How can CWU have REPS advising NO?

el_cartero · Post by **el_cartero** » 09 Mar 2010, 20:31

How is it possible that CWU REPRESENTIVES in the office are telling everyone to vote NO?

Shurly the CWU must now realise they have FKD UP??????

dont the reps represent the cwu.

what an absaloute joke

our board at work is cover with one big NO

Delivery Donkey · Post by **Delivery Donkey** » 09 Mar 2010, 20:35

if they haven't realised it yet they soon will do!!!

tpost · Post by **tpost** » 09 Mar 2010, 20:59

our rep is advising a no vote

belle smith · Post by **belle smith** » 09 Mar 2010, 20:59

el_cartero wrote:How is it possible that CWU REPRESENTIVES in the office are telling everyone to vote NO?

Shurly the CWU must now realise they have FKD UP??????

dont the reps represent the cwu.

what an absaloute joke

our board at work is cover with one big NO

Your branch might yet advise you to vote no as well, you may have noticed that Lovejoy..dingo and others who are high up have said that they will not decide yet...they will have a meeting at branch first.

Your rep does not work for the CWU he's a memmber and gets no extra pay for the work he undertakes on your behalf.

You might as well ask why your being allowed to vote....we are a democratic union!

ps How many threads do you start a day?

Stormproof · Post by **Stormproof** » 09 Mar 2010, 21:01

tpost wrote:our rep is advising a no vote

same at my office.

Post by **dvbuk55** » 09 Mar 2010, 21:06

An honest Rep will base his opinion on the deal as it affects his members and in Deliveries that would have to be a NO vote. A Rep who toes the party line and advocates a yes vote is not worth his salt and is not to be trusted. Branch officials are a different kettle of fish and more union oriented - it will be interesting to see what any particular branch advises and their reasons for it.

dados · Post by **dados** » 09 Mar 2010, 21:09

ours is trumpeting the 60/40 split & the big lump sum...............terrific

el_cartero · Post by **el_cartero** » 09 Mar 2010, 21:09

belle smith wrote:
el_cartero wrote:How is it possible that CWU REPRESENTIVES in the office are telling everyone to vote NO?

Shurly the CWU must now realise they have FKD UP??????

dont the reps represent the cwu.

what an absaloute joke

our board at work is cover with one big NO
-----------------------------------------------------------------

ps How many threads do you start a day?

are u complaining?

Im super NO'd UP and doign what i can to raise the alarm

belle smith · Post by **belle smith** » 09 Mar 2010, 21:38

dados wrote:ours is trumpeting the 60/40 split & the big lump sum...............terrific

i take it you mean your rep....who hasn't read the agreement or even a 1 page summary, if he's trumpeting 60/40 split because it's 75/25

belle smith · Post by **belle smith** » 09 Mar 2010, 21:42

el_cartero wrote: -----------------------------------------------------------------

ps How many threads do you start a day?

are u complaining?

Im super NO'd UP and doign what i can to raise the alarm[/quote]

well since your so NO'd up

but i'd be more impressed if you could actually vote NO!

belle smith · Post by **belle smith** » 09 Mar 2010, 21:45

dvbuk55 wrote:An honest Rep will base his opinion on the deal as it affects his members and in Deliveries that would have to be a NO vote. A Rep who toes the party line and advocates a yes vote is not worth his salt and is not to be trusted. Branch officials are a different kettle of fish and more union oriented - it will be interesting to see what any particular branch advises and their reasons for it.

I think if they have memmbers who may want a EVR or VR then they should tell them that those terms are improved.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've since writing this post realised that those terms are not improved....they maybe in 2013 subject to a review in 2012....sorry

Post by **dvbuk55** » 09 Mar 2010, 21:49

belle smith wrote:
dvbuk55 wrote:An honest Rep will base his opinion on the deal as it affects his members and in Deliveries that would have to be a NO vote. A Rep who toes the party line and advocates a yes vote is not worth his salt and is not to be trusted. Branch officials are a different kettle of fish and more union oriented - it will be interesting to see what any particular branch advises and their reasons for it.
I think if they have memmbers who may want a EVR or VR then they should tell them that those terms are improved.

And they are going to be in the minority - if we were voting for the minority we would vote YES - but the vast majority of people are still going to be working for RM - why would you base a decision on people who are leaving? The numbers leaving will be in the main in mail centres and probably not until 2011 and I did stipulate deliveries - mail centres are not something I would expound on. The agreement is there for all to read and the EVR terms have been explained in there.

belle smith · Post by **belle smith** » 09 Mar 2010, 22:02

dvbuk55 wrote: why would you base a decision on people who are leaving?

I wouldn't and i'm not, but people should make their own decision on accurate information, there will be people in DO's leaving to i know people in my office who have wanted to leave before but couldn't because they were not old enough. This agreement will benifit them personaly ( for what it's worth a lot of them wont vote on that basis) but they are entiteld to the truth......if you tell people the good things they will be more likely to belive you when you tell them the bad things.

ps. just re-read your original post, i agree no one should just toe the official line!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've since writing this post realised that those terms are not improved....they maybe in 2013 subject to a review in 2012....sorry

Ahebban · Post by **Ahebban** » 09 Mar 2010, 22:29

CWU Unit Reps are in an unenviable position. When the industrial action was finally called it was expected that Unit Reps would rally their office to support HQ's position. Unit Reps would again be expected to support HQ now. However, the terms, needs and aspirations of members have not been met by this proposed Agreement .. that much is abundantly clear.

As Unit Rep, I was unsure of my stance as to whether I should rally the Office behind HQ or not and support the negotiations following the industrial action. It is not a pleasant experience having to cajole members into supporting industrial action on the understanding that HQ will deliver on their commitment to members.

Yes, HQ have delivered, but sadly it is not what I and many others had hoped for. I feel let down, my colleagues feel let down, and I can honestly say that I shall be encouraging members to vote against this Agreement and damn the consequences.

postmanpat9 · Post by **postmanpat9** » 09 Mar 2010, 22:55

WHEN D - D WERE FIRST INTRODUCED YOU HAD TWO WEEKS TO DELIVER THEM THEN THE UNION AGREED TO REDUCE IT TO ONE WEEK. THAT WAS WHEN I
DECIDED TO LEAVE THIS USELESS UNION WHO TAKE YOU OFF ON STRIKE TO END UP WITH WORSE CONDITIONS THAN WHAT YOU STARTED WITH. I SUGGEST YOU UNION MEMBERS TO VOTE WITH YOUR FEET AND LEAVE THE UNION.

ROYALMAILCHAT

How can CWU have REPS advising NO?

How can CWU have REPS advising NO?

Re: How can CWU have REPS advising NO?

Re: How can CWU have REPS advising NO?

Re: How can CWU have REPS advising NO?

Re: How can CWU have REPS advising NO?

Re: How can CWU have REPS advising NO?

Re: How can CWU have REPS advising NO?

Re: How can CWU have REPS advising NO?

Re: How can CWU have REPS advising NO?

Re: How can CWU have REPS advising NO?

Re: How can CWU have REPS advising NO?

Re: How can CWU have REPS advising NO?

Re: How can CWU have REPS advising NO?

Re: How can CWU have REPS advising NO?

Re: How can CWU have REPS advising NO?