Union Reps Wakeup

[dvbuk55]

I would want to know what education and training they have had for the role.

Well that might seem a little presumptious if the rep was in situ prior to someone starting with RM and having his credentials questioned and his particulars taken down

[silly suffolk]

speaking as a postman of over 30 years, i only became a rep because i percieved the incumbant was poor and thought id try and do better. now some percieve myself as poor. as they say, all political careers end in failure.

[fishtank]

as they say, all political careers end in failure.

Just ask Sarkozy.

[dvbuk55]

Fishtank who's the judge of whether the rep is doing the job correctly? as you say "Yes it's an unpaid,thankless task but if you can't or won't do it properly you're still a liability to your members" so what's the answer? I go for the basic one of we have a democratic union, and that someone should stand against the rep or there should be a vote of no confidence, I would love to know a better way

There has to be dual accountability from above and below and at the moment there isn't.
If a rep is shafting 45% of his members and looking after 55% democracy says he stays whether someone else stands or not.
That's a lot of members not getting the representation they deserve..or pay for.
If you want a "for instance" part-time members in some offices are not getting 1in4 saturdays,in some cases working every saturday in order to facilitate 1in4 for the majority full-time staff.
Democracy is fine if you are the majority...just an empty word to the minority.

I would agree to an extent, especially about the 1 in 4 Saturdays - under the current revision I now work every Saturday BUT this and the previous revision was voted on by the members and accepted - then again there was no Plan B. One of the problems is of course the reliance on local agreements within the parameters of BT 2010 and if the rep isn't, well really sharp enough, he can be bamboozled into accepting less than favourable circumstances.
There is also the fact that the part timers, most of whom at that time wasn't in the union, had their work plan agreed without them.

[fishtank]

I think the branches are the key.
More support,more education,a more "hands on" approach altogether from area reps and branch officials.
More regular visits to units,especially those with a high level of IR issues and those with low membership ratios.
Area reps should be more pro-active,less willing to wait for a problem to arrive first before they act.
When visiting a unit they should talk to the members,not always in a formal meeting but sometimes in smaller groups and 1 to 1.
There should also be immediate branch level scrutiny of all local agreements to make sure they adhere to national guidelines.
A move towards a more professional branch structure altogether is needed,if some have to close and merge in the process so be it.

A more visible,supportive and pro-active branch gives members the confidence to expect the best representation at local level and do something about it if they don't get it.
Some branches already operate this way.
Some aren't even close.

[clashcityrocker]

I think the branches are the key.

Some branches cover a large geographical area.
Is there a simple formula to decide how many Area Reps a branch should have?
How is the geography divided between them?
The more conduct cases, the more training issues, the more Strategic Involvement meetings the less time there is for pastoral care of the offices.

[Lincox]

There are large issues regarding local reps being able to sign off local agreements (a term, I use losely, as both of our last two reps have signed off agreements without a vote in at least our sub branch, and gone on to become managers shortly after). Surely there must be some principles/rules laid down by CWU which negates any sign off by a rep who has not held a full balott of the local workers that he represents. If not, then there needs to be something sorted out very quickly before we are all sold down the Swanny.

[keithposty]

i just cant believe local agreements are being formulated without consultation, let alone a vote by the office

ime gobsmacked

how can this be allowed to continue

where are the area reps

[newtimes]

There has to be dual accountability from above and below and at the moment there isn't.
If a rep is shafting 45% of his members and looking after 55% democracy says he stays whether someone else stands or not.
That's a lot of members not getting the representation they deserve..or pay for.
If you want a "for instance" part-time members in some offices are not getting 1in4 saturdays,in some cases working every saturday in order to facilitate 1in4 for the majority full-time staff.
Democracy is fine if you are the majority...just an empty word to the minority.

bang on again fishtank,

[dvbuk55]

i just cant believe local agreements are being formulated without consultation, let alone a vote by the office

ime gobsmacked

how can this be allowed to continue

where are the area reps

And that is a feckin good question. You would think that there would be some sort of consolidated arrangement whereby an agreement is checked against an agreed procedure whereby the unit members must be consulted and a ballot taken before the agreement is ratified. I'm not suggesting that there should be interference by Area Reps in local negotiations but that certain criteria must be met before signing it off.

It would appear that their agenda is not quite the same as the grass roots level.

[keithposty]

when i do local agreements in cousultation with my other rep, we allways send the proposal up to branch, it does not matter if they agree or not, its just polite to keep them in the picture and they would expect to be kept in the loop

[dvbuk55]

when i do local agreements in cousultation with my other rep, we allways send the proposal up to branch, it does not matter if they agree or not, its just polite to keep them in the picture and they would expect to be kept in the loop

Agreement is not necessary but having an independent eye run over the proposed agreement can't do any harm can it.

[fishtank]

The more conduct cases, the more training issues, the more Strategic Involvement meetings the less time there is for pastoral care of the offices.

Maybe it's time to look at the role of area reps....and branch officials.
Are they taking on too much non-priority work that could be better done by others?
Should an area rep hold dual positions within branch?
Area delivery reps should be the special forces of the union,99% of their time should be taken up by IR issues and organising not branch treasury duties,political posturing and meetings about what colour to paint the union room.

[rockytony67]

Fishtank who's the judge of whether the rep is doing the job correctly? as you say "Yes it's an unpaid,thankless task but if you can't or won't do it properly you're still a liability to your members" so what's the answer? I go for the basic one of we have a democratic union, and that someone should stand against the rep or there should be a vote of no confidence, I would love to know a better way

There has to be dual accountability from above and below and at the moment there isn't.
If a rep is shafting 45% of his members and looking after 55% democracy says he stays whether someone else stands or not.
That's a lot of members not getting the representation they deserve..or pay for.
If you want a "for instance" part-time members in some offices are not getting 1in4 saturdays,in some cases working every saturday in order to facilitate 1in4 for the majority full-time staff.
Democracy is fine if you are the majority...just an empty word to the minority.

Fair point but how would it work? the accountability from below has to come from the people who the local rep represents, I don't see any way that can be done apart from democratic methods the accountability from above can only come from democratic methods or the rep not following the correct union protocol, I would love to know how your idea's would work in practice, how do you get "dual accountability" I have no idea

[newtimes]

Fishtank who's the judge of whether the rep is doing the job correctly? as you say "Yes it's an unpaid,thankless task but if you can't or won't do it properly you're still a liability to your members" so what's the answer? I go for the basic one of we have a democratic union, and that someone should stand against the rep or there should be a vote of no confidence, I would love to know a better way

There has to be dual accountability from above and below and at the moment there isn't.
If a rep is shafting 45% of his members and looking after 55% democracy says he stays whether someone else stands or not.
That's a lot of members not getting the representation they deserve..or pay for.
If you want a "for instance" part-time members in some offices are not getting 1in4 saturdays,in some cases working every saturday in order to facilitate 1in4 for the majority full-time staff.
Democracy is fine if you are the majority...just an empty word to the minority.

Fair point but how would it work? the accountability from below has to come from the people who the local rep represents, I don't see any way that can be done apart from democratic methods the accountability from above can only come from democratic methods or the rep not following the correct union protocol, I would love to know how your idea's would work in practice, how do you get "dual accountability" I have no idea

A poem comes to my mind
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

that 55% should not vote a policy through which shafts the 45%, humanity is not about %, it about creating a non exploited society, we are not all the same but we should not exploit others to get an easy life, that’s the mentality of managers and leaders.