Postal workers endorse Yes Vote (Scotland No.2)

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://politicsuk.eu/postal-workers-endorse-yes-vote/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Scotland No.2 Branch of the Communication Workers Union – the second largest in the country with more than 4,000 members – overwhelmingly carried the following motion at their annual general meeting in Edinburgh on Sunday. [March 3]

‘This Branch recognises that the referendum on Scottish Independence, due to be held in autumn 2014, will be the biggest political decision any of us has been asked to make in our lives.

‘We recognise that under consecutive governments the gap between rich and poor has widened and that the UK remains one of the most unequal societies in the developed nations of the world.

‘We further recognise that round after round of anti-trade union legislation, introduced by Tory governments throughout the 80s and 90s remain on the statute book despite 13 years of Labour government ’97-2010.

‘To this end we believe that the only way forward for workers in Scotland is to ensure a YES vote in the referendum and we agree to do all in our power to secure such an outcome.’

The motion pledges to give ‘full support to YES Scotland and to play an active role within the campaign and to initiate debate on the issue at future branch meetings.

Members will also considerer placing a motion to annual conference calling for support for their position, ‘ensuring the continued unity of postal and other workers throughout the UK and the wider world.’

Shirley-Anne Somerville, Director of Communities at Yes Scotland, said: ‘This is very welcome news and underlines the fact that Westminster isn’t working for Scotland.

‘The vast majority of what trade unionists want to help make Scotland a fairer country cannot be delivered under the current constitutional arrangement. As we recently pointed out in our report, Yes to a Just Scotland, independence is the best way to create a fairer, more socially just Scotland.’

[Lincox]

How many of the 4000 members were present?

[blue1873]

Fecked if i remember being consulted on how we "The Branch" should vote on this matter.

[newtimes]

How many of the 4000 members were present?

[Tman]

If the SNP want to be sure of a "yes" vote they should have campaigned for all of the UK population to get a vote rather than get union branches to recommend voting that way.

[Mili Tant]

Fecked if i remember being consulted on how we "The Branch" should vote on this matter.

That's the beauty of attending Branch Meetings Blue. If you are a member of the Scotland NO2 branch then you were consulted. All motions for the AGM were published 2 weeks in advance of the meeting (as per the rule book) and those attending the meeting debated the issue thoroughly before overwhelmingly supporting it. About 70 attended the meeting (surely we're not going to hear the Tory arguement about "how many of your members voted"?) and the branch will now act on the decison of the meeting as democracy dictates.

[newtimes]

I have very strong views about this debate, what happens if the majority is with the people who do not vote, what happens. By not voting, that block is making a statement would a minority then have the right to impose a minority view on the majority.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

I have very strong views about this debate, what happens if the majority is with the people who do not vote, what happens. By not voting, that block is making a statement would a minority then have the right to impose a minority view on the majority.

If anything was being imposed then its usually a postal ballot and everyone should participate though many don't.

In this case its only a recommendation of support nothing more nothing less - they are not imposing anything on anyone.

On your main point, unless they make it a legal requirement that everyone most vote in every election/ballot for which they are eligible to do so then apathy will always be a major factor and it cannot be assumed that a failure to vote is either an acceptance of the status quo, or anything else. However, I don't think they will ever change the law to make it a legal requirement to vote as the main parties tend to be kept in power either by low turn outs, or by tribal voting.

[fishtank]

That's the beauty of attending Branch Meetings Blue. If you are a member of the Scotland NO2 branch then you were consulted. All motions for the AGM were published 2 weeks in advance of the meeting (as per the rule book) and those attending the meeting debated the issue thoroughly before overwhelmingly supporting it. About 70 attended the meeting (surely we're not going to hear the Tory arguement about "how many of your members voted"?) and the branch will now act on the decison of the meeting as democracy dictates.

There are a few things wrong with this from my point of view.
It may have been "published" 2 weeks before the AGM but in my opinion that isn't really good enough to use the words "democratic decision" or argue that the members were "consulted".

I think if you are going to use the Branch and by definition the Branch member's collective voice to put forward a political position you should have the courage to properly understand the position of those members first.

It's not particularly a "Tory" argument to expect a union to make any decision as democratic as it possibly can and 70 attendees at an AGM out of 4000 members simply isn't good enough unless you have consulted with those members beforehand and have a clear mandate to speak for them.
What happened on sunday did the Branch which already stands accused of being disengaged with a large section of it's membership...no favours at all.

The irony is i personally think most of the membership in Scotland No 2 would support the position if they were asked but that's not the point,they didn't get asked so no-one will ever know.

[Mili Tant]

That's the beauty of attending Branch Meetings Blue. If you are a member of the Scotland NO2 branch then you were consulted. All motions for the AGM were published 2 weeks in advance of the meeting (as per the rule book) and those attending the meeting debated the issue thoroughly before overwhelmingly supporting it. About 70 attended the meeting (surely we're not going to hear the Tory arguement about "how many of your members voted"?) and the branch will now act on the decison of the meeting as democracy dictates.

There are a few things wrong with this from my point of view.
It may have been "published" 2 weeks before the AGM but in my opinion that isn't really good enough to use the words "democratic decision" or argue that the members were "consulted".

I think if you are going to use the Branch and by definition the Branch member's collective voice to put forward a political position you should have the courage to properly understand the position of those members first.

It's not particularly a "Tory" argument to expect a union to make any decision as democratic as it possibly can and 70 attendees at an AGM out of 4000 members simply isn't good enough unless you have consulted with those members beforehand and have a clear mandate to speak for them.
What happened on sunday did the Branch which already stands accused of being disengaged with a large section of it's membership...no favours at all.The irony is i personally think most of the membership in Scotland No 2 would support the position if they were asked but that's not the point,they didn't get asked so no-one will ever know.

I'm not aware of anyone "accusing" the branch of being disengaged with a large section of its membership. The decison by the branch committee to take the debate to its members was a brave decision and one which, I suspect, will now be taken up by other branches and other unions. Whilst others, including the STUC, prevaricate the No2 branch led and consulted its members. I can think of no better way of consultation than face to face. That is the essence of collectivism (Trade Unionism). This is only the start of such debates and the branch can be proud that they were trail blazers.

[PhilthyPhil]

Do the SNP even have a proper plan for what will happen to RM in an independent Scotland?

[fishtank]

The decison by the branch committee to take the debate to its members was a brave decision.

It would have been if they had but they didn't.
You could argue that it was within the rules,you could even argue that the members were able to attend the AGM and that the opportunity to take the debate to the members was made available but you cannot seriously argue that the Branch actively took the debate to it's 4000 members when less than 2% were represented at the AGM.
That would be a barefaced lie.

I'm not aware of anyone "accusing" the branch of being disengaged with a large section of its membership.

Not being aware is a symptom of disengagement.
There are offices in the Branch who have not seen a Branch Official or even the Area Rep in many months if not years,not been addressed by anyone other than their local rep in years,hundreds of members outside Edinburgh who couldn't find the Branch with a map and compass,hundreds of members who couldn't pick the Branch Sec or any of the Branch Officials out of a line up,hundreds that aren't even aware they are part of Scotland No 2 Branch.
Enough disengaged and disaffected members to dwarf the turnout at the AGM probably at least 10 to 1.
Don't get me wrong No 2 is not alone in this but it does have issues peculiar to the Branch that make things worse.

We don't send out Branch Reports/Updates to members.
We have no social networking presence at all...not even a twitter account.
We don't even have a website anymore.
I realise the Branch Sec emailed the members on friday about the AGM on sunday,two days notice...handy.
Maybe he could have mentioned the whole Independence thing in the email...that would have been brave.

[newtimes]

I have very strong views about this debate, what happens if the majority is with the people who do not vote, what happens. By not voting, that block is making a statement would a minority then have the right to impose a minority view on the majority.

If anything was being imposed then its usually a postal ballot and everyone should participate though many don't.

In this case its only a recommendation of support nothing more nothing less - they are not imposing anything on anyone.

On your main point, unless they make it a legal requirement that everyone most vote in every election/ballot for which they are eligible to do so then apathy will always be a major factor and it cannot be assumed that a failure to vote is either an acceptance of the status quo, or anything else. However, I don't think they will ever change the law to make it a legal requirement to vote as the main parties tend to be kept in power either by low turn outs, or by tribal voting.

Many thanks for your input, it would take me all night to explain what I mean so to put it simply this Yes or No thing is just like P&L. One planet one people. We got rid of the Tsar and got Stailin, we got rid of Thatcher and got Blair, do we need leaders.

[brothermagrew]

Do the SNP even have a proper plan for what will happen to RM in an independent Scotland?

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 38&t=34715" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://postandparcel.info/53221/news/re ... -scotland/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Danelectro]

Its a pity that there is doubts over the handling of the Branch vote and I hope they take some of the points Fishtank made on board but I think they are doing the right thing by debating it in the branch and at least show they stand for something.