2007]

Kill Joy,
Is there anything in the documents which will give away the identity of your source?
If not, just scan them into your computer, and Post them on here. That way everyone will be able to see for themselves, that you are merely reporting the facts.

If on the other hand, there IS something which could identify your source. Then we will simply have to take your word for it.

Either way, I would like to thank you for giving us this information.

[kill Joy]

Thanks Andy 2007 for a positive reply & dvbuk55 for your doubt.

I am afraid I do not have the facility to scan documents. However, I am prepared to post a copy to a CWU member, hopefuly someone with an open mind. Sounds like your the man Andy, of course any address needs to be secure and preferably a Union office. I really dont want them falling in the hands a publication that hasn't got our best interests at heart. I really don't understand dvbuk55 rather defensive and kurt response when I've offered to send the documents. Perhaps he's not one of us - a postal worker.

In the mean time perhaps this will help anyone wanting to verify what I am saying. The PEC pink paper was dated 11th October and has following numbers - 329/07 (PE) 'A' Ref: 60000. It was signed by all Officers (assuming no one took there names of afterwards, which I am told they did not) and agreed by the PEC unanimously (including warren). It states - "Pay: We acknowledge that there is going to be no additional money on offer. We may look at options on how that could be re-shaped."

The minutes of this meeting is a separate blue paper dated 19th October with the following, I assume file number -PEC MINS NO. 336/07.

I know full well even if dvbuk55 does not that there are people on here that can contact people for verification of this but if these papers are not legitimate, which I know they are, some sado has gone to a lot of trouble

Sorry if all this causes anyone any bother but I really do like a bit of honesty and truth in debate. That way we can all make a judgement not only about the decision of our lives (i qualify this as an x wapping printer, thats another story) but also the integrity of those who may be seeking higher office.

Can anyone advise me how I can reply to post with a reference to the post Iam replying to. You know where it says "so and so wrote....." and has a box around it - clicking on the quote box doesnt seem to do it, thanks.

[kill Joy]

I've thought long and hard about this my first contribution to this wonderful forum. I felt the need because certain people have been hailed as heros who we should promote. I've been as objective as possible in order for you to make your own minds up.

On 11th Oct the PEC voted unanimously on a document that contained the following:

"Pay: We acknowledge that there is going to be no additional money on offer. We may look at options on how that could be re-shaped".

The document was in the names of: Ward, Hayes, Collins, Ellis, Gibson, Pulliger. The only member of the PEC not there was Fishwick. This was open to amendments but there were none to alter this from anybody including Warren who has subsequently clearly stated the below inflation offer as a reason for voting against.

How do I know this - I have the official papers in front of me.

On the day the PEC met to make the final decision (19th Oct) at the TUC the agreement document put to the PEC had the name of all the officers on it. Only after PEC members put there amendments on the table was it announced that Gibson, Collins and Pullinger were taking there names off - I am told there was a near riot. When those individuals gave an explanation to why they didnt want there names to appear Pullinger said the PEC should vote for the deal but he was taking his name off in solidarity with collins and gibson.

I am also told Pullinger was leading on Pensions with Ellis - Why has it been left to the one we know little about to carry the can. Looks like when theres a sh"t job to do he gets it. Remember we loved to hate MTSF - one of the things we went on strike over - Ellis again took the crap.

How do I know this - I have checked the details with 2 reliable sources 1 in favour of deal and 1 opposed.

Now I've got that off my chest I thought I was going to feel better, afraid its made me feel sick.

Kill Joy I think you are right Ray tends to get the s**tty end of the stick most of the time, firstly because he’s fairly easy going and he tends just to accept the crap jobs passed to him by the postal department and that has included being given difficult debates at Conference which are not proper to his dept and secondly he is an appointed Officer and is not up for election every five years. The last deal Dave Ward did on raising the status of the Postal worker (not a very good deal again) he passed the buck onto Ray to sign off the agreement whilst he went on leave conveniently for three or more weeks and of course in some quarters Ray got the blame for doing the deal a deal he had no real input into.

As far as Terry Pullinger heading up the Pension talks I don’t really know but I will check, I do know however, he feels the pension issues is the biggest we face and he does not agree with the current stance and feels the Union must push the Government harder on the pensions issue rather than the burden falling directly onto our members.

Wot was the deal Ray had to sign when ward was on leave? New one on me.

Did you check Terrys involvement on pensions, my understanding is a working group was set up involving him and ellis as well as Executive members.

[BELIAL]

THanks for your post ,but what is your point / objective.

You've got" official papers" let,s see them.

You were told this and you were told that, and you are another one with "reliable sources", name them for verification.

Sorry if I seem a little sceptical, but there are so many people out there with a vested interest in achieving acceptance of this agreement. Truth seems to be an alien concept to them.

The Truth is simple this is a bad deal for the membership ,we lose all ways, muddy the waters sow doubt it's still a bad deal

My objective - The truth, no "alien concept" to me Belial. I chose not to give too much of a person view as I've seen others slated for it. However, like many people here my aim was to provide people with FACTs so they could draw there own conclusions.



Wot inspired me to post the info was people hailing Warren and Pullinger as some kind of working class heroes who should become the next General/deputy Secretarys. I have no problem anyone telling me what they think but one thing I hate is a hipocrit. I judge people by there actions not there words. For me Warren can only justify slagging the Pay element of the agreement if he had voted against a recomendation from ALL the officers that it was enough or at the very least placed an amendment. As for Pullinger telling the PEC to vote for the acgreemnet but removing his name just because others did, well I just dont get that - I dont think Fury took his name off. Wot the feck is that all about! Smacks of opportunism to me.

As far as where I got the info from I dont think it would not be right to expose sources, I have not seen it done elsewhere on this site. I expect you and others have similar contacts and can easily verify wot Iam saying. I supose I could forward the papers I've got but not sure it would serve any purpose. If I did this I would want to ensure it went to a CWU member eg, through a union office - over to you.[/quote]

WHat about me ,I'm as offensive as the next man.

Pink, blue ,order no. 9digit subsection whatever.
Don,t care if I,m slated for my personal view, it's an honest view and all are free to disagree
You however claim your assertions to be FACT but refuse to provide proof/verification. FACT is different to opinion, it carries more weight and requires evidence for acceptance.
Sorry to be terse but in short ,put up or shut up.

Course if it's just opinion carry on but don't dress it up as FACT

[L Tommo]

THanks for your post ,but what is your point / objective.

You've got" official papers" let,s see them.

You were told this and you were told that, and you are another one with "reliable sources", name them for verification.

Sorry if I seem a little sceptical, but there are so many people out there with a vested interest in achieving acceptance of this agreement. Truth seems to be an alien concept to them.

The Truth is simple this is a bad deal for the membership ,we lose all ways, muddy the waters sow doubt it's still a bad deal

My objective - The truth, no "alien concept" to me Belial. I chose not to give too much of a person view as I've seen others slated for it. However, like many people here my aim was to provide people with FACTs so they could draw there own conclusions.



Wot inspired me to post the info was people hailing Warren and Pullinger as some kind of working class heroes who should become the next General/deputy Secretarys. I have no problem anyone telling me what they think but one thing I hate is a hipocrit. I judge people by there actions not there words. For me Warren can only justify slagging the Pay element of the agreement if he had voted against a recomendation from ALL the officers that it was enough or at the very least placed an amendment. As for Pullinger telling the PEC to vote for the acgreemnet but removing his name just because others did, well I just dont get that - I dont think Fury took his name off. Wot the feck is that all about! Smacks of opportunism to me.

As far as where I got the info from I dont think it would not be right to expose sources, I have not seen it done elsewhere on this site. I expect you and others have similar contacts and can easily verify wot Iam saying. I supose I could forward the papers I've got but not sure it would serve any purpose. If I did this I would want to ensure it went to a CWU member eg, through a union office - over to you.

WHat about me ,I'm as offensive as the next man.

Pink, blue ,order no. 9digit subsection whatever.
Don,t care if I,m slated for my personal view, it's an honest view and all are free to disagree
You however claim your assertions to be FACT but refuse to provide proof/verification. FACT is different to opinion, it carries more weight and requires evidence for acceptance.
Sorry to be terse but in short ,put up or shut up.

Course if it's just opinion carry on but don't dress it up as FACT[/quote]

BELIAL....


(QUOTE) : "PUT UP OR SHUT UP." (END QUOTE)

[geopip]

Thanks Andy 2007 for a positive reply & dvbuk55 for your doubt.

I am afraid I do not have the facility to scan documents. However, I am prepared to post a copy to a CWU member, hopefuly someone with an open mind. Sounds like your the man Andy, of course any address needs to be secure and preferably a Union office. I really dont want them falling in the hands a publication that hasn't got our best interests at heart. I really don't understand dvbuk55 rather defensive and kurt response when I've offered to send the documents. Perhaps he's not one of us - a postal worker.

In the mean time perhaps this will help anyone wanting to verify what I am saying. The PEC pink paper was dated 11th October and has following numbers - 329/07 (PE) 'A' Ref: 60000. It was signed by all Officers (assuming no one took there names of afterwards, which I am told they did not) and agreed by the PEC unanimously (including warren). It states - "Pay: We acknowledge that there is going to be no additional money on offer. We may look at options on how that could be re-shaped."

The minutes of this meeting is a separate blue paper dated 19th October with the following, I assume file number -PEC MINS NO. 336/07.

I know full well even if dvbuk55 does not that there are people on here that can contact people for verification of this but if these papers are not legitimate, which I know they are, some sado has gone to a lot of trouble

Sorry if all this causes anyone any bother but I really do like a bit of honesty and truth in debate. That way we can all make a judgement not only about the decision of our lives (i qualify this as an x wapping printer, thats another story) but also the integrity of those who may be seeking higher office.

Can anyone advise me how I can reply to post with a reference to the post Iam replying to. You know where it says "so and so wrote....." and has a box around it - clicking on the quote box doesnt seem to do it, thanks.

The document you say everyman and his dog has signed, does it contain details of the agreement or areas of agreement? Because if it is only stating that those signing, “acknowledge that there is going to be no additional money on offer. We may look at options on how that could be re-shaped." I don’t believe either the National Officers or PEC members really believed there was going to be a large pay increase this year and putting their names to the document would not have been an issue for them conversely I don’t believe that those same National Officers and PEC members thought we would be signing up to the kind of agreement we now face based on the same pay offer mentioned in the PEC document. Therefore, I would conclude this is part of the reasoning behind the National Officers names not being on the final agreement and some of the PEC voting against it?
I to really do like a bit of honesty and truth in debate, not just spin around one document placed before the PEC in the middle of a dispute and the truth is those National Officers and PEC members did not think the agreement is right for our members and that’s the simple truth.

[geopip]

I've thought long and hard about this my first contribution to this wonderful forum. I felt the need because certain people have been hailed as heros who we should promote. I've been as objective as possible in order for you to make your own minds up.

On 11th Oct the PEC voted unanimously on a document that contained the following:

"Pay: We acknowledge that there is going to be no additional money on offer. We may look at options on how that could be re-shaped".

The document was in the names of: Ward, Hayes, Collins, Ellis, Gibson, Pulliger. The only member of the PEC not there was Fishwick. This was open to amendments but there were none to alter this from anybody including Warren who has subsequently clearly stated the below inflation offer as a reason for voting against.

How do I know this - I have the official papers in front of me.

On the day the PEC met to make the final decision (19th Oct) at the TUC the agreement document put to the PEC had the name of all the officers on it. Only after PEC members put there amendments on the table was it announced that Gibson, Collins and Pullinger were taking there names off - I am told there was a near riot. When those individuals gave an explanation to why they didnt want there names to appear Pullinger said the PEC should vote for the deal but he was taking his name off in solidarity with collins and gibson.

I am also told Pullinger was leading on Pensions with Ellis - Why has it been left to the one we know little about to carry the can. Looks like when theres a sh"t job to do he gets it. Remember we loved to hate MTSF - one of the things we went on strike over - Ellis again took the crap.

How do I know this - I have checked the details with 2 reliable sources 1 in favour of deal and 1 opposed.

Now I've got that off my chest I thought I was going to feel better, afraid its made me feel sick.

Kill Joy I think you are right Ray tends to get the s**tty end of the stick most of the time, firstly because he’s fairly easy going and he tends just to accept the crap jobs passed to him by the postal department and that has included being given difficult debates at Conference which are not proper to his dept and secondly he is an appointed Officer and is not up for election every five years. The last deal Dave Ward did on raising the status of the Postal worker (not a very good deal again) he passed the buck onto Ray to sign off the agreement whilst he went on leave conveniently for three or more weeks and of course in some quarters Ray got the blame for doing the deal a deal he had no real input into.

As far as Terry Pullinger heading up the Pension talks I don’t really know but I will check, I do know however, he feels the pension issues is the biggest we face and he does not agree with the current stance and feels the Union must push the Government harder on the pensions issue rather than the burden falling directly onto our members.

Wot was the deal Ray had to sign when ward was on leave? New one on me.

Did you check Terrys involvement on pensions, my understanding is a working group was set up involving him and ellis as well as Executive members.

The deal Ray signed on behalf of Dave was last years pay deal(Shaping our future) I am sure the title was meant as a joke as it contained words like firm commitment to work with the Union, significant pension investment(RM and Government to fund the pension deficit in full) an agreement with RM that wasn't worth the paper it was wrote on.

I have found out who the main players were on the pensions group who met with RM to negotiate the deal, they were Ray Ellis, Norman Candy, Jane Loftus, Mark Baulch, Lionel Sampson. Terry Pullinger sat on group at CWU HQ who were given feedback from the negotiators he did not attend one meeting with RM and in fact I understand questioned why we were negotiating with them.

Either your sources gave you the info incorrectly or were playing on words again by saying Pullinger was heading up the pension talks when in fact he sat on a group outside of the talks and had very little input. I guess some see Pullinger as a threat to Dave Ward and his Empire of cronies and will use whatever they can to discredit him