WARD & HAYES

[ldsposti]

Can anyone tell me where the hell these two cowards are and why they are just standing by and letting their members be bullied countrywide, Having read some of the posts on here it seems these revisions are way on the side of the management and brought in how they want it, The 2010 deal the word TRUST is there how can we trust the management when we cannot trust our leaders. I say to you WARD & HAYES come out of the woodwork and show your members some leadership because if you don't it will not be long before your back to duty with a bag on your back then you will see just how great this deal is.
Oh and before anyone pionts out that they are dealing with the keep the post public i say forget it it's a lost cause i for one will not back you and i feel there are several thousands like me.
So come on WARD & HAYES show your faces to the members you are killing i fear there will be deaths with this new way of working and you are to blame as much as the management, both of you disgust me shame on you.

[north london driver]

BILLYS IN THE PUB

DAVES HAVING PIE AND MASH

[Darren Bent]

I have not heard anything from this this year. Are they still alive.

[blue1873]

I have not heard anything from this this year. Are they still alive.

were they ever

[Big Daz]

BH has been relelected UNOPPOSED for a further five years.

The mbrs huffed and they puffed but they failed to blow Billys house down.

Moaning on here will not see a new GS and DGSp it requires action out in the real world.

[fishtank]

BH has been relelected UNOPPOSED for a further five years.

The mbrs huffed and they puffed but they failed to blow Billys house down.

Moaning on here will not see a new GS and DGSp it requires action out in the real world.

As far as i'm aware Daz...unopposed means no-one stood against him..how very convenient.
How can the ordinary members on here affect that.?
I could see your point if there was an election and no-one could be arsed voting but when HQ decide amongst themselves that the members won't even get a say then it's obvious that there is a massive flaw in the democratic process.

A union born out of socialism,democracy and the defence of the oppressed and subjugated,the persecuted and the marginalised should not be involving itself with "unopposed elections".
It is long past the time that a MAXIMUM term was instituted at this level...and other levels.
Unopposed elections are the stuff of tin pot dictatorships....

[dvbuk55]

Like ft I am a firm believer that there should be fixed terms for high office in the union at ALL full time levels. I think that, what amounts to a permanent position, breeds an ignorance of the true state of affairs and an acceptance of terms that they are not going to personally be involved in. You get the feeling that there is a "well that's the best we can get, so que sera we are not the ones who are going to be implementing it".

If there was a fixed term and those involved knew they would be returned to the shop floor it may tempt them to try a bit harder in realising reasonable agreements and be less amenable in pleasing the bosses.

[fishtank]

I would go even further than that dv.
I believe that even local reps should at least be forced to seek a mandate from the members to continue every 12 months even in a situation where there is no local alternative.
An office should have the right to decide whether they want to be represented at local level or not and if that means the ADR taking up the slack in the interim until an office can organise a replacement then so be it.
This would force lazy offices to at least address their representation rather than just bitching about it and it would more importantly force lazy or corrupt local reps to justify their position...decent reps obviously have nothing to fear from this.
Accountability has to be the key to rescuing the union from the mire of apathy that it finds itself in....
Doing nothing might be the CWU default position but it is no longer an option.

[andy2007]

BH has been relelected UNOPPOSED for a further five years.

The mbrs huffed and they puffed but they failed to blow Billys house down.

Moaning on here will not see a new GS and DGSp it requires action out in the real world.

No, and as the rules state that candidates need to have AT LEAST 5 Branches nomination, to stand, there isn't likley to be an alternative in the near future. As the actual vote is a National one, why do we have that rule, if not to make it as difficult as possible for anyone to challenge HQ?

[stokes11eg]

Can anyone tell me where the hell these two cowards are and why they are just standing by and letting their members be bullied countrywide, Having read some of the posts on here it seems these revisions are way on the side of the management and brought in how they want it, The 2010 deal the word TRUST is there how can we trust the management when we cannot trust our leaders. I say to you WARD & HAYES come out of the woodwork and show your members some leadership because if you don't it will not be long before your back to duty with a bag on your back then you will see just how great this deal is.
Oh and before anyone pionts out that they are dealing with the keep the post public i say forget it it's a lost cause i for one will not back you and i feel there are several thousands like me.
So come on WARD & HAYES show your faces to the members you are killing i fear there will be deaths with this new way of working and you are to blame as much as the management, both of you disgust me shame on you.

Yes, come out, come out, the games a bogie! I wouldn't let them lead me across the road!

[dvbuk55]

It is still a question of communicating to the membership the need for change, which is hardly likely to come from those who stand to lose the most from it. I mean can you see the motions coming from Branch? Does anyone think that the "Transforming the Union" was an effort to improve representation? - no, it was an effort to curb expenditure and a fear that there would have to be a merger with a better organised and financially secure union who WOULD expect a little more from fewer reps. As I recall there was a notion during the negotiations for a more responsible role for full time union officials and a need to change in order for full time release to continue, but have we seen that happen?

[edwardo]

it is a disgrace everyone should withdraw from the union , everyone is treated the same by management whether a member of the union or not , and the fat twins ( WARD and HAYES ) couldn t afford the pints of beer at there summer booze fest ( CONFERENCE ) i will be pulling out soon £ 3 11 better in my pocket than union , every little helps after the pay cut this year

[clashcityrocker]

I believe that even local reps should at least be forced to seek a mandate from the members to continue every 12 months even in a situation where there is no local alternative.
An office should have the right to decide whether they want to be represented at local level or not and if that means the ADR taking up the slack in the interim until an office can organise a replacement then so be it.

Nice in theory but how many would survive their first 12 months. It takes time to get to grips with the responsabilities.
How many would survive by playing to the gallery?
And would HQ want to train a new rep every 12 months?
And what use would your ADR be dealing with daily issues?

An office that is unhappy with its rep already has the means to remove them.

[fishtank]

Nice in theory but how many would survive their first 12 months.

Most,i would imagine,i think and it is only a theory that the majority of offices would support their rep rather than go down the route of not having one but even if they didn't it would be what the office wanted not what the rep wanted...that's the whole point of representation.

How many would survive by playing to the gallery?

Not sure what this means,who are the gallery and do the gallery have more votes than everyone else?

And would HQ want to train a new rep every 12 months?

How much training does your average rep have in the first 12 months?...and why would it change every 12 months?
Just because the apparatus for change is there...it doesn't mean it would be used.You don't use your spare wheel every time you take the car out.

And what use would your ADR be dealing with daily issues?

The whole point of the change would be to remove reps who were not dealing with daily issues,the ADR would be for an interim period only,to help with transition.

An office that is unhappy with its rep already has the means to remove them.

It's too cumbersome,it's riddled with petty politics and most importantly it obviously isn't working.
The union needs change Clash,from the bottom up or the top down...whichever proves to be most effective but it must change.

[clashcityrocker]

It's too cumbersome,it's riddled with petty politics and most importantly it obviously isn't working.
The union needs change Clash,from the bottom up or the top down...whichever proves to be most effective but it must change.

I don't think it is too cumbersome for an office that seriously wanted to remove its rep.
Playing to the gallery - really means posturing for votes without taking the issues seriously. (Vote for me and I'll make sure it's job and finish)
Every rep should have Diversity Training but Postal Agreements and Procedures both help. I often wonder how many reps were actually in the job at the time of The Way Forward yet this agreement still holds the field in so many ways.
And then there are the IR reps that are expected to double as the H&S rep because no-one can be bothered to do it. Anyone who can't remove a useless IR rep should aim to become the H&S rep because they have a lot more clout.

Do you see yourself primarily as an elected representative of the CWU or the elected representative of your DO?
What happens if the two conflict?