PART TIME ELECTED REPS

[dvbuk55]

I have heard a disturbing rumour that a unit rep who has been a sub area rep for some years has been chosen to be a candidate in the forthcoming elections but seems to be discriminated against because he is part time due to family friendly commitments. The fact the he has been carrying out those duties without any complaint and has in fact carried out those duties diligently and well and wherever possible has spent some not inconsiderable unpaid hours on union business.

Now I am sure that with all the various discriminatory rules there must be some sort of Union rule that legislates against discrimination on the grounds of part time working. In fact there is a campaign at the moment for family friendly working and by discriminating against part time workers is surely against normal justice.

I had not thought that there was any difference in the unions representation for part time members, particularly as they had in fact used part time working as a method to increase pay with the 50/50 agreement and are still looking to use those savings for future pay rises.

Sooooo is anyone aware of a bar to part timers being elected representatives of members whether it be unit, area or H&S or any union discrimination to date?

[cedric]

I would be interested to know which branch you belong to dvbuk, because i have also heard that rumour, in fact in my branch there is something very nasty going on. a friend of mine who has held many positions has recently lost all his branch roles due to what was undoubtedly IMO a smear campaign orchestrated by senior branch officials. he was a very successful equality officer and also had become the section chair until he was forced out IMO by the executives of the branch.
if like me your branch is based in the north west then maybe we have the same issues.

[andy2007]

If there is a Bar against Part-Timers becoming Reps, then it needs to be removed ASAP! Obviously we need Representation throughout the whole Shift. But so long as ONE of the Reps is present, is shouldn't matter.

Isn't that the point of having 2 Reps per shift?

[cedric]

surely this matter needs dealing with at the highest level. if we are seen as a trade union to be discriminating against people with child care responsibilities then we have lost any credibilty whatsoever. i would think that this instance is just the abuse of power of a few out of touch branch officials.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

surely this matter needs dealing with at the highest level. if we are seen as a trade union to be discriminating against people with child care responsibilities then we have lost any credibilty whatsoever.

Also it would not represent a true reflection of the make up of the members and it could therefore be claimed that certain groups are not fairly represented. IMO we should, ideally, have Part Timers, Women, and ethnic group representatives in roughly the same proportion as the members they represent. I don't agree with positive discrimination in full, but if people from these groups are willing to put themselves up for election then they should be allowed to do so and the Union at all levels should be doing their best, within the rules, to support them in doing so.

[dvbuk55]

surely this matter needs dealing with at the highest level. if we are seen as a trade union to be discriminating against people with child care responsibilities then we have lost any credibilty whatsoever.

Also it would not represent a true reflection of the make up of the members and it could therefore be claimed that certain groups are not fairly represented. IMO we should, ideally, have Part Timers, Women, and ethnic group representatives in roughly the same proportion as the members they represent. I don't agree with positive discrimination in full, but if people from these groups are willing to put themselves up for election then they should be allowed to do so and the Union at all levels should be doing their best, within the rules, to support them in doing so.

I am sure that there are similarities between cedrics branch and my own and if there is a discrimination towards part time reps then it does indeed need to be addressed immediately. Because the person is not physically present it does not mean that the mind is idle and that issues are not as considered as if the person was present. It certainly does an injustice to the system if there is a discriminatory approach to the elections of part time representatives in whatever role they are candidates for by branches - I would go so far as to take an active role in union affairs and would leave no stone unturned in rooting out any discrimination or wrong doing in whatever form it took.

Family friendly roles aren't just for child care, though that may well be the biggest contributor and I have been critical in a light hearted way of the system but I do believe it is a good system and helpful to the member and it should not be forgotten that any caring role is not forever and that a member may well return to full time in the future.

IMHO Headquarters should be taking an active interest in this sort of attitude after all we are already a 60/40 organisation and we could lose able reps if this attitude persists.

[mitzi]

I am reading this post with interest and it does seem unbelievable that the branch can be allowed to disriminate in this way. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. I hope the reps concerned get in touch with HQ equality department as a matter of urgency.

[dvbuk55]

I am reading this post with interest and it does seem unbelievable that the branch can be allowed to disriminate in this way. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. I hope the reps concerned get in touch with HQ equality department as a matter of urgency.

Is it really discrimination though or merely another example of how branches are manipulated by the few for the benefit of the few - I must admit to wondering on some occasions if the decisions taken by the branch or individuals within the branch are really representative of the membership and I am sure my branch is not alone in this.

I think that mitzi's idea is the way to go - as a part timer myself, though not directly engaged in union matters, I would be interested to see what HQs take on this matter would be.

[Big Daz]

Well im 30 hours due to a buy down like Dvbuk and my branch have no problem with me putting in for and holding union roles.

It saves them money when I attend union branch committe meetings (When I get the release granted by RML) as its unpaid union leave meaning the CWU reimburse RML the cost of my scheduled hours which are now 6 hours a day instead of over 8 hours.

Branches have delegates to CLP's and trades councils,so the FT/PT status dosent matter as it done in the evenings.


As a branch political officer I get no release except for Branch Committe meetings, so everything is in my own time and being 30 hours a week aids me in that!


Why some in the CWU have a problem is beyond me, all I can say is that they must be the ones with the problem!

[Big Daz]

CWU rule book does not place any restrictions on PT mbrs becoming active in the CWU.

[dvbuk55]

CWU rule book does not place any restrictions on PT mbrs becoming active in the CWU.

That's good to hear and I hope the relevant branch takes note of that - because that is where it will end up if this is discrimination and it persists.

[baldrick]

My Branch certainly doesn't prevent PT members from standing for Reps or Branch positions.
A few years ago we had a AG's Rep position specifically to represent the AGs, but that was
scrapped as it was thought it might be discriminatory against PT staff, and instead PT
staff are encouraged to stand for any position, but unfortunately I don't think any have.
I wish they would as there are now about 500 of them in my MC, and there aren't many Reps
on the late shift, and the PT staff are mainly in between 1700-22200.

[dvbuk55]

I don't see any reason not to have a part time rep - they do say that it is quality and not quantity that counts.