No Confidence in Local Rep.

[Patrick Clifton]

The union represents you as you benefit from whatever deal or pay rise is negotiated.

Very interesting choice of words given the latest 'deal.'

[lekker]

The union represents you as you benefit from whatever deal or pay rise is negotiated.

Very interesting choice of words given the latest 'deal.'

You have secured a pay rise, you have a deal that puts extra work into your deliveries in the form of door to door and most of all it keeps a lot of people in employment. 4 day weeks are back in many offices so you tell me where there is no benefit to anyone in this deal. It's not perfect but if you think you are going to get everything your own way the you are sadly mistaken.

[Patrick Clifton]

You have secured a pay rise, you have a deal that puts extra work into your deliveries in the form of door to door and most of all it keeps a lot of people in employment. 4 day weeks are back in many offices so you tell me where there is no benefit to anyone in this deal. It's not perfect but if you think you are going to get everything your own way the you are sadly mistaken.

A pay rise? Are you earning more now than you did before the changes to pay supplements? I'm not! I'm now earning less than I did previously.

Yes extra work into my deliveries. With no extra time to prepare it! No reduction in my IPS time. No change to my working hours.

No mention of 4 day weeks in my office....

And no I don't expect everything to go my way. What I would like is it to be a FAIR way.

[Patrick Clifton]

Posted in another thread but i think it is an excellant post and fits this thread also:-

I dont like this idea that if youre either with the CWU or with RM management.

Both sides have let me, and the people i work with day in day out, down badly over the past few years.

Ive seen RM slowly turn the screw to the point that the business exudes a contempt for its employees; its as though they are reluctantly employing me - thats the feeling i get each day.

Ive also seen the CWU move closer and closer to RM policy to the point that both sides are almost indistinguishable from each other. Examine the way the CWU literally threw away our D2D earnings and shift allowances, let our final salary pensions get flushed away without so much as a raised eyebrow and how they allow RM to treat part time workers with the disdain of a chinese iphone factory.
All this and more in the name of supposedly saving jobs of which tens of thousands have gone and tens of thousands are set to go.

Make no mistake - the only jobs that are secure are the jobs of the CWU hierarchy - they erode your terms and conditions to secure their own.

In my opinion neither side can be trusted.

I cant trust my employer to behave in a fair and proper manner towards me and my co-workers and similarly I cant trust my trade union to represent me and my co-workers in a fair and proper manner.

This is why I have been campaigning against the CWU since the ballot result and I shall continue to do so until such time they change their attitudes and start representing their members properly.

Well done on a brilliant post PickAName!

[swashy]

Sorry, but you're missing the point. The original poster was unhappy because the rep' had signed an agreement without consultation. That rep' was wrong. How many times have you been told that you are the union? Please believe that - even if the rep' does not. You are now arguing about a completely different issue which is should non union members receive the same benefits as union members. The issue you should be debating is " should a union rep' sign an agreement without the express permission of the majority?".

[fishtank]

Sorry, but you're missing the point. The original poster was unhappy because the rep' had signed an agreement without consultation. That rep' was wrong. How many times have you been told that you are the union? Please believe that - even if the rep' does not. You are now arguing about a completely different issue which is should non union members receive the same benefits as union members. The issue you should be debating is " should a union rep' sign an agreement without the express permission of the majority?".

The real question is...Should an office sit back on it's arse and allow a union rep' to sign an agreement without the express permission of the majority?

[Patrick Clifton]

Sorry, but you're missing the point. The original poster was unhappy because the rep' had signed an agreement without consultation. That rep' was wrong. How many times have you been told that you are the union? Please believe that - even if the rep' does not. You are now arguing about a completely different issue which is should non union members receive the same benefits as union members. The issue you should be debating is " should a union rep' sign an agreement without the express permission of the majority?".

If this is directed to me then I am well aware of the OP point. I have made the very same point in other topics regarding an issue I recently had in my office.

It was others that turned this into some CWU love-in.

[swashy]

fishtank, the answer to your question is absolutely not. I have to level with you I have been progressing a grievance through our union for almost a year and I am getting nowhere fast. I can't go into details but it involves the Area Rep' signing two written agreements and one verbal without consultation. That's why I am so concerned. As a former rep' I can tell you that I would never have done this and I have to admit that I sympathize with Patrick's posting. I am beginning to believe that this new (transformed) relationship means screw the members - look after yourself and your mates. I am going to organize the members in our office and hopefully we will get somewhere. We are the union - not the rep's. Patrick - just seen your last post - I'm not having a go at you. I agree with you.

[Patrick Clifton]

Patrick - just seen your last post - I'm not having a go at you. I agree with you.

No problem matey, little confusion over the interwebz

[POSTMAN]

A pay rise? Are you earning more now than you did before the changes to pay supplements? I'm not! I'm now earning less than I did previously.

Yes extra work into my deliveries. With no extra time to prepare it! No reduction in my IPS time. No change to my working hours.

No mention of 4 day weeks in my office....

And no I don't expect everything to go my way. What I would like is it to be a FAIR way.

If your Facebook group was taken seriously you wouldn't even get the delivery supplement.
Ironic in every way you.

PS:Show your rep this...
http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 42&t=27396" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Patrick Clifton]

Delivery supplement is not for delivery of D2D tho Postman, do keep up!

[POSTMAN]

Delivery supplement is not for delivery of D2D tho Postman, do keep up!

Your thingy was started before the agreement came in.