What's the best way to vote for a strong union in 5/10 years?

[cheerful]

The current deal might be iffy, but I'd like a strong union in the coming years.

What's the best way to vote for a strong union in 2030?

I've found part timers are treated pretty well, but I've always heard minor grumblings about the union only caring about full timers (with full timers having better perks / legacy benefits / seniority), but I fear voting Yes will get a three tier workforce:

1) Full timers employed many years ago, almost all supporting the union
2) Part timers employed in the last 20ish years, less of them supporting the union
3) New starters are working every Sunday, missing Delivery Supplement and possibly other perks, with significantly less supporting the union

If the Yes vote wins, then every year we'll lose people from groups 1+2, and gain posties in group 3, and in a few years the union will be weak enough to be ignored.

However, if the No vote wins, then I'd imagine a lot of the people who voted Yes would be willing to cross the picket line, enough people that would make strikes useless, and it would be a massive blow to the union.

Am I missing something, it feels wrong to vote for the slow death of the union, but I think voting No would be a quicker collapse of the union?

[aiden01]

The current deal might be iffy, but I'd like a strong union in the coming years.

What's the best way to vote for a strong union in 2030?

I've found part timers are treated pretty well, but I've always heard minor grumblings about the union only caring about full timers (with full timers having better perks / legacy benefits / seniority), but I fear voting Yes will get a three tier workforce:

1) Full timers employed many years ago, almost all supporting the union
2) Part timers employed in the last 20ish years, less of them supporting the union
3) New starters are working every Sunday, missing Delivery Supplement and possibly other perks, with significantly less supporting the union

If the Yes vote wins, then every year we'll lose people from groups 1+2, and gain posties in group 3, and in a few years the union will be weak enough to be ignored.

However, if the No vote wins, then I'd imagine a lot of the people who voted Yes would be willing to cross the picket line, enough people that would make strikes useless, and it would be a massive blow to the union.

Am I missing something, it feels wrong to vote for the slow death of the union, but I think voting No would be a quicker collapse of the union?

Whether yes or no will never cross a picket line.new starters know what contract they are signing so up to them.when i started ft gobbled up all the ot no matter how many hrs they had against a pt.so things will always change an not for the better for everyone.as for union only time will tell.

[iHateD2Ds]

I feel the CWU leadership has pressed the self destruct button and will never regain trust of its members pass and present.
Going forward ,retention of staff on lower pay, terms and conditions is going to be BIG problem and don’t see many joining the union knowing this job is only a stepping stone.

This is what RM wants to achieve
Lower Pay ,Less Terms and Conditions, More Workload, Less CPS opening times,Doorstep Challenge = Bigger Profit for its Shareholders.

We resisted by striking but the CWU quit and NOW it’s happening.

[pieoftheday]

The current deal might be iffy, but I'd like a strong union in the coming years.

What's the best way to vote for a strong union in 2030?

I've found part timers are treated pretty well, but I've always heard minor grumblings about the union only caring about full timers (with full timers having better perks / legacy benefits / seniority), but I fear voting Yes will get a three tier workforce:

1) Full timers employed many years ago, almost all supporting the union
2) Part timers employed in the last 20ish years, less of them supporting the union
3) New starters are working every Sunday, missing Delivery Supplement and possibly other perks, with significantly less supporting the union

If the Yes vote wins, then every year we'll lose people from groups 1+2, and gain posties in group 3, and in a few years the union will be weak enough to be ignored.

However, if the No vote wins, then I'd imagine a lot of the people who voted Yes would be willing to cross the picket line, enough people that would make strikes useless, and it would be a massive blow to the union.

Am I missing something, it feels wrong to vote for the slow death of the union, but I think voting No would be a quicker collapse of the union?

With respect, the ballot is on whether we agree with the proposed agreement or not

[Burghboy]

The best thing you could do is promote and vote for good strong Rep’s and support them, the Rep’s who are not scared to challenge the managers on the tough issues. The ones who the managers do not like dealing with.

There are far too many Rep’s at all levels in the CWU who are too comfortable in their roles and do not represent our members the way they should, hence why we end up with substandard representation and agreements at local and national level.

[olilew]

If the Yes vote wins, then every year we'll lose people from groups 1+2, and gain posties in group 3, and in a few years the union will be weak enough to be ignored.

I fear we may already be there!

[neviboss]

What union, we won't have one, but BT will have it exclusively. We'd be better of with ASLEF or RMT!

[aiden01]

What union, we won't have one, but BT will have it exclusively. We'd be better of with ASLEF or RMT!

Join them then.