CS CWU Response:LTM

[POSTMAN]

ltb1.jpg

ltb2.jpg

[Godric]

received my letter today .... what is the point of taking industrial action ... when we all know the union will stab us in the back again .... they were warned that Royal Mail couldn't be trusted and i was 1 of the post men stating that Royal mail couldn't be trusted

[knackers0191]

i agree with action, but not on strike again, work too rule, no going in early, cut off. or better still if they not keeping to what was agreed.
WHY SHOULD US POSTAL WORKERS
stick everything that we are now doing up there arses
s**t on them after all they cant sack us all!!!!!!!!!! or could they

[Godric]

i agree with action, but not on strike again, work too rule, no going in early, cut off. or better still if they not keeping to what was agreed.
WHY SHOULD US POSTAL WORKERS
stick everything that we are now doing up there arses
s**t on them after all they cant sack us all!!!!!!!!!! or could they

that i do agree with

[Body Beyond Repair]

No...... but one will be picked out!

[Big Daz]

The union cant stab us in the back, we are the union, we can only stab ourselves in the back if we so chose to do so at the ballot box!!

The national officers may or may not have been misguided in recommending BT2010 to the voting membership and you may or belive they are incompetent in not getting anything better than BT2010, but that most certainly DOES NOT mean they have stabbed us in the back.

[dvbuk55]

The union cant stab us in the back, we are the union, we can only stab ourselves in the back if we so chose to do so at the ballot box!!

The national officers may or may not have been misguided in recommending BT2010 to the voting membership and you may or belive they are incompetent in not getting anything better than BT2010, but that most certainly DOES NOT mean they have stabbed us in the back.

That opinion being your own, as usual. Rather ambiguous, may or may not, we are the union ....yes of course you are. The upshot of the agreement is now staring you in the face, the wording was ambiguous.......even ordinary members could see only trouble ahead..........TRUST - , NEW UNDERSTANDING AND COMPLETE INVOLVEMENT These people are paid by the membership to look after the memberships terms and conditions, they were totally at odds with the mainstream of opinion despite the vote and they did stab the ordinary members in the back by becoming a partner to those they are supposed to protect the membership from....................get the blinkers off and if you want to be of service to the union then make sure that those who are doing the talking and negotiating are removed from their priveleged position and replaced by people who will carry out the instructions of the membership and in so doing the membership WILL be the union.

[Big Daz]

and replaced by people who will carry out the instructions of the membership and in so doing the membership WILL be the union.

I do belive the membership instructed the CWU officers to proceed with BT2010 in line with current CWU procedural rules

Although if you want to say the national officers should only proceed to formal agreement with RM once a actual majority of the mbrs have voted yes rather than majority of those voting then Im with you all the way.

[Big Daz]

dvbuk55

What your saying then is that the national officers were not simply misguided in thinking BT2010 was worth voting for, but they had malice in the hearts and minds?

[dvbuk55]

You can believe what you like, the plain and simple truth is that the grass roots of the union and the leadership of the union are poles apart.

Correct me if I'm wrong but all the negotiations were carried on behind closed doors and in secret at RMs request, the strikes were called off NOT by the membership but by the leadership on the strength of some nebulous "interim agreement" which amounted to less than the magic beans Jack got. The deal was put to the membership by the leadership as the only deal on the table and that they should accept it. They even went so far as to put on a national roadshow to drum up support for it. Now an honourable leadership would have taken the deal to the membership with the chance of a "free" vote at its face value AND fully informed the membership EXACTLY what the deal entailed and indeed where agreement had NOT been reached. Even at the outset the much vaunted training and involvement was not honoured.

Now lets put that in its simplest form - if you knowingly advocate an action to the detriment of the memberships terms and conditions - have you stabbed them in the back? ..........................YES!

[BT2010]

and replaced by people who will carry out the instructions of the membership and in so doing the membership WILL be the union.

I do belive the membership instructed the CWU officers to proceed with BT2010 in line with current CWU procedural rules

Although if you want to say the national officers should only proceed to formal agreement with RM once a actual majority of the mbrs have voted yes rather than majority of those voting then Im with you all the way.

daz, i wasnt aware of RMC when the BT2010 was on the table, all i had to go on was a piece of paper the size of a beer mat from the CWU advising i vote yes.

on it were things like-

more saturdays off.
shorter working week.
£1,000.
weight off the shoulder.
75% FT.
a better working relationship with management.
and im sure there was more.

i voted no

i have not seen any of the positives relayed in that "flyer".

all we have is-

hours ripped from the office.
longer duties.
more weight on the shoulder with D2Ds.
more bullying than ever from management.
not a single PT made FT and we have a mostly PT office.
longer working week (for those that wont stand up to bullying).
no sign of any of the £1,000, we had a non WSR about 8 months ago. not that i want the grand, i would rather have our old terms and conditions back.

the CWU has done nothing to counteract this attack at local level and im not sure they even know it goes on at the top.

on a possative note i will vote yes to IA and i will go out for as long as it takes but the union need to be gaining ground here as far too much has slipped in recent times.

[Big Daz]

You can believe what you like, the plain and simple truth is that the grass roots of the union and the leadership of the union are poles apart.

Correct me if I'm wrong but all the negotiations were carried on behind closed doors and in secret at RMs request, the strikes were called off NOT by the membership but by the leadership on the strength of some nebulous "interim agreement" which amounted to less than the magic beans Jack got. The deal was put to the membership by the leadership as the only deal on the table and that they should accept it. They even went so far as to put on a national roadshow to drum up support for it. Now an honourable leadership would have taken the deal to the membership with the chance of a "free" vote at its face value AND fully informed the membership EXACTLY what the deal entailed and indeed where agreement had NOT been reached. Even at the outset the much vaunted training and involvement was not honoured.

Now lets put that in its simplest form - if you knowingly advocate an action to the detriment of the memberships terms and conditions - have you stabbed them in the back? ..........................YES!

Ok I fully understand your point, but if the national officers do not/did not belive it is/was to the detriment of the membership if they truly belive it was a good deal at the time of putting it to vote, surley that would mean incompetence rather than anything more sinister such as back stabbing? That is the whole crux of my point, to accuse them of stabbing the mbrs in the back without any hard evidence is simply unfair.

[fishtank]

Ok I fully understand your point, but if the national officers do not/did not belive it is/was to the detriment of the membership if they truly belive it was a good deal at the time of putting it to vote, surley that would mean incompetence rather than anything more sinister such as back stabbing? That is the whole crux of my point, to accuse them of stabbing the mbrs in the back without any hard evidence is simply unfair.

I think the real question was.......did they think it was a good deal for the CWU membership or just a good deal for the CWU.
If you convince yourself that the membership needs the CWU therefore what's good for the CWU is good for the membership then you have passed the level of incompetence and moved on to what corrupt governments and despots call...."the end justifies the means".
Of course what you are doing in reality is offering your members terms and conditions up as a sacrifice to protect your own position...or...stabbing them in the back.

[Big Daz]

And if they truly did think it was a good deal for the CWU membership ?

[dvbuk55]

You can believe what you like, the plain and simple truth is that the grass roots of the union and the leadership of the union are poles apart.

Correct me if I'm wrong but all the negotiations were carried on behind closed doors and in secret at RMs request, the strikes were called off NOT by the membership but by the leadership on the strength of some nebulous "interim agreement" which amounted to less than the magic beans Jack got. The deal was put to the membership by the leadership as the only deal on the table and that they should accept it. They even went so far as to put on a national roadshow to drum up support for it. Now an honourable leadership would have taken the deal to the membership with the chance of a "free" vote at its face value AND fully informed the membership EXACTLY what the deal entailed and indeed where agreement had NOT been reached. Even at the outset the much vaunted training and involvement was not honoured.

Now lets put that in its simplest form - if you knowingly advocate an action to the detriment of the memberships terms and conditions - have you stabbed them in the back? ..........................YES!

Ok I fully understand your point, but if the national officers do not/did not belive it is/was to the detriment of the membership if they truly belive it was a good deal at the time of putting it to vote, surley that would mean incompetence rather than anything more sinister such as back stabbing? That is the whole crux of my point, to accuse them of stabbing the mbrs in the back without any hard evidence is simply unfair.

The deal was unfair and indeed it was touted as a deal of winners and losers - was that the response you would expect from a national union whose motto is unity is strength. Anyone who was a delivery officer knew it was a bad deal and you are trying to say that people on £100,000 a year who are professional negotiators (yes I know but don't laugh) thought it was a good deal - had it ended there you could excuse incompetence but to sally round the country actually advocating it...................that isn't incompetence BD it is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the reality of the deal.