Taking the Union forward:A Discussion Document

[POSTMAN]

The following document is written in the best traditions of the CWU.
It is a contribution from activists Branches Regions and Divisions to the very serious debate concerning the union's finances structure and direction.
This document produces a number of recommendations which we all believe are worthy of debate.
The key to this document is that there is a debate amongst branches outside of CWU headquarters on the union finances and direction.

Taking the Union forward final document.doc

19 01 2011 - Circular final.doc

A Discussion Document
Supported by:
· Bristol and District Amal
· Cornwall Amal
· East London Postal
· London North Western C & Cs
· London Parcels & Stations Amal
· London South West (Postal)
· London West End Amal
· Mount Pleasant International
· Northern/North West London
· Plymouth and East Cornwall Amal
· South East London Postal & Counter
· South West Wales
· Western Counties
· West London Postal

Produced in a personal capacity by:
Les Evans, Barry Jennings, Dennis King, Andy Nash, Mark Palfrey, John Simkins, Martin Walsh, Chris Webb, Alan West & Dave Wilshire

[fishtank]

Supported by:
• Bristol and District Amal
• Cornwall Amal
• East London Postal
• London North Western C & Cs
• London Parcels & Stations Amal
• London South West (Postal)
• London West End Amal
• Mount Pleasant International
• Northern/North West London
• Plymouth and East Cornwall Amal
• South East London Postal & Counter
• South West Wales
• Western Counties
• West London Postal

Is there a reason for the relatively small geographical input?
Were other areas asked for support and refused or....not asked?

[POSTMAN]

Covering letter now attached.

[fishtank]

Covering letter now attached.

We understand that a Regional Secretary has sent an email saying that our document will somehow start a north south divide. This is nonsense, Bob McGuire is from the north east and the Greater Manchester Amal held the initial meeting. No one suggested that this was the start of a north south divide. By its very nature this debate is going to be emotional and intense, but we all need to be mature and discuss the issues.

Some opponents of open and honest debate have decided to personalise this issue by making unfounded, offensive and unwarranted comments. This, coupled with a Facebook frenzy is an attempt to undermine this important debate

So...there is a divide...there's a surprise.

[Cut Off King]

This is too little too late...

The union has over the past 10 years or so, drifted away from its core responcability i.e. the protection & enhancement of the members pay & conditions

Instead they have helped RM manage decline

[fishtank]

Instead they have helped RM manage decline

...of both organisations.

[Martin Walsh]

There is no divide , just some who do not want to have an open debate.

The reason why it was written by those indivduals is that we wanted to spark a debate. The meeting is open to all Branch`s in the CWU. The rules revison conference which will be held on Sunday 24th will decide the rule changes. With motions having to be in by 28th Feb it is now time for the debate on what type of union people want to begin.

[fishtank]

There is no divide , just some who do not want to have an open debate.

The reason why it was written by those indivduals is that we wanted to spark a debate. The meeting is open to all Branch`s in the CWU. The rules revison conference which will be held on Sunday 24th will decide the rule changes. With motions having to be in by 28th Feb it is now time for the debate on what type of union people want to begin.

Ok let's ignore the divide issue as it really isn't helpful.
This document still harks back to a possible merger of the three pension plans.
Surely you're aware that's a non starter,no trustee could be seen to vote to worsen their particular scheme...that would be a suicide note.
Just how exactly do you imagine full or reasonable funding could be realised for these schemes without bankrupting the union?...and should the members be footing the bill for this pension deficit on top of footing the bill for their own.
We have had to make real sacrifices with our expectations on retirement.....

[fishtank]

Not much interest in debating how to take the union forward then.
Ahh...well,back to the canteen and let's count to another thousand......

[Martin Walsh]

Fishtank there is plenty of debate on this issue , especially on facebook and some were lively debates. In terms of the union as a whole a couple more discussion documents have come out and debate is good.

Remember membership is declining not as a result of people deciding to leave the union and stay within Royal Mail but largely they are leaving Royal Mail all together. This NEC decision prior to Christmas to hold a rules revision conference on 24th May is an important devlopment. The NEC also suspended the NEC elections until after conference as well as set up various sub committees to bring forward rule changes.

In addition the Postal Departmental review which includes changes to postal conference and support for local reps etc has various sub groups working on how the PEC believe the postal side should be organised in the future. In fact I wonder how many branch"s have responded to the consultation deadline of 23rd Jan to the postal review.

Remember the deadline for rule changes is 28th Feb.Plus you will have to achieve over 50% in all 3 consistencies to carry a rule change.

Now in terms of your point on the three pension schemes , well we have the ex UCW scheme which includes the like of Alan Johnson in it , we have the old NCU Earling scheme and the wimbledon scheme. The one which is in the biggest trouble is the old UCW one , the earling one is also not in good shape but the wimbledon which has the least benefits is not in bad shape. If the schemes cannot be merged as it does appear that there is not agreement to do so then I am afaid the union will have to review the benefits it gives to members of the pensions schemes.

It is strange that a lot on here have a lot to say about the CWU but appear oblivious to the debate which is going on in the whole of the CWU,

[TrueBlueTerrier]

It is strange that a lot on here have a lot to say about the CWU but appear oblivious to the debate which is going on in the whole of the CWU,

Really - I would say the exact opposite that ordinary members being unaware of the debate is a sign of the continuing disengagement of ordinary members from the officers of the CWU.

Ordinary members, the backbone of the Union, work on average 6 - 8 hours a day in many physically demanding roles. Many of them don't have the time or the inclination to hunt down what they see as esoterical debates or documents which they don't think impacts them directly. I happen to think these discussion documents can and will have an impact on everyone in the Union and that's why I am interested in it. But if other ordinary Postmen and Postwomen are oblivious of the debate then that is either ultimately a failure in communication, a symptom of the disconnection I am concerned about, or worse a sign of the apathy among ordinary members. It is my honest opinion that whilst activists and sites like RMC can help with all 3, for any real change it has to be tackled by the Union and blaming the ordinary membership is not going to help.

[dvbuk55]

It is strange that a lot on here have a lot to say about the CWU but appear oblivious to the debate which is going on in the whole of the CWU,

Not so strange if they aren't aware of the debate, especially when they are being told over and over again that the Kings wearing a suit of gold. It is to be hoped that the culls are far reaching and take into account the falling membership and the need for less full time reps, or at least spend more time at the sharp end.

[Martin Walsh]

Sorry disagree , TBT what is the ordnary membership ? Is it the some posters on here who voice their opinions some who claim to know things as facts or is it the members in other units.

The union normally changes as a result of actvists and whilst members who attend the AGMs around the country do endorse the motions to conference , the amount of members who attend are nowhere near 20% of the members.

The point I was making is that the debates which are taking place in the union at the moment are worthy of more attention on this site and others. As an author of one of the documents I do believe it is vital that the union changes and that change can only come by the will of conference and the closing date for rule changes and motions is 28th Feb.

[Martin Walsh]

Dvbuk the discussion document talks about changes to the rules which means in the main at a General Conerence of the union. For a rule change to be carried it must get more than 50% support in the Postal consistency and the enigneering and clerical. ( in each ) That means rules changes do not take place that often.

Now if you are talking about the the BTA agreement or the IR framework etc this debate is not for that conference. The debate on this takes place in the Royal Mail conference.

Now there is lots of debate going on , like that Royal Mail are under pressure from Q of S , revisons based on low model weeks, CDVs not working , PDAs only on one van , Call rate issues , spans which are unacchievable. the revison taking to many hours out, the list is endless. The debate is going on and I expect some changes to come out of it.

In terms of the IR framework what changes would people like ? Do we agree that if we did not have area reps or Divisonal Reps then we would possibly leave local reps on their own with no support. I know my views on what I think is the right way forward but what are yours ?

[dvbuk55]

Of course you can lead a horse to water................................