Kept in the dark

Cut Off King · Post by **Cut Off King** » 06 Oct 2009, 19:17

Why are the members of the union always kept in the dark reguarding negotiations?

Why can't we be party to what is being talked about, after all its US that the talks are about and its US that are being asked to strike

Why can't we have a daily transcript of the ongoing talks?

After all, we are all adults, whats so secret that we can't be told ( unless there is something to hide )

I would just like to be treated like an adult in this dispute, not told to be quiet and wait until the grown-ups have finished talking

hertsman0 · Post by **hertsman0** » 06 Oct 2009, 19:42

Totaly agree wuth that.Anyone know whats going on?

tommythreesheds · Post by **tommythreesheds** » 06 Oct 2009, 19:46

They may be a few notes on the CWU web page, but yes, i understand what you are saying. We are at the end of out tethers about our workdays, but the union never give us an idea or chance to say yes or no about whats going on, or even being proposed. I just hope we get some details asap, because what happens if we dont like any certain deal thats been made?

Post by **Lincox** » 06 Oct 2009, 19:57

I believe that they have to put any discussions/agreements to us members to vote yeah or ney. We all voted on the 2007 P&M agreement and it was carried. Perhaps this time when an agreement is reached we all need to look at the nitty gritty of it all and challenge any wishy washy bits before voting. There were many in the last agreement and no doubt they will be trying the same tactics. This time I intend taking a lot more time and challenging Union HQ on any bits that are not cast in stone and open to company interpretation.

Cut Off King · Post by **Cut Off King** » 06 Oct 2009, 20:48

Lincox wrote:I believe that they have to put any discussions/agreements to us members to vote yeah or ney. We all voted on the 2007 P&M agreement and it was carried. Perhaps this time when an agreement is reached we all need to look at the nitty gritty of it all and challenge any wishy washy bits before voting. There were many in the last agreement and no doubt they will be trying the same tactics. This time I intend taking a lot more time and challenging Union HQ on any bits that are not cast in stone and open to company interpretation.

But if we challange the agreement as it is being formulated instead of after it has been written, we stand the best change of influencing the outcome

I don't think that it should be all out own way, but any agreement should be better that the last vague " we'll talk about it later " document that most people didn't read and understand fully.

Royal Mail used this to their advantage !

BLACK & WHITE RULES is what we need

Post by **Carnoustie** » 06 Oct 2009, 20:59

Lincox wrote:I believe that they have to put any discussions/agreements to us members to vote yeah or ney. We all voted on the 2007 P&M agreement and it was carried. Perhaps this time when an agreement is reached we all need to look at the nitty gritty of it all and challenge any wishy washy bits before voting. There were many in the last agreement and no doubt they will be trying the same tactics. This time I intend taking a lot more time and challenging Union HQ on any bits that are not cast in stone and open to company interpretation.

Unfortunately, I fear this agreement - whatever it contains - will get put to a vote and, like the 2007 P&M agreement, will be accepted, for all of the following reasons:

1. The offer will doubtless contain a lump sum element to it, which on past performance, will encourage the short-sighted ones to vote Yes to the agreement (a £175 lump sum was all it took last time)
2. A lot of people won't read the whole agreement, and even those of us that do read it don't have the option of voting no to some bits and yes to others; the nature of the ballot process means you only get to say Yes or No to the WHOLE agreement.
3. Many people, despite having already lost pay on strike days, won't even bother to vote at all, something I can never understand.

So, as in the past, if enough of the short-termers vote Yes to get the lump sum, the ones like me who voted No in 2007 end up on the losing side, let down as much by those who failed to vote as by the ones that vote Yes to a crap deal

keo · Post by **keo** » 06 Oct 2009, 21:14

The main reason for not being fully in the loop is the confidentiality clause that Royal Mail always insists on being inserted at the begining of any talks.
This means that anything disclosed within the talks can't be used in evidence at a later date.

BELIAL · Post by **BELIAL** » 06 Oct 2009, 21:44

keo wrote:The main reason for not being fully in the loop is the confidentiality clause that Royal Mail always insists on being inserted at the begining of any talks.
This means that anything disclosed within the talks can't be used in evidence at a later date.

Not good enough, fraid if I was in the negotiators position I would have to ask the membership if they were in support of discussions about their terms being carried on in secret. If the members said no then nothing gets delivered until somebody comes clean.What have we got to hide? Commercial confidentiality

andy2007 · Post by **andy2007** » 07 Oct 2009, 11:22

Totally agree with you there Belial: The CWU should NOT agree to confidentiality during the Srikes. We, the Members, should be kept in the loop!

bogstandard · Post by **bogstandard** » 07 Oct 2009, 11:37

If you were trying to organise a vote for IA would you want elements of your talks being in the public domain so to speak that might/could persuade some to change their way of voting.
To be fair it does cut both ways, you dont want your employees (us members) undermining your efforts to obtain maximum benefits for them by letting them know that money is on the table, also as the employer ( Royal Mail) you don't want your employees to know how little you thinnk of them and their effort in making you very rich people

bogstandard · Post by **bogstandard** » 07 Oct 2009, 11:40

what i will say is that any agreement put forward, the membership is given enough time to digest. As i recall 07's, to me seemed very rushed, with nothing coming from HQ that would allow a NO vote

chunk · Post by **chunk** » 07 Oct 2009, 12:46

Lincox wrote:I believe that they have to put any discussions/agreements to us members to vote yeah or ney. We all voted on the 2007 P&M agreement and it was carried. Perhaps this time when an agreement is reached we all need to look at the nitty gritty of it all and challenge any wishy washy bits before voting. There were many in the last agreement and no doubt they will be trying the same tactics. This time I intend taking a lot more time and challenging Union HQ on any bits that are not cast in stone and open to company interpretation.

The CWU has access to (and can afford) top lawyers who can help iron out the "nitty-gritty" as you so aptly call it.
They are not a luxury but a necessity as RM have the best legal advice and seemingly.
limitless funds.

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 09 Oct 2009, 18:36

The C.W.U does not agree to confidentiality ,they demand it. otherwise RM would simply leak the good parts of any discussions to undermine the strike.

andy2007 · Post by **andy2007** » 10 Oct 2009, 13:43

At which point, the CWU could leak the bad points too.

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 10 Oct 2009, 14:11

andy2007 wrote:At which point, the CWU could leak the bad points too.

And which side of the story will make the front pages of our free and unbiased press

ROYALMAILCHAT

Kept in the dark

Kept in the dark

Re: Kept in the dark

Re: Kept in the dark

Re: Kept in the dark

Re: Kept in the dark

Re: Kept in the dark

Re: Kept in the dark

Re: Kept in the dark

Re: Kept in the dark

Re: Kept in the dark

Re: Kept in the dark

Re: Kept in the dark

Re: Kept in the dark

Re: Kept in the dark

Re: Kept in the dark