Sacked postie wins £22k and job back

[wranglered]

It will show money being spent on lots of worthwhile things!!!!!!

I have faith !!!

Love it!!!!!

[andy2007]

And CWU TV. Now that was money well spent was it not?

The theory was sound, but they were a decade too late. They should have put that money into a better Website, with any useful interviews available on there. Not just for existing members,but for prospective ones too.

Then again: Hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it?

[BELIAL]

And CWU TV. Now that was money well spent was it not?

The theory was sound, but they were a decade too late. They should have put that money into a better Website, with any useful interviews available on there. Not just for existing members,but for prospective ones too.

Then again: Hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it?

Yeah but foresight is more useful And quite a few regulars on here managed to successfully predict the effects of our last agreement

[andy2007]

And CWU TV. Now that was money well spent was it not?

The theory was sound, but they were a decade too late. They should have put that money into a better Website, with any useful interviews available on there. Not just for existing members,but for prospective ones too.

Then again: Hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it?

Yeah but foresight is more useful And quite a few regulars on here managed to successfully predict the effects of our last agreement

True: But how often do they listen to our ideas?

[brothermagrew]

I'm perfectly happy with the union service at local level but the further up the chain it goes the more disillusioned I become (they do seem to want to hold onto our money, for what I don't know).

As indeed I would suspect many of us are.

It seems that some trade unions could be seen as putting political expediency ahead of the interests of members whose subscriptions are accepted in the full knowledge of the likely subsequent disavowal of the union's assurance to fulfil legally-binding contractual obligations to those members. You pays your money and you don't get the support. It goes without saying that trade unions and trade union officials who fail repeatedly their members bring trade unions into disrepute are also betraying those trade unions and whose officers, representatives and members are committed to working to preserve the rights of workers.

It would be hugely embarrassing for an already-embattled Prime Minister Gordon Brown to be confronted with the true cost of his public sector targets, and for TUC general secretary Brendan Barber who has in the past announced the trade union's achievements in reducing the number of cases taken to employment tribunal and how unions are good for you but who must now answer allegations of why some trade unions appear to limit their interest in cases to cherry-picking those members with interesting cases which, if successful, can be used in press releases to trumpet alleged trade union achievements.

What this means in practice is that any trade union member with a run-of-the-mill everyday case of bullying and stress resulting in loss of job, career, income, livelihood, health and detriment to home and family life will, regardless of how many years they've being paying subscriptions in expectation of services in time of need, be rejected in favour of the few sexy cases. Whatever happened to original trade union principles?

Trade unions exist to fight for the rights of their members, especially in situations where the member is unable to take action for themselves, whatever the reason. Whilst many grass roots local trade union representatives work hard - sometimes with risk to their own careers - for the benefit of members, the same level of commitment is often not reflected by some paid trade union officials and some trade unions.

[wranglered]

magnificent post Mr Magrew

[Big Daz]

On this occasion I find nothing to dissagre with you over Wranglered!

[Carnoustie]

Personally I think that the CWU should take on a lot more cases than they do and if that costs more money then I am perfectley willing to pay more in membership fees.

Part timers including me pay less than FT mbrs for the exact same services, isnt it time we thought about basing membership fees on the level of service you can get?

As Mr Linwood got no CWU support and had to fight his own fight at a Tribunal, isn't it only fair that as well as the £22k, the CWU should refund him all the union subs he paid, on a 'no representation, no subs' basis ??

[norbert]

I'm perfectly happy with the union service at local level but the further up the chain it goes the more disillusioned I become (they do seem to want to hold onto our money, for what I don't know).

As indeed I would suspect many of us are.

It seems that some trade unions could be seen as putting political expediency ahead of the interests of members whose subscriptions are accepted in the full knowledge of the likely subsequent disavowal of the union's assurance to fulfil legally-binding contractual obligations to those members. You pays your money and you don't get the support. It goes without saying that trade unions and trade union officials who fail repeatedly their members bring trade unions into disrepute are also betraying those trade unions and whose officers, representatives and members are committed to working to preserve the rights of workers.

It would be hugely embarrassing for an already-embattled Prime Minister Gordon Brown to be confronted with the true cost of his public sector targets, and for TUC general secretary Brendan Barber who has in the past announced the trade union's achievements in reducing the number of cases taken to employment tribunal and how unions are good for you but who must now answer allegations of why some trade unions appear to limit their interest in cases to cherry-picking those members with interesting cases which, if successful, can be used in press releases to trumpet alleged trade union achievements.

What this means in practice is that any trade union member with a run-of-the-mill everyday case of bullying and stress resulting in loss of job, career, income, livelihood, health and detriment to home and family life will, regardless of how many years they've being paying subscriptions in expectation of services in time of need, be rejected in favour of the few sexy cases. Whatever happened to original trade union principles?

Trade unions exist to fight for the rights of their members, especially in situations where the member is unable to take action for themselves, whatever the reason. Whilst many grass roots local trade union representatives work hard - sometimes with risk to their own careers - for the benefit of members, the same level of commitment is often not reflected by some paid trade union officials and some trade unions.

they call them strategic cases , RM can be unnecessarily aggressive , hostile and obstructive and will stop at nothing to save their sorry arses though . There is a culture of instuitionalized dishonesty and there is a long chain of cause and effect going all the way back to :cfo

I'm afraid the days of unions all the way down representing the members went in the 70's , it's all politics , I feel sorry for people at grass roots doing the bread & butter stuff with a vengeful , petty , mean-minded and vindictive , arrogant employer .

[Carnoustie]

they call them strategic cases , RM can be unnecessarily aggressive , hostile and obstructive and will stop at nothing to save their sorry arses though

and you can bet it'll only get worse if they see the CWU will hang one of their own members out to dry unless the case is deemed as having a nailed-on certainty of being won

I had a manager try to bring an accident on duty into play when giving me a Stage interview. I was confident that any reasonable Judge, in a court of law, would say that counting an AOD towards an employee's ultimate dismissal is bang out of order, and would almost certainly find in my favour, were I to ultimately end up getting sacked.

Now if an unqualified person like me can predict that a tribunal would overturn my dismissal in such circumstances, you have to ask why it's worth paying union subs if, in an eminently winnable case, they don't give you representation

[brothermagrew]

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS RESEARCH SERIES NO. 84

The influence of legal representation at Employment Tribunals on case outcome:

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file40751.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Certainly worthy of a read

[POSTMAN]

100+ ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE CWU - 2003 EDITION

1st June 2003

http://www.cwu.org/100-achievements-of- ... ition.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Welcome to the first edition of CWU achievements.

Seems this was the 1st and the last unless anyone can get other ones if they were published.

We won almost £26M in legal claims in 2002 on behalf of our members - an outstanding achievement, benefiting many members in need.

[planx]

Commonsense says cancel your subs firstly by contacting RM pay department and secondly by writing to the CWU address on website.

Once youve done the first youve no longer got any money going to the CWU which is surley the most important thing is it not?

Personally I think that the CWU should take on a lot more cases than they do and if that costs more money then I am perfectley willing to pay more in membership fees.

Part timers including me pay less than FT mbrs for the exact same services, isnt it time we thought about basing membership fees on the level of service you can get?

Totally agree with you Big Daz. members get the same representation (legal advise etc) weather they're full-time or part-time. I've had some excellent legal advise which cost me nothing more than my union subs.

I've some concerns about things being missed at HQ level, such as why have we not been ballotted for strike action over the imposed care scheme we're all on from April next year. However I know what it's like to work in non-unionised work places. Give me the Unionised workplace any day.

[planx]

It will show money being spent on lots of worthwhile things!!!!!!

I have faith !!!

Love it!!!!!

LOL.

My branch are always waiting for HQ to return audited accounts.
Most Branches have their AGMs by the end of March. In my experience HQ never get the accounts back to branches in time.

Anyone else have this problem?

[wranglered]

It will show money being spent on lots of worthwhile things!!!!!!

I have faith !!!

Love it!!!!!

LOL.

My branch are always waiting for HQ to return audited accounts.
Most Branches have their AGMs by the end of March. In my experience HQ never get the accounts back to branches in time.

Anyone else have this problem?

What's wrong with publishing the unaudited accounts? Surely that is the role of the Branch Treasurer? If he has done his job properly there will be no difference...

The only way I got to see them was exercising my legal right to see them....in my five years in my current branch they have NEVER been published....I implore everyone to go and have a look if they are refusing to show them....it might get you to see your branch in a very different light!