Taking the Union forward:A Discussion Document

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Sorry disagree , TBT what is the ordnary membership ? Is it the some posters on here who voice their opinions some who claim to know things as facts or is it the members in other units.

NO RMC is not the ordinary membership - I don't think its ever claimed that. RMC by its nature is made up those who have more interest in political matters above and beyond the CWU, it has members who are not in the union, who are anti union, and who support it come whatever may, it also has members who think the CWU are too right wing or too left wing. The make up of RMC is probably more diverse than a normal branch and the active members probably more engaged and informed than an average CWU member.

The union normally changes as a result of actvists and whilst members who attend the AGMs around the country do endorse the motions to conference , the amount of members who attend are nowhere near 20% of the members.

Your right, about the level of interest, but we can't rely on activists to keep the CWU going, you have to interest ordinary members and engage them otherwise the CWU turns into a Political talking shop and nothing else. Ok you'll never get 100% engagement or even 50% but the effort has to be made or the Union will start to decline faster than it already is. You can move as many chess pieces as you want but it wont change membership levels without improving comms and engagement.

The point I was making is that the debates which are taking place in the union at the moment are worthy of more attention on this site and others. As an author of one of the documents I do believe it is vital that the union changes and that change can only come by the will of conference and the closing date for rule changes and motions is 28th Feb

It is getting attention. I have seen 1 other paper on FB and this one on here, but both were posted only in the last 2 days, most working members of the CWU and RMC have barely had time to read them never mind discuss them, after all most have put in a full working day and wont read documents like this till the weekend.

However, I am glad we agree the CWU needs to change that in of itself is healthy, even if we disagree on what changes it needs.

[dvbuk55]

Points well put Teebs. As far as I am aware there are only two people who post on here who are actively engaged in Union affairs on a full time basis. The rest are local Reps some of whom are obviously biased towards the union for whatever reason. TBH if the changes came about, and the union made an effort to engage the shop floor and take into account what they are saying then I'd rejoin like a shot.

However, you have to ask yourself what has taken so long to wake those who ARE actively engaged to the fact that the state of Denmark stinks. Because there have been plenty who have complained that things are going pear shaped only to be told that everything is going well and by the same people who purport to be signatories to this very document.

[POSTMAN]

Now there is lots of debate going on , like that Royal Mail are under pressure from Q of S , revisons based on low model weeks, CDVs not working , PDAs only on one van , Call rate issues , spans which are unacchievable. the revison taking to many hours out, the list is endless. The debate is going on and I expect some changes to come out of it.

Hold up and it's off thread but i have to pull you up on this.
Is this not what you criticised us for on here,you near enough in a roundabout way said it was bull and that in many offices the revisions are working,if that's the case why the debate and possible changes?

[POSTMAN]

With regards to the documents and the debate,the 3 offices i have worked in the members there would look at it then talk about the footie at the weekend.
I would say the average member doesn't care that much that's why my branch AGM's have about 20 odd people there.

Yes they will all moan about this and that but they don't want to do anything about it,sound familiar.

In terms of the IR framework what changes would people like ? Do we agree that if we did not have area reps or Divisonal Reps then we would possibly leave local reps on their own with no support. I know my views on what I think is the right way forward but what are yours ?

Christ that would be a massive disaster,i've no problem with them in my area and they are good at their job,but others in other areas may not feel the same.

Skipping through this doc it seems HQ are in for a hammering possibly some of it warranted.I need more time to digest it and possibly the other ones.

Also is it being sent out by branches to local offices?

[Martin Walsh]

Teebs have to go out so will respond either later or after the march in Kingston tomorrow.

Now Postman you know who I am , and on this site I do often play devils advocate and quite often get it for that. However do you really think what everyone has been saying on here we have not argued and express our concerns. i am from London but the model week we have taken a stance because they were not building in the growth in door to door and we would not agree it as a result. They have now come back and met our demands.

All the other points we have made , London has not yet deployed a walk sequencing revison but we are making sure work is being done correctly and we have a self enabled model agreement.

Believe me we have raised all the issues which have been made on here , and I do listen as well but life would be very boring if we all agreed would it not.

Keep up the good work

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Enjoy yourself Dingo - wish I could get there but as I don't finish till 1pm without Star Trek Tech I cant get there.

Playing devils advocate is fine, and can be useful, but I much prefer if people post their own opinions warts and all even if I don't agree with them.

At least though you don't use your intelligence and language skills to put people down like some I know do, now that I cannot stand.

[POSTMAN]

Keep up the good work

You too mate.

[fishtank]

1. We believe that there is a need to review the number of Branches within the CWU. There are still a number of Branches who continue to struggle and we do need to review whether the members in these Branches would be better served in a merged Branch.

What criteria do you propose to use for mergers...geographical or membership levels or a combination of both?

There also needs to be an overall Branch review to ensure that the existing Branch structure is fit for purpose and provides the effective representation of the members in line with our objectives.

How do you judge that?...at the kind of pace these changes need to happen.

In addition this must also recognise the vastly different environment we now operate within throughout the Postal and Telecommunications industries.

That statement...makes me nervous...could you clarify?

I see too much reviewing in this document and not enough action.
Most of the sacrifices proposed seem to me to be someone else's sacrifice.

The issues are simple in this union but they are being overcomplicated in an attempt to provide a hiding place for people who are panicking and quite frankly...not up to the job...don't get defensive,i'm not aiming that at you.

Issue 1...There are far too many on the payroll right through the union for the membership levels we have.
Issue 2...Some branches are treating members money as there own.
Issue 3...The pension benefits available to past and some present employees of the union are no longer sustainable.
Issue 4...150 The Broadway is no longer sustainable.

1.That the Union’s overriding priority must be to have a strong industrial Union including work place organisation with its finances being directly targeted to support this objective.

What is your measure of a a strong industrial Union dingo?

[Martin Walsh]

Fishtank I think your find I share some of the points you have made, but its is a complex matter to get all parts of the union to support them.

Now what the issue means on Branch"s is that in the telecoms part there are very small Branch"s still along with fairly big branches. We believe there has to be a merger of some branch"s in order to provide a better structure to support the members. In addition on the postal side some Branch"s are far too big and cover to far a geographical area and do not provide the kind of reprsenatation our members need. Plus I could name you about 20 Branch"s who do not function and are not giving the members the proper service. In the past some Branch"s have been forced to merge because they were not functioning . The last Branch review in the Postal side of the Union was in 1992. Branch"s were set up on postcode basis some have merged several times since. However with closures to mail centres , rdcs , post office counters and vocs there does need to be a further review.

The statement you say makes your worried is that we have less members , less mail centres , less delivery offices , less crown offices , less VOCs , less RDCs , less canteens , less members and in BT a lot less members than when we merged. So it makes sense to review the branch structure.

[Martin Walsh]

Fishtank in terms of the fact that a lot of the report needs reviewing , well we make no excuses about that as the report has already sparked a huge debate and whilst that is what we wanted we also recognise a lot of what we put forward need a rule change and to achieve a rule change you have to get more than 50% support in each of the sections postal , engineering and clerical. Even thou the postal side has the most members and the clerical side have now only 3000 members they can veto a rule change if they dont support it.

I understand some will get defensive and they have but there is only one choice do you want a union like unite which is great at fringe issues but is not great at work place organastion. Apart from the RMT and the FBU the CWU is the only union which has the kind of reprsentation at workplace level , area level and regional level. I know some areas this does not work as well but ask other unions if they would like what we got and they would bite ours arms off for such a structure.

In terms of your 4 points I would say I am in agreement , but this needs to be done in a sensitive way with the involvement of the GMB rep for CWU HQ and without Complusory redundancies . A preference exercise has already taken place and is under way but really to make sizeable savings in pay roll there has to less officers.

All Branch accounts are audited and studied and I have no evidence that some are being used wrongly. The current system whereby CWU Hqs can annaylis all Branch"s on line is a good robust way to montior things as well.

The pension benefits may need reviewing but again is something that needs senstive handling for every Alan Johnson there is a secretary who has been contribuiting for here retirement. We all know the outrage postal members felt when Royal Mail cut our final salery scheme.

Will disagree with you on selling CWU HQs the current HQs is bankrolling the defcit to the tune of 6 million. So if its sold we will then have to find another way of assuring our pension trustees that we can plug the defcit. In any case if you believe it would be better to have a Headquaters in the Midlands then most of our national officers would spend half the time travelling toand from meetings with Royal mail in London oer the House of commons etc. In any case what about the effect on our members in the GMB ? I think we shoud let out any space in CWU HQs ad there is still a good rate of return for letting out office space.

Now you ask me of what type of industrial union I would want. Well I would want a system where unit reps are given the support they need , the training they need on all asspects of the job. That an area rep has to visit the office at least once every month. The average area delivery rep has about 20 offices. A divisional rep should visit every 3 months. The division should produce regular comms to the unit rep on whats going on. Where there is no local rep then someone from the Branch must visit weekly.

We need to review the Branch"s area reps and div reps to ensure that they are doing their jobs. In addition there must be a review of all areas and units. I can tell you in my diversion the offices which are wel organised , the ones which are strong , the ones which have good reps and the ones which need further work in. All divsional reps need to be able to do that and then have a plan which helps the Branch"s organise in the work place.

I think that would do two things provide support for the unit rep and regage members and ensure that offices were not getting rolled over by Royal Mail.

[Glenno]

I would like to enter into this debate as I feel that there is a lot to be discussed on this topic,FT & Dingo have both put across very valid reasons why we should have this debate but lets not forget why we are having this debate ..............
the Union is in a fundemental crisis, which way to turn is the objective, hopefully we can turn the corner together, and make this Union stronger, hard decisions have to be made and an open debate about this has to happen, whether it be London , Scotland or elsewhere the time has to be made to discuss these matters and hopefully conclude that we ALL have to come with options on how we take this Union forward, I like Teebs would like to attend but due to work commitments cannot attend , even thou I am not a thousand miles away unlike Teebs, there are a lot of things that I agree with in this Document , but there are also things I would to challenge, and some I would like clarity on, maybe I can get some of the answers on a forum such as this, it's a pity that the CWU forum shut really Big UP to all persons involved in this

[andy2007]

There's a couple of things I'm very concerned about in this document. But quite frankly. The majority of it I applaud! This is exactly the type of thing that needs to be discussed. Now I'm not saying that everything in it should happen. The whole point of debating is to put across suggestions, and see what's acceptable and will work. And what isn't acceptable, or won't work. Well done to everyone involved in creating the discussion document, and thankyou!

Now. My 2 concerns are:
1) That there is even a suggestion, of merging the H&S Department with other sections. Specifically, because without people to co-ordinate the work on H&S between other departments. We would be in a weaker position than we already are, with regards to protecting our health and safety.

Personally, I'd suggest streamlining the process, by having a smaller team. But whether that's practical or acceptable to others, I don't know. Hopefully that'll come out in the discussions.

2) That I had to hear about it on here. Why haven't the Reps been coming to us, for our opinions, in preperation for this discussion?
Or is that just a problem in my area?

[fishtank]

2) That I had to hear about it on here. Why haven't the Reps been coming to us, for our opinions, in preperation for this discussion?
Or is that just a problem in my area?

No it's not.
Probably the union's biggest failure of late is communication between HQ and the ordinary member.
This document has a political edge to it which is probably why some branches may be reluctant to pass it on but the problem exists with all communication.
There is an over-reliance that sending out an LTB will do....it obviously won't because members are not receiving this information so there is a blockage somewhere between branch and member.

[fishtank]

Now you ask me of what type of industrial union I would want. Well I would want a system where unit reps are given the support they need , the training they need on all asspects of the job. That an area rep has to visit the office at least once every month. The average area delivery rep has about 20 offices. A divisional rep should visit every 3 months. The division should produce regular comms to the unit rep on whats going on. Where there is no local rep then someone from the Branch must visit weekly.

We need to review the Branch"s area reps and div reps to ensure that they are doing their jobs. In addition there must be a review of all areas and units. I can tell you in my diversion the offices which are wel organised , the ones which are strong , the ones which have good reps and the ones which need further work in. All divsional reps need to be able to do that and then have a plan which helps the Branch"s organise in the work place.

I think that would do two things provide support for the unit rep and regage members and ensure that offices were not getting rolled over by Royal Mail.

I honestly can't fault any of that....it's what we need and have needed for years.
It's optimistic though,and will take a great deal of work...and will face opposition from those with most to hide but if this is genuinely your idea of taking the union forward i would support it 100%.

[fishtank]

Will disagree with you on selling CWU HQs the current HQs is bankrolling the defcit to the tune of 6 million. So if its sold we will then have to find another way of assuring our pension trustees that we can plug the defcit. In any case if you believe it would be better to have a Headquaters in the Midlands then most of our national officers would spend half the time travelling toand from meetings with Royal mail in London oer the House of commons etc. In any case what about the effect on our members in the GMB ? I think we shoud let out any space in CWU HQs ad there is still a good rate of return for letting out office space.

First of all i have no interest in moving HQ to the Midlands,that would most likely be a political decision not a financial decision and i think the last thing we need at this point is politics getting in the way of making the right decision for the membership.
My only concern with regards to HQ's current position are the ongoing costs relating to the building,the fact that some of it's value could be used to offset some of the ongoing costs of the UCW plan and the accessibility of it's location for those coming from outside the area.
I would be quite happy with a relatively minor move to perhaps somewhere in the Heathrow area if it could be seen to be more cost effective and sustainable.
However,IF 150 the Broadway could be genuinely shown to work on a financial level and IF an alternative funding plan could be found for the UCW plan then i would have no real issues with staying where we are...however those are big IF's.