Consultative Ballot Question 3 - CWU Pay Claim

[fishtank]

Your position seems to be - the CWU should consult the members, but when they do it is wrong.

It is pushing the boundaries of description to call this a membership consultation,It basically asks if you support your union four times.
If the members answered that entirely honestly we would be in a whole heap of trouble but they won't vote that way because hopefully they know that showing support is more important than feeling support in the circumstance we are facing.

I think that's all DV means,that the consultation itself will tell us nothing of the real mood of the membership other than they realise that a show of strength is what's needed now.
That sounds like common sense to me bearing in mind the members are being asked to sacrifice nothing yet.

I certainly wouldn't gauge support for IA on it's results.

[daveyeff]

[daveyeff]

anyways who else on here thinks the con/ ball is a pre-cursor for I/A. i know i do

[dvbuk55]

The consultative ballot does nothing to impress.

It does nothing to impress you.
But what does exactly?
Your position seems to be - the CWU should consult the members, but when they do it is wrong.
We are where we are - and you are in your usual position of criticising anything and everything the CWU does.
I can't be the only one bored to tears by it.

Well you may be bored but you never fail to have a response - so if you don't want it don't read it..............simples and that probably sums it up

[Pat Ostman]

Your position seems to be - the CWU should consult the members, but when they do it is wrong.

It is pushing the boundaries of description to call this a membership consultation,It basically asks if you support your union four times.
If the members answered that entirely honestly we would be in a whole heap of trouble but they won't vote that way because hopefully they know that showing support is more important than feeling support in the circumstance we are facing.

I think that's all DV means,that the consultation itself will tell us nothing of the real mood of the membership other than they realise that a show of strength is what's needed now.
That sounds like common sense to me bearing in mind the members are being asked to sacrifice nothing yet.

I certainly wouldn't gauge support for IA on it's results.

Fantastically put. I hardly classify this consultive, I just hope the CWU are thinking along the lines that a resounding yes would give the illusion of power. Next stop IA threats.

Hopefully the turn out will be large and the audience understand the motives because, perish the thought, a low turnout will be very harmful for future negotiations and this is the bit that has me more worried than the actual result. The CWU have a history of low turnouts amongst members sadly.

This is what I think DV was suggesting, that this whole charade could actually backfire and do more harm than good. If such a simple and obviously loaded ballot only attracts 25% of the membership could you realistically call that supportive?

[dvbuk55]

I just hope the CWU are thinking along the lines that a resounding yes would give the illusion of power. Next stop IA threats.

This is what I think DV was suggesting, that this whole charade could actually backfire and do more harm than good. If such a simple and obviously loaded ballot only attracts 25% of the membership could you realistically call that supportive?

That is the point Pat - the illusion of power is entirely the problem. I believe the turnout will be high and an affirmative is assured but it's like going into battle with a plastic gun - if the bluff is called and in all honesty I think RM are too far down the road NOT to test the resolve. I believe it would have been better to plan a campaign on the likelihood of support for IA because if it isn't there it isn't and you conduct negotiations accordingly.

[clashcityrocker]

Calling our "bluff" would probably be the most incendiary thing RM could do.

[dvbuk55]

Calling our "bluff" would probably be the most incendiary thing RM could do.

So you think they'll cave on the strength of the consultative ballot? But if they do call the bluff what then? Do we set the world on fire?

[daveyeff]

i know you said you would vote yes for i/a, but which way do you think the rest of the membership would go. i would vote yes, we will be privatised if we dont and we wont get a pay rise either. damned if we do and damned if we dont comes to mind.

[dvbuk55]

i know you said you would vote yes for i/a, but which way do you think the rest of the membership would go. i would vote yes, we will be privatised if we dont and we wont get a pay rise either. damned if we do and damned if we dont comes to mind.

I don't know and I don't think a consultative ballot of that ilk will help people decide either. There's a world of difference between voting for a set of non-involved questions and IA. I don't know, I wonder if anyone does, what the FT/PT ratio nationally is and it's OK banging on about strong and weak areas but much of that is decided by what the union membership is in any given area. Let's for arguments say that there is an office with 50 members 27 of whom are full time and 23 part time and 35 are died in the wool union members is that a strong office or a weak office? RM will know that only they are aware of the non-membership because of the subs collected deducted from the overall employee figure and how many are full and how many part time and I feel that issue could bite us in the arse.

[andy3665]

Well? Manager's get their bonuses. Congratulations.

What about us?

[aiden01]

Well? Manager's get their bonuses. Congratulations.

What about us?

No feckin chance

[spoodoo]

If we don't get one ,,,could be trouble ahead

[stephen500]

The pay talks will drag on till Oct, then RM will not back date the pay rise. Saves seven months pay, simple

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Threads merged - please put Pay Threads in here - otherwise we get loads of little ones spread all over the board.