IA - a justified 'means to an end'

[Ahebban]

My post makes reference to the PEC Report but is for the most part off that topic so hence a new topic!

Any industrial action is a means to an end. Withdrawing one's labour, and the financial loss incurred, is not taken lightly and most certainly not at the whim of any particular group, be they left, right or centre of whichever political persuasion you care to mention. Sadly, the truth is when dealing with RM, the withdrawal of labour is the only language it truly understands and recognizes.

The fact of the matter is that RM have been allowed to stall the real negotiations by making London, in particular, an un-necessary and distracting separate issue. The Interim Agreement is clear as to what was expected from both sides. RM have failed to honour their side of the Agreement as valuable time has been wasted negotiating an Agreement that had already been agreed! For that reason, and that reason alone, the industrial action should have been reinstated and allowed to continue until RM came to the table with serious intention to negotiate on all the issues, local and national. Central to the issue is the word 'trust'. Much has been made at senior level about the issue of trust. Trust is earned, and not a given. RM have in the past shown that they cannot be trusted to honour and manage Agreements both in actuality and the spirit in which they were drawn up. It is clear with the Interim Agreement that once again RM have been found wanting in the trust department.

As has been covered in other threads, let us not forget that the 2007-2009 Pay & Mod Agreement was clear in establishing a time-frame for discussion and implementation of Phase 4. Once that time-frame had expired it was at that point that CWU HQ should have taken up issue with RM and made clear that industrial action was likely if it did not negotiate over Phase 4. Instead CWU chose not to do so and gave RM a clear signal to put its own interpretation on the Agreement and plough ahead with its own agenda. Yes, there were various LTB's etc calling for non-cooperation over budget plans and the like, but nothing tangible for the membership to take hold of and fight with at local level with seemingly little or no support from CWU HQ.

Early 2009 found the memberships' working life intolerable in certain areas of the country, and it was through their efforts to oppose RM's agenda that CWU HQ finally had to take up the gauntlet and get tough with RM. By that point the damage had been done. The vast majority of offices the length and breadth were resigned to acceptance of RM's agenda and it was CWU traditional strongholds that reversed the trend and became springboards for local ballots calling for industrial action. It was the strength of support for national industrial action and the threatened legal action that brought RM to the negotiating table. It would have been continued industrial/legal action that kept RM honest in its intention to negotiate a new National Agreement with the CWU.

Very nearly a month has passed and there has been nothing tangible to report in respect of national negotiations over any of the major issues or key principles. RM have achieved their short-term aim of averting chaos at christmas and will no doubt continue to stall the negotiations, sure in the knowledge that support for industrial action come the new year will have waned and be very much in short supply.

If the call should come from CWU HQ for industrial action to be taken up in the new year will I support it? Yes, I will support it, because while I have an employer that cannot be trusted to honour its obligation to negotiated Agreements I will reserve the right to justify my withdrawal of labour as 'a means to an end'.

[wranglered]

Nice to see the elusive Lovejoy make a Keenlyside PEC post after months of nothing.

But what does it say on what really matters, namely improving the pay and conditions of their members?

Nothing apart from a swipe at those who wanted to exercise their displeasure through lawful industrial action.

All I see now is HQ spin about "visible changes of attitude" by RM and talk of improvements...

Improvements in what? Easier, more realistic workloads? Pay? Pensions? Better vountary redundancy terms? More dignity and respect in the workplace?

The only improvement I see is the fact that the interim agreement guarantees those who enjoy playing the union man/woman full time release.

History tells us everthing. Terms and conditions have only improved by fighting the bosses.The biggest and best weapon is the withdrawal of labour. It is the only measure that historically sees major improvements for the ordinary man/woman.

That chance has now gone, and the CWU hierarchy are glad because it means the gravy train rumbles on.

They also know inertia will keep subs rolling in as staff cling on to the hope that the union might, one day , do something for them. They keep handing over ever dwindling wages to the Wimbledon Robber Barons "just in case".

Strikes were the only way to halt this decline. They are now history. But how to change things?

Well let me say if you think standing against some of these jokers is going to be easy...think again. The election process is geared to hindering those with a more truthful message. Then, of course, we have the scrutineers used for checking the ballots. Did you know they are ex-employees of the CWU?.....

The CWU is a business that provides services. Like any other business they have to give a good product, or else customers go elsewhere. To change the CWU you need to hurt them in the pocket.

That is the only way to see improvement. By cutting off the hand that feeds them. Employment law exists with or without the CWU. If my ex-office is anything to go by, there are those who can help others in terms of representation and the law without the need to hold a union position. Indeed people chosen by the people to negotiate on their behalf get EXACTLY the same rights as union reps.

I would call that a justified 'means to an end', as is the right to strike, not for it to be denied by sychophants on the payroll...

[La Poste]

Indeed people chosen by the people to negotiate on their behalf get EXACTLY the same rights as union reps.

Could you explain more on this point please.
Thanks.

[wranglered]

Yeah no probs....an employee representative gets all the discrimination protection that a trade union representative gets...so if they are stopped from doing conduct meetings, or are refused access to their members for example, they can take action through an Employment Tribunal.

Similarly if they get sacked or disciplined they can again make a claim through an ET.

At a local level then, they can be just as effective as a representative from a trade union.

Of course it could be argued that as the CWU are recognised nationally, then national agrements on terms and conditions can be demanded by the local trade union rep.

This would not be available to a stand alone rep.

HOWEVER it would be fair to say that as the CWU is failing to get anywhere with this, then there is no real advantage.....

Then there is a question of all the other "benefits" you get when paying into the CWU. For example their legal help for personal injury. My experience is that the service is below par and you can get more cash from no-win, no-fee lawyers, even when they take their cut....

So what is left? Those of us that care for our working colleagues rights could quite easily, at a local level, operate as an employee representative and everyone would save 'cos they are not paying into the CWU, but getting the same service.

Remember, reps don't do the job for money...or at least the decent ones don't!

[La Poste]

Thanks for the reply.
I might start another thread on this but I will mention it here anyway.
What about joining another union?
I mean I don't know too much about this but if people are getting fed up with the CWU it's not the only union out there, you could be an employee representative with the backing of a union of your choice. I will have to do more research on this because I don't really know the alternatives.
CWU reps are good because they have access to all the local agreements whereas if you are a member of another union you may find the CWU becoming unhelpful when you asked for access to certain documents. The RM conduct code is available to all through their website so things like this wouldn't be a problem.
What do people think the problems would be in joining another union and using that union for support in a RM enviroment?
Thanks.

[Ahebban]

Whilst you are free to join any legitimate trade union, having RM recognize and be prepared to deal with a representative of that union is another matter altogether.

Don't forget it was RM's original choice to bypass CWU and impose it's agenda across all offices citing whichever elements of the current Agreement it chose that brought about the dispute in the first place.

I don't see RM falling over themselves to welcome another trade union unless it was completely aligned with RM thinking.

[brothermagrew]

With regards to health and safety representation there are some differences however:

What is the difference between the roles of Trade Union Safety Representatives and elected representatives of employee safety (representative elected by groups of employees not covered by Trade Union Safety Representatives)?

Under the SRSCR 1977, the roles of Trade Union Safety Representatives are:
to investigate possible dangers at work, the causes of accidents there and general complaints by employees on health and safety and welfare issues and to take these matters up with the employer;

to carry out inspections of the workplace, particularly following accidents, diseases or other events;

to represent employees in discussions with Health and Safety Inspectors and to receive information from those inspectors; and

to go to meetings of Safety Committees.

The employer must set up a Safety Committee if two or more Trade Union Safety Representatives ask for one.

The separate HSCER 1996 give elected representatives of employee safety the following roles:

to take up with employers concerns about possible risks and dangerous events in the workplace that may affect the employees they represent;

to take up with employers general matters affecting the health and safety of the employees they represent; and

to represent the employees who elected them in consultation with Health and Safety Inspectors.

Employers may choose to give elected representatives extra roles as well.

[AnotherLimey]

With regards to health and safety representation there are some differences however:

What is the difference between the roles of Trade Union Safety Representatives and elected representatives of employee safety (representative elected by groups of employees not covered by Trade Union Safety Representatives)?

Under the SRSCR 1977, the roles of Trade Union Safety Representatives are:
to investigate possible dangers at work, the causes of accidents there and general complaints by employees on health and safety and welfare issues and to take these matters up with the employer;

to carry out inspections of the workplace, particularly following accidents, diseases or other events;

to represent employees in discussions with Health and Safety Inspectors and to receive information from those inspectors; and

to go to meetings of Safety Committees.

The employer must set up a Safety Committee if two or more Trade Union Safety Representatives ask for one.

The separate HSCER 1996 give elected representatives of employee safety the following roles:

to take up with employers concerns about possible risks and dangerous events in the workplace that may affect the employees they represent;

to take up with employers general matters affecting the health and safety of the employees they represent; and

to represent the employees who elected them in consultation with Health and Safety Inspectors.

Employers may choose to give elected representatives extra roles as well.

All sounds good, But....The health and safety rep in my area and it could well be you has been a complete waste of time to be honest, He likes to jump on posties for not wearing a high viz vest or a helmet ect, But never stomps on managers for the various things they ignore on a daily basis, pisses me off ot really does

[TrueBlueTerrier]

All sounds good, But....The health and safety rep in my area and it could well be you has been a complete waste of time to be honest, He likes to jump on posties for not wearing a high viz vest or a helmet ect, But never stomps on managers for the various things they ignore on a daily basis, pisses me off ot really does

Nope its not BrotherMagrew - he is about as far from you as its possible to get based on your IP for the previous post.

[Big Daz]

Remember, reps don't do the job for money...or at least the decent ones don't!

Does that mean because the NEC are giving up their honoria payments, they move into you definition of decent reps?

[brothermagrew]

With regards to health and safety representation there are some differences however:

What is the difference between the roles of Trade Union Safety Representatives and elected representatives of employee safety (representative elected by groups of employees not covered by Trade Union Safety Representatives)?

Under the SRSCR 1977, the roles of Trade Union Safety Representatives are:
to investigate possible dangers at work, the causes of accidents there and general complaints by employees on health and safety and welfare issues and to take these matters up with the employer;

to carry out inspections of the workplace, particularly following accidents, diseases or other events;

to represent employees in discussions with Health and Safety Inspectors and to receive information from those inspectors; and

to go to meetings of Safety Committees.

The employer must set up a Safety Committee if two or more Trade Union Safety Representatives ask for one.

The separate HSCER 1996 give elected representatives of employee safety the following roles:

to take up with employers concerns about possible risks and dangerous events in the workplace that may affect the employees they represent;

to take up with employers general matters affecting the health and safety of the employees they represent; and

to represent the employees who elected them in consultation with Health and Safety Inspectors.

Employers may choose to give elected representatives extra roles as well.

All sounds good, But....The health and safety rep in my area and it could well be you has been a complete waste of time to be honest, He likes to jump on posties for not wearing a high viz vest or a helmet ect, But never stomps on managers for the various things they ignore on a daily basis, pisses me off ot really does

As you specifically mention the word area in your reply posting, are you implying that it is your area H&S Rep who in your opinion has been a complete waste of time, or are you meaning your worplace/unit H&S Rep? If you also feel that strongly about them, then why not stand for the position yourself when it next becomes vacant or up for re-election. He wouldn't be a decent H&S rep if he didn't through persuasion, respectfully remind his work colleagues about the importance of wearing hi-viz garments and protective headgear for cyclists. You also make spurious allegations that your H&S rep in your area does not I would presume get tough with errent managers who ignore things on a daily basis, but then fail to give any such examples. If your rep is a CWU Area H&S rep then he would be entitled to perform at the minimum quarterly inspections of all workplaces within his catchment area, and then to send an inspection report to said managers identifying any problem areas of concern.

In your words it could well be me and then again maybe not. To which CWU branch do you belong? (PM me if you want). And finally in this respect, I am not of the view that safety reps in general are a complete waste of time, they perform very necessary functions, and argue as you may but statistics show that where a safety rep is in situ then that workplace is much safer than would otherwise be.

[wranglered]

Remember, reps don't do the job for money...or at least the decent ones don't!

Does that mean because the NEC are giving up their honoria payments, they move into you definition of decent reps?

I read the communication as all reps were giving up honoraria, correct me though if I am wrong.

However it won't stop PEC members buying houses in London or building huge extensions on their houses out of EXPENSES....

[Big Daz]

Mr W

Re read has been done, the lasts sentence says £110,000 saving but is that all honaria paid out of HQ general fund or just the NEC element? My humble opinion is that this LTB could have been a wee bit clearer.

Finally, but significantly the NEC agreed to cease all entitlement to honoraria which comes from the General Fund from 1st January 2010. Obviously this is a significant move on the part of the NEC as amongst others they themselves are directly affected by this decision. It should be noted that this decision will save the not insignificant sum of approximately £110,000 per year from HQ spend.

What about branch funds, I would interpet the LTB as refering to HQ spend and branches free to do as they please within the rules with their own money.

[wranglered]

Big Daz - if £100k is coming out of HQ, how much more do they want on top of their salaries!!!???!

I reckon there is a very big can of worms here...care to open it a little more?

[Big Daz]

How can the salaries of the national officers be a can of worms?

The debate about how much a full time officer/leader of a trade union should be paid is something the TU movement have been disscussing since before i was born.