Is This True About The Pension??!

[dvbuk55]

You say there is no activity from the union but this goes back to my post some time again about branches. You are right that HQ have agreed to support the companies proposals but branches are challenging this and i believe if we piush hard enough the PEC will change its stance before the final reccomendation. My branch has sent out FREEPOST postcards for members to send to RM attacking their proposals. All reps are in the process of being given a pensions briefing / school and we are writing to every members house to encouage them tp get involved.

On you point about people not striking on pensions i couldn't disagree more. If you asked most union reps to name a few issues that would get their members on strike then Pensions would be on almost every list.

It may be that in your area there is a strong feeling on the pensions issue but I can quite categorically say that you would be mistaken into thinking that this is going to be a national rallying call. People may well feel strongly about it but the real time effect is far in the future for the majority. There is an underclass of employee now with short term contracts with short hours, what is the liklihood of the union fighting for their right to full employment with full pension rights I wonder - yep you've guessed it, exactly the same as them fighting for the right to retire at 60 without prejudice. The PEC may well make an issue of this but it will be empty and wasted rhetoric LJ.

[lovejoy]

You say there is no activity from the union but this goes back to my post some time again about branches. You are right that HQ have agreed to support the companies proposals but branches are challenging this and i believe if we piush hard enough the PEC will change its stance before the final reccomendation. My branch has sent out FREEPOST postcards for members to send to RM attacking their proposals. All reps are in the process of being given a pensions briefing / school and we are writing to every members house to encouage them tp get involved.

On you point about people not striking on pensions i couldn't disagree more. If you asked most union reps to name a few issues that would get their members on strike then Pensions would be on almost every list.

It may be that in your area there is a strong feeling on the pensions issue but I can quite categorically say that you would be mistaken into thinking that this is going to be a national rallying call. People may well feel strongly about it but the real time effect is far in the future for the majority. There is an underclass of employee now with short term contracts with short hours, what is the liklihood of the union fighting for their right to full employment with full pension rights I wonder - yep you've guessed it, exactly the same as them fighting for the right to retire at 60 without prejudice. The PEC may well make an issue of this but it will be empty and wasted rhetoric LJ.

Don't often disagree with you mate but I have to on this point. Action on pensions would be overwhelmingly supported. As long as the campaigns were ran well nationally and locally then there would be no problem.

[pinstripe]

If it is a straight YES/NO. I'm not convinced it will be. If it is, then what is the stance the CWU leadership is going to take? If they have already accepted that the pension scheme as is cannot be sustained and they have, then they have already accepted the proposals.

There are a number of issues that have been accepted at face value by the leadership and there doesn't seem to be any union activity to refute many of the statements propounded by RM, which are blatantly, if not untrue, slanted in favour of the draconian measures.

We all know that whatever the outcome of the "consultation" and the vote - no one is going on strike over an issue that may well not affect them for the next 25 years.

You say there is no activity from the union but this goes back to my post some time again about branches. You are right that HQ have agreed to support the companies proposals but branches are challenging this and i believe if we piush hard enough the PEC will change its stance before the final reccomendation. My branch has sent out FREEPOST postcards for members to send to RM attacking their proposals. All reps are in the process of being given a pensions briefing / school and we are writing to every members house to encouage them tp get involved.

On you point about people not striking on pensions i couldn't disagree more. If you asked most union reps to name a few issues that would get their members on strike then Pensions would be on almost every list.

Sorry Lovejoy, here I must disagree with you. I'm part time and not in the pension scheme. I was shafted with the introduction of the SDD (which I voted against), I have again been shafted following the acceptance of the new agreement. (which I voted against). Every time that an issue goes to a vote I stick to my guns and follow my head and vote what I believe is in the best interests of the majority of my colleagues, but each time the very people I use my vote to protect, use theirs to stitch me up. Why on earth should I either vote for a strike or go on strike to support people who have shown time after time that they are only interested in themselves. Remember that the vote was 64%. If and I hope it is a big if, that a strike is called on this issue there will be many people like me, that have constantly been 'turned over' and may well follow the current path of least resistance. If two thirds of the union vote to look after themselves why shouldn't we.

Rant over, but my point remains. By the way I've never ever, in my life crossed a picket line. I'd rather leave RM than do that. But how many of the 64% that accepted the deal would be prepared to make that sacrifice for their principles, and how many voted "yes" to line their pockets for Christmas. They have made the rod for their own backs.

[strangler]

You are right that HQ have agreed to support the companies proposals but branches are challenging this and i believe if we piush hard enough the PEC will change its stance before the final reccomendation.

We shouldn`t be in a position where we have to "push hard enough" in the hope that the PEC will change its stance on our pensions. They should already have adopted the stance the majority of us already have on this issue. Another example of the union hierarchy being out of touch with its members.

[lovejoy]

You are right that HQ have agreed to support the companies proposals but branches are challenging this and i believe if we piush hard enough the PEC will change its stance before the final reccomendation.

We shouldn`t be in a position where we have to "push hard enough" in the hope that the PEC will change its stance on our pensions. They should already have adopted the stance the majority of us already have on this issue. Another example of the union hierarchy being out of touch with its members.

maybe so mate but its no good just shrugging our shoulders and waiting to blame them. I'd rather get into them now!

[lovejoy]

If it is a straight YES/NO. I'm not convinced it will be. If it is, then what is the stance the CWU leadership is going to take? If they have already accepted that the pension scheme as is cannot be sustained and they have, then they have already accepted the proposals.

There are a number of issues that have been accepted at face value by the leadership and there doesn't seem to be any union activity to refute many of the statements propounded by RM, which are blatantly, if not untrue, slanted in favour of the draconian measures.

We all know that whatever the outcome of the "consultation" and the vote - no one is going on strike over an issue that may well not affect them for the next 25 years.

You say there is no activity from the union but this goes back to my post some time again about branches. You are right that HQ have agreed to support the companies proposals but branches are challenging this and i believe if we piush hard enough the PEC will change its stance before the final reccomendation. My branch has sent out FREEPOST postcards for members to send to RM attacking their proposals. All reps are in the process of being given a pensions briefing / school and we are writing to every members house to encouage them tp get involved.

On you point about people not striking on pensions i couldn't disagree more. If you asked most union reps to name a few issues that would get their members on strike then Pensions would be on almost every list.

Sorry Lovejoy, here I must disagree with you. I'm part time and not in the pension scheme. I was shafted with the introduction of the SDD (which I voted against), I have again been shafted following the acceptance of the new agreement. (which I voted against). Every time that an issue goes to a vote I stick to my guns and follow my head and vote what I believe is in the best interests of the majority of my colleagues, but each time the very people I use my vote to protect, use theirs to stitch me up. Why on earth should I either vote for a strike or go on strike to support people who have shown time after time that they are only interested in themselves. Remember that the vote was 64%. If and I hope it is a big if, that a strike is called on this issue there will be many people like me, that have constantly been 'turned over' and may well follow the current path of least resistance. If two thirds of the union vote to look after themselves why shouldn't we.

Rant over, but my point remains. By the way I've never ever, in my life crossed a picket line. I'd rather leave RM than do that. But how many of the 64% that accepted the deal would be prepared to make that sacrifice for their principles, and how many voted "yes" to line their pockets for Christmas. They have made the rod for their own backs.

After every majorr dispute there are always groups who for one reason or another feel that they would not take action again. This does not change my opinion that the majority of CWU members would fight for their pensions using every means possible including further action.

My office wasn't happy with SDD either or the pay and modernisation agreement but we accept that in a union the majority rules and 64% was enough to get the agreement through. On the same basis if there was a strike ballot and yes vote on ANY issue union members should follow the majority. Else what is the point of being in a union?

[strangler]

how many voted "yes" to line their pockets for Christmas. They have made the rod for their own backs.

I see where you`re coming from. However, I voted against the deal but never the less I`d support any strike to protect our pensions. I`m very sceptical that we`ll have the option on a ballot paper to take official action over this. Stitched up.

[dvbuk55]

how many voted "yes" to line their pockets for Christmas. They have made the rod for their own backs.

I see where you`re coming from. However, I voted against the deal but never the less I`d support any strike to protect our pensions. I`m very sceptical that we`ll have the option on a ballot paper to take official action over this. Stitched up.

Amazingly enough I too voted against every agreement and yet lo and behold they've all gone through. I don't think there is any mileage in arguing the case for an option that has already been accepted by the glitterati. As I have said before RM have no legal obligation to accept any vote or recommendation from any consultation. Maybe some think there are reputations to be made by making a pseudo stance and appearing to be "in tune" with the membership.