Come on Truth give us your thoughts

[MinisterofCucumber]

Well the fact that they took executive action in over 400 units last year and more than half did nothing to oppose it shows this can be done!!

Does this mean that units who oppose executive action can stop it?

If this is the case, does it mean that executive action is an impotent threat that can easily be defended against?

[el_cartero]

Truth - HE CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH.

perfect - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yB7J7DYi6M" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[lovejoy]

P&M 2007 was accepted and that has been a disaster for membership levels.
I see nothing in this draft be it final or not that will reverse that trend.

75/25 FT split

agreed revision tools

Shorter working week

D2D into workload

All things that will protect jobs.

The agreement is massive but my fear is two things will swing the vote. Majority of those voting yes will do so to avoid more action and just look at lump sums whilst those voting no will be based on the delivery supplement.

Very few will vote on basis of reading whole document will they!?

[lovejoy]

Well the fact that they took executive action in over 400 units last year and more than half did nothing to oppose it shows this can be done!!

Does this mean that units who oppose executive action can stop it?

If this is the case, does it mean that executive action is an impotent threat that can easily be defended against?

No the point is that they can take EA so they can bring in SOME (not all) things without agreement. It is however in RMs interest to have an agreement because forced change rarely works in the end.

[spilie]

lovejoy your remarks smack of arrogance, every time you and the fellow "leakers" are pushed we get the arrogant "well you do it" or "they have invested millions so they aint gonna stop". By these comments you beg the question "Why do we need you`s then"? But please dont underestimate us i for one think CWU and RM in all thier arrogant glory are going to get a big shock from the rank and file

[lovejoy]

lovejoy your remarks smack of arrogance, every time you and the fellow "leakers" are pushed we get the arrogant "well you do it" or "they have invested millions so they aint gonna stop". By these comments you beg the question "Why do we need you`s then"? But please dont underestimate us i for one think CWU and RM in all thier arrogant glory are going to get a big shock from the rank and file

I am not a leaker , if iI get some info I try to pass it on..

I never underestimate CWU members or postal workers but at the same time I am a realist.

I am merely pointing out a fact. There are 11,000 vans in storage - do you really think RM will say 'ah well we'll send them back'

I have no doubt that any vote could go either way because it is a membership decision - as it always should be.

But just as like you are entitled to an opinion so am I.

[MinisterofCucumber]

Thanks, Lovejoy.

So management need the union to help them bring in the changes they want.

The union is in a strong position but this is not reflected in the agreement that took 4 months to negotiate.

At what point will your conscience tell you to resign your union position?

Or are you a Labour politician whose loyalties lie elsewhere than to CWU members?

I'm not being nasty, I do like you but the issue is important.

[fishtank]

P&M 2007 was accepted and that has been a disaster for membership levels.
I see nothing in this draft be it final or not that will reverse that trend.

75/25 FT split

agreed revision tools

Shorter working week

D2D into workload

All things that will protect jobs.

The agreement is massive but my fear is two things will swing the vote. Majority of those voting yes will do so to avoid more action and just look at lump sums whilst those voting no will be based on the delivery supplement.

Very few will vote on basis of reading whole document will they!?

Protecting jobs unfortunately does not engage the membership.
Let's be honest here it was the same mantra for the 2007 deal and we have not been very successful in protecting jobs in the intervening years have we?
Jobs will go in the next 3 years and long term members with them.
What is in there to attract new members or stop many leaving.
Personally i will lose money under this agreement.
I never in my life imagined a deal where i would be financially worse off.
I think many will read this agreement cover to cover.
If only to try and find some crumb of comfort amongst the pages of pain.
I am very disappointed Lovejoy.

[lovejoy]

Thanks, Lovejoy.

So management need the union to help them bring in the changes they want.

The union is in a strong position but this is not reflected in the agreement that took 4 months to negotiate.

At what point will your conscience tell you to resign your union position?

Or are you a Labour politician whose loyalties lie elsewhere than to CWU members?

I'm not being nasty, I do like you but the issue is important.

I will wait till the full agreement comes out mate then make my decision, cast my vote just like you.

I'm no politician - If you knew me you would realise I am straight down the line.

[lovejoy]

P&M 2007 was accepted and that has been a disaster for membership levels.
I see nothing in this draft be it final or not that will reverse that trend.

75/25 FT split

agreed revision tools

Shorter working week

D2D into workload

All things that will protect jobs.

The agreement is massive but my fear is two things will swing the vote. Majority of those voting yes will do so to avoid more action and just look at lump sums whilst those voting no will be based on the delivery supplement.

Very few will vote on basis of reading whole document will they!?

Protecting jobs unfortunately does not engage the membership.
Let's be honest here it was the same mantra for the 2007 deal and we have not been very successful in protecting jobs in the intervening years have we?
Jobs will go in the next 3 years and long term members with them.
What is in there to attract new members or stop many leaving.
Personally i will lose money under this agreement.
I never in my life imagined a deal where i would be financially worse off.
I think many will read this agreement cover to cover.
If only to try and find some crumb of comfort amongst the pages of pain.
I am very disappointed Lovejoy.

I beg to differ that protecting jobs does not engage people....

I take your point on 2007 and this will lead to a lack of confidence in any deal but at some point we are going to have to move forward.

When you talk about the pages of pain obviously you are worried about the supplement and saturdays but what other 'pages of pain' did you find in the 90?

[BELIAL]

P&M 2007 was accepted and that has been a disaster for membership levels.
I see nothing in this draft be it final or not that will reverse that trend.

75/25 FT split

50/50 in my DO ,will this be reversed?

agreed revision tools

Like the agreed revisions of 2007? think we all know how that panned out

Shorter working week

This one is good in theory but just you watch it vanish with the management bullshit longs and shorts,flexible working,banked hours,operational requirements ,hybrid duties

D2D into workload

It already was but just not counted. So again good in theory but you really would not bet your house on RM using accurate figures ,would you?

All things that will protect jobs.

Aw c'mon you know they will make you eat your words in two years time

The agreement is massive but my fear is two things will swing the vote. Majority of those voting yes will do so to avoid more action and just look at lump sums whilst those voting no will be based on the delivery supplement.

Yep

Very few will vote on basis of reading whole document will they!?

nope

[fishtank]

Well it is a large document lovejoy but statements like this do not fill me with confidence.

"We want to bring everybodys actual performance up to the level of the top 10%"

For a union to allow this statement in any document is ludicrous.

[MinisterofCucumber]

Lovejoy,

Do you think the membership would benefit if union officials were not allowed to be members of political parties?

Are you in a position to table such a motion?

[lovejoy]

Well it is a large document lovejoy but statements like this do not fill me with confidence.

"We want to bring everybodys actual performance up to the level of the top 10%"

For a union to allow this statement in any document is ludicrous.

Every agreement we've ever had is filled with stuff like this and increased efficiency etc.

RM want us to the top 10% ,...... RM wanted us to all work at 100 EP, they wanted us to work at 100 BSI, the list goes on.

I won't be casting my vote based on what RM 'want'........... if pay etc was linked to it then that would be a different matter

[lovejoy]

Lovejoy,

Do you think the membership would benefit if union officials were not allowed to be members of political parties?

Are you in a position to table such a motion?

Well to be honest I know many officials have thrown in their labour cards etc many years ago.

I am not a member of a party - never have been or will be.

I am in a position to table a motion to my branch which could go to conference........... you or any other member can do the same!