Revision vote tomorrow

[fishtank]

It's a difficult one dv.
At what point does union representation become...unrepresentative?
It's all very well to say we pay our subs,we deserve to make the decisions but if a minority is making decisions for the majority that goes against almost every union principle there is.
It's not the Mafia we are running.

[silly suffolk]

It's a difficult one dv.
At what point does union representation become...unrepresentative?
It's all very well to say we pay our subs,we deserve to make the decisions but if a minority is making decisions for the majority that goes against almost every union principle there is.
It's not the Mafia we are running.

if you don't join the club should you be allowed to play?

[fishtank]

It's a difficult one dv.
At what point does union representation become...unrepresentative?
It's all very well to say we pay our subs,we deserve to make the decisions but if a minority is making decisions for the majority that goes against almost every union principle there is.
It's not the Mafia we are running.

if you don't join the club should you be allowed to play?

That's the problem Suffolk...everybody has to play.
In an office of 100 and only 30 are in the club who should make the rules everybody has to play by?
As i said it's a difficult one for a Trade Unionist.

[dvbuk55]

It's a difficult one dv.
At what point does union representation become...unrepresentative?
It's all very well to say we pay our subs,we deserve to make the decisions but if a minority is making decisions for the majority that goes against almost every union principle there is.
It's not the Mafia we are running.

You make a valid point ft.

Lets take another scenario, because it isn't just the union able to take a vote on new procedures, the management call a meeting to institute a situation that is beneficial to non-union members and detrimental to union members in an office which has a 50/50 split - the vote is decided to be taken on Saturday, when a third of full timers and 20% of union members are absent due to revision - the vote is carried by non-union members - now where does the office stand, do they go into disagreement, call a ballot, bearing in mind that there is potentially only a 50% pro vote of staff....................yep life is definitely complicated outside of the smokey regions of Royal Mail. Not to be a member of the union is a choice but does that exclude anyone from fair play in their working environment?

[dvbuk55]

It's a difficult one dv.
At what point does union representation become...unrepresentative?
It's all very well to say we pay our subs,we deserve to make the decisions but if a minority is making decisions for the majority that goes against almost every union principle there is.
It's not the Mafia we are running.

if you don't join the club should you be allowed to play?

They are already playing the game ss, the work is the game, it's the rules that are under discussion.

[clashcityrocker]

I don't dispute that clash, only that you need everyone on board and in our case considering that part timers would be doing every Saturday and would be at least 50% of that revision they would need to agree whether or not they were union members - the management aren't particular whether they are members

Why would part-timers be doing every Saturday.
That isn't in the National Agreement.
Why would p/t staff agree to that?

[dvbuk55]

I don't dispute that clash, only that you need everyone on board and in our case considering that part timers would be doing every Saturday and would be at least 50% of that revision they would need to agree whether or not they were union members - the management aren't particular whether they are members

Why would part-timers be doing every Saturday.
That isn't in the National Agreement.
Why would p/t staff agree to that?

Simply because it was the lesser of the options availalble. They already had a 3 day week, and didn't want to go to 5hrs or 6hrs or 5hrs 40 minutes whatever over 6 days a week and it was the only way forward to ensure 1 in 3 Saturdays. Anyway they had a part timers vote as to what option they preferred and that was it and not all were members of the union I might add. Bear in mind this was one of many revisions we have had in the last 6 years not just the BT2010, the revision of 2010 was less than a year after the previous revision in November 2009 when P&L first began.

Some of the part timers had 2 x 10 hour days and a 5 hour day which began at 0330 and rotated, that way they could actually get a week off by joint arrangement to cover shifts, not ideal but it worked as long as nobody forget what they were supposed to be doing that week. They now work a permanent 3 day Thurs, Fri, Sat which once engaged on gives a certain regular routine and a definite option for overtime by working days off.

Management are actively trying to change this arrangement because it does not allow them the flexibility they want and they struggle to cover duties without paying overtime.

[clashcityrocker]

I understand - sort of.
However - your local agreement is outside of the National Agreement.
How could a non-union member of staff vote in a duty option, thereby forcing a union member to accept a duty pattern outside of the National Agreement?

[fishtank]

I understand - sort of.
However - your local agreement is outside of the National Agreement.
How could a non-union member of staff vote in a duty option, thereby forcing a union member to accept a duty pattern outside of the National Agreement?

There are no duty patterns outside of the National Agreement because there are none inside it.
Duty structures are very much down to local agreement.
There is guidance in the form of the menu of duty options but even that gives scope for part-timers not getting 1 in 4 saturdays.

Part Time Colleagues
It should be noted that there maybe opportunities for existing part time employees to work fewer days, whilst maintaining their existing contracted hours, to support the new innovative attendance patterns. For example in option four, within this pack, it may be possible for some existing part time employees to convert their attendance to a regular Friday, Saturday, Monday attendance, working fewer days albeit for longer hours.

The final example combines a 9 day fortnight with weekend part time working and delivers one Saturday off in two. It requires one part timer person to work every Friday, Saturday and Monday to cover for 2 deliveries. This is likely to be attractive where there is a high vacancy level or existing part time people are prepared to convert to weekend attendances.

[Tamsky]

On revisions I prefer a meeting of members away from work and management. Only CWU members have a vote. Non members need to negotiate their own terms and conditions with RM.

[fishtank]

On revisions I prefer a meeting of members away from work and management. Only CWU members have a vote. Non members need to negotiate their own terms and conditions with RM.

I agree Tamsky but there are some offices where the number of members is becoming low enough to be unrepresentative of the office as a whole and part-time representation is already flawed....this is a very dangerous position.
I can only see this situation becoming more common especially after privatisation and more especially if a Staff Association is introduced into the mix to directly compete with the union.
Who does the negotiation then...and for who?

[clashcityrocker]

I understand - sort of.
However - your local agreement is outside of the National Agreement.
How could a non-union member of staff vote in a duty option, thereby forcing a union member to accept a duty pattern outside of the National Agreement?

There are no duty patterns outside of the National Agreement because there are none inside it.
Duty structures are very much down to local agreement.
There is guidance in the form of the menu of duty options but even that gives scope for part-timers not getting 1 in 4 saturdays.

Part Time Colleagues
It should be noted that there maybe opportunities for existing part time employees to work fewer days, whilst maintaining their existing contracted hours, to support the new innovative attendance patterns. For example in option four, within this pack, it may be possible for some existing part time employees to convert their attendance to a regular Friday, Saturday, Monday attendance, working fewer days albeit for longer hours.

The final example combines a 9 day fortnight with weekend part time working and delivers one Saturday off in two. It requires one part timer person to work every Friday, Saturday and Monday to cover for 2 deliveries. This is likely to be attractive where there is a high vacancy level or existing part time people are prepared to convert to weekend attendances.

Surely it is clear there is a difference between someone choosing to work every Saturday because it fits in with their lifestyle and someone having to work every Saturday because that option has been chosen for them in a ballot including non-union members?

[fishtank]

Surely it is clear there is a difference between someone choosing to work every Saturday because it fits in with their lifestyle and someone having to work every Saturday because that option has been chosen for them in a ballot including non-union members?

Is it the fact that it was chosen by a ballot that is the issue or the fact that non-members were involved?

[clashcityrocker]

I don't think anyone should have to work every Saturday if they don't want to. Ballot or no ballot.
I don't think union members should have a duty structure imposed on them by non union members.
Unless: that unit has taken a decision to include non-union members in that vote. And personally I would be sympathetic to that.
I have a problem with management giving non members a vote to try and engineer the duty pattern that they (management) want.

[fishtank]

I don't think anyone should have to work every Saturday if they don't want to. Ballot or no ballot.
I don't think union members should have a duty structure imposed on them by non union members.
Unless: that unit has taken a decision to include non-union members in that vote. And personally I would be sympathetic to that.
I have a problem with management giving non members a vote to try and engineer the duty pattern that they (management) want.

I agree with all of your points but i don't think in this case that's what happened.
The majority of non-members in dv's office are part-time so management including them in a vote would be counter productive.
I think what happened in dv's office was a lack of imagination in the duty make up and an intransigence on the part of management.