dvbuk55 wrote:Of course they wouldn't post anything controversial like the 2010 and Beyond Agreement was the Deal of the Century ..................., that it was the only deal on the table...............
But if he honestly believed that there is nothing wrong in him voicing his opinion. What I am trying to say was those that report back up the line that everything is going well but in the meantime their members are paddling furiously to stay where they are. The old duck metaphor.
All post by me in Green are Admin Posts. Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility. If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
TrueBlueTerrier wrote:
But if he honestly believed that there is nothing wrong in him voicing his opinion.
Your absolutely right dingo is entitled to his opinion and therein lies the problem.
As Clash points out dingo's information is 100% accurate but his opinion is just that....an opinion.
Trying to separate the two in a post of several hundred words can be difficult and people not used to his posts will easily confuse the two.
That is in my opinion at least in part what leads to the "You must be a manager""...Are you Billy,Dave,Bob...Mark Higson?..posts.
What is seemingly obvious is that there is a conflict of interest between the CWU and it's paying membership - their goals no longer seem to coincide and seeing some of the posts on here reinforce what Royal Mail are saying and not what is in the best interests of the membership.
Unfortunately this is also happening at the highest levels of government, where grass root members and the voting public are not having their wishes and opinions carried out by the members that they voted in. It appears that there is a force at work in this society of ours to take us back to the days of the feudal system, where as serfs we pay for the extremes of the landed gentry. They are very clever in as much that they are positioning us just above the levels of poverty with the ability to take a step above or fall into the abyss, which causes the infighting among the working population and gives the gentry the power and control over us that they crave, in order to build up the feathers in their nests. This control needs breaking and fast.
The impression i get is that both HQ's couldn't give two f***s about RMC,and quite frankly we are pissing in the wind a bit,Hayes said the below before most of the site started to have a go at him...
"The problem with royalmailchat, is that its anonymity does not create an accountable debate. Nor does it seem to encourage the establishment of a serious policy for the members."
I Wrote-During Covid-Which is still relevant now
It's good to get these types of threads, the ridiculous my manager said bollox, so we can reassure ourselves that while the world is falling apart, Royal Mail managers are still being the low-life C***S they have always been. My BFF Clash The daily grind of having to argue your case with an intellectual pigmy of a line manager is physically and emotionally draining.
POSTMAN wrote:The impression i get is that both HQ's couldn't give two f***s about RMC,and quite frankly we are pissing in the wind a bit,Hayes said the below before most of the site started to have a go at him...
"The problem with royalmailchat, is that its anonymity does not create an accountable debate. Nor does it seem to encourage the establishment of a serious policy for the members."
What he fails to realise POSTMAN is that it's exactly that anonymity that allows members the freedom to be completely honest.
Yes some of it may be exaggerated and some of it may be pure bullshit but if you are able to step back and see the whole picture it paints a far more genuine picture of members fears aspirations and experiences than simply asking area reps how things are going.
Accountability brings with it fear and fear is not an enabler for the truth or a clear picture.
POSTMAN wrote:The impression i get is that both HQ's couldn't give two f***s about RMC,and quite frankly we are pissing in the wind a bit,Hayes said the below before most of the site started to have a go at him...
"The problem with royalmailchat, is that its anonymity does not create an accountable debate. Nor does it seem to encourage the establishment of a serious policy for the members."
No one is suggesting for one minute that RMC is going to change RMs work plan or the CWUs policy - it's merely a conduit for opinion. That said the opinions expressed are closer to the grass roots of consensus because of the anonymity than some of the posts and more certainly some of the issues within the agreement and LTBs. The communication set within RMC is greater than that provided by the Communication Workers Union which appears to want to be unaccountable to the very membership that supports it financially and in deed when called upon. The object of RMC is not to establish a policy for the members that I would have thought was the object of the CWU for its members
POSTMAN wrote:The impression i get is that both HQ's couldn't give two f***s about RMC,and quite frankly we are pissing in the wind a bit,Hayes said the below before most of the site started to have a go at him...
"The problem with royalmailchat, is that its anonymity does not create an accountable debate. Nor does it seem to encourage the establishment of a serious policy for the members."
Don't often agree with Billy but he's spot on here!
I appreciate the other posters view that anonymity helps some members on here feel more comfortable in saying what they think but some people take it too far - and that is where this site has lost a lot of credit.
During the run up to the 2007 this site had a lot of credibility and I know of many senior officials who would check posts regularly and take it as a fair account of what the members thought.The difference came between 07 and 09 when a minority of posters started to dominate the boards and look only to attack anyone with a different view (just my opinion). As a result the forum became very one sided and thus very few senior officials look on here anymore. I can't remember the last time a rep mentioned this site to me but in 2007 it was all you would hear from HQ.
POSTMAN wrote:The impression i get is that both HQ's couldn't give two f***s about RMC,and quite frankly we are pissing in the wind a bit,Hayes said the below before most of the site started to have a go at him...
"The problem with royalmailchat, is that its anonymity does not create an accountable debate. Nor does it seem to encourage the establishment of a serious policy for the members."
Don't often agree with Billy but he's spot on here!
I appreciate the other posters view that anonymity helps some members on here feel more comfortable in saying what they think but some people take it too far - and that is where this site has lost a lot of credit.
During the run up to the 2007 this site had a lot of credibility and I know of many senior officials who would check posts regularly and take it as a fair account of what the members thought.The difference came between 07 and 09 when a minority of posters started to dominate the boards and look only to attack anyone with a different view (just my opinion). As a result the forum became very one sided and thus very few senior officials look on here anymore. I can't remember the last time a rep mentioned this site to me but in 2007 it was all you would hear from HQ.
Then surely that just shows how far the gulf between the union and its members has widened,or am i missing something???
POSTMAN wrote:The impression i get is that both HQ's couldn't give two f***s about RMC,and quite frankly we are pissing in the wind a bit,Hayes said the below before most of the site started to have a go at him...
"The problem with royalmailchat, is that its anonymity does not create an accountable debate. Nor does it seem to encourage the establishment of a serious policy for the members."
Don't often agree with Billy but he's spot on here!
I appreciate the other posters view that anonymity helps some members on here feel more comfortable in saying what they think but some people take it too far - and that is where this site has lost a lot of credit.
During the run up to the 2007 this site had a lot of credibility and I know of many senior officials who would check posts regularly and take it as a fair account of what the members thought.The difference came between 07 and 09 when a minority of posters started to dominate the boards and look only to attack anyone with a different view (just my opinion). As a result the forum became very one sided and thus very few senior officials look on here anymore. I can't remember the last time a rep mentioned this site to me but in 2007 it was all you would hear from HQ.
Yes thanks for that nugget Lovejoy. Maybe they just don't like criticism like one or two posters on here - particularly when some would like answers to legitimate questions only to be fobbed off with bullcrap. Things started to go wrong before 2007 and have accelerated since. Don't you find it strange that HQ would be paying attention to an independent site that has no bearing on RM or CWU policy - get real, they are the ones who are paid to make and carry out policy for the benefit of the membership. Does the Pension ring a bell by any chance? Retiring at 65? Pay cuts? Longer working hours? Do you seriously believe they do not deserve to be criticised. No of course you don't.
POSTMAN wrote:The impression i get is that both HQ's couldn't give two f***s about RMC,and quite frankly we are pissing in the wind a bit,Hayes said the below before most of the site started to have a go at him...
"The problem with royalmailchat, is that its anonymity does not create an accountable debate. Nor does it seem to encourage the establishment of a serious policy for the members."
Don't often agree with Billy but he's spot on here!
I appreciate the other posters view that anonymity helps some members on here feel more comfortable in saying what they think but some people take it too far - and that is where this site has lost a lot of credit.
During the run up to the 2007 this site had a lot of credibility and I know of many senior officials who would check posts regularly and take it as a fair account of what the members thought.The difference came between 07 and 09 when a minority of posters started to dominate the boards and look only to attack anyone with a different view (just my opinion). As a result the forum became very one sided and thus very few senior officials look on here anymore. I can't remember the last time a rep mentioned this site to me but in 2007 it was all you would hear from HQ.
Then surely that just shows how far the gulf between the union and its members has widened,or am i missing something???
Well you've certainly missed my point which is that there are many senior reps that do not post on here anymore because as soon as they do certain people jump on them. This means that there isnt a balanced debate which means the views of the site are dominated by a few posters......Hardly a good backdrop upon which to make calls that affect 130,000 members!!!
POSTMAN wrote:The impression i get is that both HQ's couldn't give two f***s about RMC,and quite frankly we are pissing in the wind a bit,Hayes said the below before most of the site started to have a go at him...
"The problem with royalmailchat, is that its anonymity does not create an accountable debate. Nor does it seem to encourage the establishment of a serious policy for the members."
Don't often agree with Billy but he's spot on here!
I appreciate the other posters view that anonymity helps some members on here feel more comfortable in saying what they think but some people take it too far - and that is where this site has lost a lot of credit.
During the run up to the 2007 this site had a lot of credibility and I know of many senior officials who would check posts regularly and take it as a fair account of what the members thought.The difference came between 07 and 09 when a minority of posters started to dominate the boards and look only to attack anyone with a different view (just my opinion). As a result the forum became very one sided and thus very few senior officials look on here anymore. I can't remember the last time a rep mentioned this site to me but in 2007 it was all you would hear from HQ.
Yes thanks for that nugget Lovejoy. Maybe they just don't like criticism like one or two posters on here - particularly when some would like answers to legitimate questions only to be fobbed off with bullcrap. Things started to go wrong before 2007 and have accelerated since. Don't you find it strange that HQ would be paying attention to an independent site that has no bearing on RM or CWU policy - get real, they are the ones who are paid to make and carry out policy for the benefit of the membership. Does the Pension ring a bell by any chance? Retiring at 65? Pay cuts? Longer working hours? Do you seriously believe they do not deserve to be criticised. No of course you don't.
Never once suggested HQ do not deserve criticism.......In fact I have vocally given it. That post is probably an example of the point I am making........Somebody makes a point then someone else comes at it from another angle (that suits them) and manipulates what has been said to get a cheap shot in. What does that do for a balanced debate? Nothing.
The mood of the membership has changed a great deal since 2007 that is evident in the units around the country and can no longer be denied...this site has changed with it.
If HQ don't like that...so be it....if they simply would rather not hear it...more fool them...they have further to fall than us.
I work in an average MC,and by my reckoning 80% of members are purely in the union "because everybody else is",i think this is reflected in the low turnout in even the most important votes,re the last dispute,let alone local votes(lucky to get more than a handful,and always the same faces).The point i am making is that most of the people i work with,and around are sheep,and i think RM and the CWU know,and exploit this for their own means(whatever they may be).When anybody dares to speak out against either of these 2 then they are labeled "troublemakers",or have i missed the point AGAIN?
