Independent CWU Shareholder Trust

[fishtank]

It would seem that Dave Ward won't let this go.
From the rep's briefing on Monday.

"We need to organize this into a solid voting bloc" he said; "we're hoping to do this in the form of an independent CWU Trust and we'll be seeking advice on how to do this."

What do you lot think?

[hubbahubba]

We as employees need some way of making our collective 10% of the shares a meaningful voice on the board of directors.
Although whether the CWU should be the place where we do this is another question altogether.....

[NWpostie]

Usually during shareholder's AGM they can nominate a proxy to vote on their behalf.

[dvbuk55]

There's no way I want the CWU to be involved in my shares. I just wonder what the real reason for this initiative is. If the non-members aren't subject to this incursion into what is a private matter then why should members. Although employees will receive 10% of the company that is ALL employees which means the CWU would not actually have a voting proxy of 10% and as the 3 and 5 years are reached the holding will be considerably less as people sell their shares to whoever wants to buy. If it goes to a ballot, and it should, I would most definitely vote NO.

[chrisj]

Pointless. The horse has bolted... This is not a football club

CWU are a Union for workers - it is not their job to be concerned about shareholding or trying to get posts on a company board; conflict of interest.

Are the CWU saying that they want to be on the companies board - prawn sandwiches, anyone?

[rockytony67]

Pointless. The horse has bolted... This is not a football club

CWU are a Union for workers - it is not their job to be concerned about shareholding or trying to get posts on a company board; conflict of interest.

Are the CWU saying that they want to be on the companies board - prawn sandwiches, anyone?

The union has been offered a place on the board countless times they have always turned it down

[fishtank]

The union has been offered a place on the board countless times they have always turned it down

Things have changed rocky...
There are movements behind the scenes.
There are senior national officers who are pro-involvement in the company structures and don't forget the PEC put this motion forward in 2012.



A new governance model that embeds the union at all levels of the organisation....

Dave Ward urged conference to back the policy forum proposal and warned that supporting the South Wales and South West position would "put this union out of the game."

If the CWU ruled out taking part in new governance structures, then other unions would, he cautioned, and then went on to list the potential advantages that participation could bring.

"What about a pensions board, a safety board or a one on new products and services?" Dave suggested - pointing out in each example that this could be beneficial to the interests of the membership.

"We're in similar circumstances to what the print industry and the mining industry faced and we can't solve all of these issues solely by strike.

"We do have to find solutions and I don't really trust the company to do that on their own," he explained.

At the end of the debate, delegates voted by a margin of around two to one in favour of the executive's resolution and preparations will begin soon for the policy forum.

[dvbuk55]

It does look like the union has only been paying lip service to being against privatisation and biding its time to become "embedded" - now will that be a single bed or a joint ventured double bed? It seems that nest feathering is not dead in the halls of power.

Does any right minded person not believe that it is time the CWU stopped trying to be power brokers and started looking after the interests of the rank and file membership who put them where they are and pay them a considerable salary. Never mind "putting the union out of the game" this isn't a game it's our terms and conditions and our livelihoods.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

I am reserving judgement at the moment, but my initial feeling is that it does not sit well with me.

[vmaxv4]

Something of a future moral dilemma springs to mind..
If the bloc allocation is approved & we duly have a 10% ish vote on the board, Are we in danger of creating a conflict between the members & CWU HQ?
In that I mean, when the 3yrs is up & we are all at liberty to flog our free shares whatever the tax implications are, in doing so we diminish our percentage vote & consequently our influence on the board!!. With HQ,s best intentions at heart pleading another slippery slope of doom with the mad rush to sell sell sell
I for one can't see a positive outcome past October 2016 deadline..

[rockytony67]

All I would say is that we've had members as Trustee's on the pensions board and I fall to see what benefit that has brought us I'm with TBT, I think It's a dangerous route to take and all it will do is leave the union open to accusation's of being in bed with the employer

[sussexlad]

But we do need a way to make our 10% count for as long as we can. When the time comes and people start selling then we cannot do much about that.

[vmaxv4]

But we do need a way to make our 10% count for as long as we can. When the time comes and people start selling then we cannot do much about that.

Very true.
However HQ would believe that they would secure such a move for the "Long Haul",
but a short term fix for No long term gain is all we would achieve.. In doing so "rubbing our noses" into business where we don't belong spring to mind

[stokes11eg]

All this is moving away more and more from the grass roots. If he early Union leaders are looking down, they wil be weeping in their graves.