Agreement to extend national talks

[fishtank]

Big Daz wrote
"I would suggest a high threshold in terms of turn out and yes votes for this agreement and all future agreements for all CWU members in any buissness to come in to force with the consent of the membership."

Great idea Daz, How about "NO AGREEMENT UNLESS THE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERSHIP VOTE YES"
Are you up for it CWU HQ.

[Big Daz]

Great idea but are you willing to see it applied to IA ballots, we came close to dropping below 50% of ballots papers sent being returned as yes votes.

Turnout in all types of ballots needs improving, but how doe we achive it?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Make members feel more in touch with Branch, Area, Division and HQ and that their views are important, rather than as some suspect a means to an end.

[fishtank]

Great idea but are you willing to see it applied to IA ballots, we came close to dropping below 50% of ballots papers sent being returned as yes votes.

Turnout in all types of ballots needs improving, but how doe we achive it?

One leads to the other Daz.
Although you will never get all your members to vote.
If an IA ballot requires 50% you will inevitably see a higher return on ballot papers.
If this requires the rep to stand over the members while they vote then so be it.
Sending ballot papers by post is not an acceptable practice,How many members simply lost theirs?

[not me]

all this talk of payment deals etc concern me
all i want is to have a realistic expectation of what i can do in 8 hours a day
if you want 120 D2D's a day then fine,just realise i wont be doing any mail

as for the union i personally feel we get very little info from the union
admittedly in my own office we lost our long term rep however this forum is my only source of information which it shouldnt be

[dvbuk55]

Fishtank


This is the closest i can find based on titles and headlines, havent read it yet though to see if it could be what Dingo is referring to


http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/employm ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well as far as I can tell it talks about employee engagement and is aimed at smaller employers. In a nutshell it is about the employer listening to the employee and being involved in planning, being kept informed of developments, new products etc etc etc - it does not mention no strike agreements. Rather it puts the onus on the employer to engage the workforce - not something we are used to.

[kh]

dingle can you tell me yes or no is monthly pay in this deal

[Martin Walsh]

Fishtank the one thing I dont do is treat the members with contempt. I meet members at all type of delivery offices , mail centres or collection hubs on a regular basis. By doing that I understand what members are concerned with and also they know what the problems are too.

Now I understand that this is a big agreement , but so was SDD , so was the performance bonus scheme , so was Pay and Mod , and countless other agreements including the ending of IWM .

However I am afaid to say that unless their is a major campaign to oppose and agreement then a lot of members who may not have union meetings or branchs newsletters will simply get a ballot paper with circular from the PEC explaining the agreement and recommending they vote for the deal. Union history has shown that in the past. In fact the only big agreement which was defeated was the Way Forward when London , South East , Anglia , South West and South Wales and South Central divisons launch a major campaign against it . It was defeated . Then after a tour by the PEC , a special confernece and some ammendments on the ways of working and a new inclusion of the working time agreement it was put out again which ingnored the special conference propositions and was accepted. That decison led to the removal of a number of PEC members who had voted for it and then led to a no confidence motion in Keggie which he survived by just one Branch"s vote and led to his evenutal defeat in the election.

Now Fishtank what I dont understand is that you seem to suggust that people who may have not done a delivery for a few years cant possibly make a decison on delivery staffs futures. Why Dave and Bob Gibson go and meet members in all parts of country town ,cities and rurals and members in different places have different requirements not all have the same and surely that allows them to have a wider knowledge then members who work exculsively in just one office. Plus they have the feed back from all the area reps , local reps and divisonal reps.

Now KH monthly pay has been on Royal Mail"s agenda since we stopped cashless pay back in the late 80s. It was in the way forward and has been included in all major agreements since.

With regards to whether it is in this agreement , I am not aware but I dont think there is any desire from the union to move on that path afterall the union has not agreed to it for the last 20 years. Network drivers are on monthly pay as a result of the professional drivers pay but that was a deal which was voted in by the members.

[fishtank]

Since you seem keen to recycle old posts.
dingo wrote Tue Sep 09, 2008
"I dont confess to have the answers but I do believe that the cwu needs an open and inclusive debate within the union what the delivery model should look like as the status quo is not an option as it is not protecting full time jobs but allowing management to by default to introduce levels of part timers which will weaken the unions barginning power in the future debate."

Where is that open and inclusive debate dingo?


"Now Fishtank what I dont understand is that you seem to suggust that people who may have not done a delivery for a few years cant possibly make a decison on delivery staffs futures. Why Dave and Bob Gibson go and meet members in all parts of country town ,cities and rurals and members in different places have different requirements not all have the same and surely that allows them to have a wider knowledge then members who work exculsively in just one office. Plus they have the feed back from all the area reps , local reps and divisonal reps."

If i believed Dave and Bob were using this experience to shape their decisions on the future delivery model that would be fine.
But they are not,they have allowed management to back them into a corner using the threat of a predominately part-time workforce which as you and i both know would signal the beginning of the end for the postal side of the CWU.
I know why you are all for this dingo.
London has the lowest percentage of part-time staff in the country.
But it is a bit late for the majority of the country is it not?
Or do you believe that full-time jobs will be re-instated with this agreement because i do not share your optimism.
I do feel you may be surprised by the outcome of a vote on this agreement.
You seem to think that the default position of every member is to go along with the PEC recomendation.
Only time will tell but maybe if the carrot matches the stick.
And it's a very big stick.

[bogstandard]

not to sure if i should post this now or nearer the time when agreement is reached but my fear is that when an agreement is reached the most poular phrase will be "given the circumstances it was the best agreement we could achieve"

[bogstandard]

If your honest this translates to "i know its not what you thought you'd get sorreeeeey, vote for it please"

[brothermagrew]

Great idea but are you willing to see it applied to IA ballots, we came close to dropping below 50% of ballots papers sent being returned as yes votes.

Turnout in all types of ballots needs improving, but how doe we achive it?

Perhaps brother Big Daz make it a pre-requisite that in being a member of the union that you must participate (vote) in any and all subsequent ballots.

[Martin Walsh]

Fishtank we did have a full and inclusive debate on the delivery model, all Divisons cascuaded it too Branch`s where amendments were asked for and then it was the Branch`s duty to cascuade it down to the local units. In addition it was debated at the Unions conference and the Union attended the fedreation of small bussiness conference to get their support for the model.

No Branch opposed the delivery model , that is a fact.

It is true that levels of part time staff vary drasitically in various parts of the UK. In London there are less for a viarety of reasons including they are differecult to recuit and retain. Now the problem is this a lot of offices have done deals on longer spans which have meant that not only have offices mantained full time jobs but also meant that part time staff had the ability of going full time. At the Manchester national briefing last May a number of Branchs got up and said that they could not hold the line on no savings as management were allowing part timers the opportunity of making 3 duties into 2 allowing 2 part timers to be made full time.

Look I dont support any deal until I know the facts but equally I dont slag off the deal before I know the facts.

Withdoubt this is going to be a massive deal for everyone and the agreement will need to be transaparent and explained before we all jump to conclusions about whether its the sale out of the century or the deal of the century or somewhere in between. At the moment no one on here or outside the negotatiors has seen what has or what has not been agreed.

[dvbuk55]

I don't know if anyone else reads into dingo's post what I do but it seems to me it's a case of "this is the agreement - take it or take it" - because the PEC recommend it - BUT the PEC haven't seen or recommended it yet - like the no strike legislation, dingo is jumping the gun. Whatever the result, people will be held to account sooner or later and what they may seem to think is the politically correct decision now could well return to bite them in the backside.

Lets see how the rank and file view the agreement shall we - there is, at the moment, nothing to oppose because nothing is decided, or is it?

[Martin Walsh]

Dvbuk You seem to have an habit of misquoting myself but hey who cares.

Your right there is no agreement at the moment. However if there is an eventual agreement what happens is the PEC first debate, amend and then vote on it. The Officers Billy Hayes , Dave Ward , Bob Gibson , Ray Ellis , Martin Collins , Terry Pullinger and Andy Furey do not have a vote on the Postal Executive. Instead the Chair Jane Loftus and Vice Chair Peter Donaghy along with the 13 Postal members and the two PTS members have the say on whether the agreement is accepted. Jane Loftus as the Chair has the opportunity to vote twice once as her right as a postal executive member and again if neccessairy as the casting vote as a chair.

Only if the majority of the Postal Exectuive vote for it will the agreement go to the members and only then will it say that the Postal Execuitve recommend it.

Like I said there is no agreement at the moment and therefore there is nothing to judge or slag off at the moment.