1 in 6 saturday removal

[Judgee]

So as an office we need to put in a stage 1 disagreement if it hasn't already been done and this will at least delay the process for a time?

Also if the area rep is pushing this through we can go over his head on this?


ZX135 is this what you are saying?

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

If you have followed Dave's many posts on this issue - I am sure you will have come across some... The Reps were in favour of whatever.. to save full time jobs... Simple!

Disagreements will mean nothing if the whole point of the disagreement is not achievable; it simply delays the process. Anything other than 1 in 6 will all be gone very soon and even 1 in 6 will be gone for some within offices...

I am a Reserve, I never achieve 1 in 6 - it is simply not possible. I get mostly Monday and Tuesdays off as that is the way walkholders plan their holidays and add long-term sick and being shuffled around to cope with ad-hoc absence and non-drivers; it is something I have come to accept.

You can disagree all you like but it is now an unstoppable force - we are moving towards a more flexible and diversed offices; many different types of contracts within contracts.

* Some offices have Saturday workers, some have actually voted to have people getting non-saturdays off and Reserves rarely gets that many Saturdays off in offices where there is no-overstaffing or a high number of part-timers...

It is the Way Forward - you want a job or you want Saturdays off?

what the reps are in favour for doesnt really matter, at end of the day its what the office votes for that they have to represent, and following the IR process through does work as at the end of the process if followed right all the stages through leaves RM only the option of implementing the change by executive action which currently they will not do, its all about the office sticking to their guns, if rep, area rep etc agree with RM it does not matter its what the office want that they are supposed to push for and if they wont then simply go above them, and yes it is that simple

well a lot of us said EXACTLY what you said there zx....but the branch were brought in and we were told that we could not get what WE wanted as members or go back to the status quo because it would mean losing 9 full time jobs, and the union were not prepared to sacrifice 9 full time jobs so that we could keep our duty stuctures. so we had to accept it. we all suspect it most definitely WAS a smokescreen to get what they wanted in. as soon after there was a preference exercise for VRs.....and at least 9 people wanted VR. the manager said they couldn't afford to lose 9 people out of the office...it just wasn't feasible. and we couldn't function.!!...sold down the river.

sorry got to disagree you were not sold down the river, you went down willingly if the branch agreed with management so what, it doesnt stop the disagreement process from happening, you and the other members are the union not the branch or rep so to speak, if the office wants to put in a disagreement then the rep puts it in, if he wont then go above him, if the branch wont, then go above them, at the end of the day the process is there to be followed if the members in the office allow it to not be followed then they have no real grounds to complain

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

So as an office we need to put in a stage 1 disagreement if it hasn't already been done and this will at least delay the process for a time?

Also if the area rep is pushing this through we can go over his head on this?


ZX135 is this what you are saying?

it should delay it, as part of the disagreement include that you want the status quo being held until the disagreement is resolved, they could implement it before the end but that would be executive action which RM are unwilling to be seen to do at the moment, yes you can go over the area reps head, but may not need to simply put it to him like this, "we understand you agree with managements view however as an office we want to vote on going to a disagreement over the matter, we completely understand you dont agree with us but we want you to arrange the vote and respect the outcome and put in the disagreements as appropriate" if you say something like that and also make the dom aware that the area rep agrees with him, it allows him to save face with management whilst pushing for a disagreement that he actually disagrees with

[hampshireman]

So as an office we need to put in a stage 1 disagreement if it hasn't already been done and this will at least delay the process for a time?

Also if the area rep is pushing this through we can go over his head on this?


ZX135 is this what you are saying?

it should delay it, as part of the disagreement include that you want the status quo being held until the disagreement is resolved, they could implement it before the end but that would be executive action which RM are unwilling to be seen to do at the moment, yes you can go over the area reps head, but may not need to simply put it to him like this, "we understand you agree with managements view however as an office we want to vote on going to a disagreement over the matter, we completely understand you dont agree with us but we want you to arrange the vote and respect the outcome and put in the disagreements as appropriate" if you say something like that and also make the dom aware that the area rep agrees with him, it allows him to save face with management whilst pushing for a disagreement that he actually disagrees with

What a sad thing ; to actually have to couch something in terms that will 'save the reps face'

Or are you being

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

So as an office we need to put in a stage 1 disagreement if it hasn't already been done and this will at least delay the process for a time?

Also if the area rep is pushing this through we can go over his head on this?


ZX135 is this what you are saying?

it should delay it, as part of the disagreement include that you want the status quo being held until the disagreement is resolved, they could implement it before the end but that would be executive action which RM are unwilling to be seen to do at the moment, yes you can go over the area reps head, but may not need to simply put it to him like this, "we understand you agree with managements view however as an office we want to vote on going to a disagreement over the matter, we completely understand you dont agree with us but we want you to arrange the vote and respect the outcome and put in the disagreements as appropriate" if you say something like that and also make the dom aware that the area rep agrees with him, it allows him to save face with management whilst pushing for a disagreement that he actually disagrees with

What a sad thing ; to actually have to couch something in terms that will 'save the reps face'

Or are you being

Just think it's better to try and not piss people off who you may need help from in the future they may not be good at their job or have personal reasons for not wanting to help but if you can get them onside with them losing as little face as possible they are more likely to be inclined to help

[Judgee]

Thank you ZX that's very helpful and I agree it's better to give people a dignified retreat as they are far more likely to cooperate!

[daveyeff]

If you have followed Dave's many posts on this issue - I am sure you will have come across some... The Reps were in favour of whatever.. to save full time jobs... Simple!

Disagreements will mean nothing if the whole point of the disagreement is not achievable; it simply delays the process. Anything other than 1 in 6 will all be gone very soon and even 1 in 6 will be gone for some within offices...

I am a Reserve, I never achieve 1 in 6 - it is simply not possible. I get mostly Monday and Tuesdays off as that is the way walkholders plan their holidays and add long-term sick and being shuffled around to cope with ad-hoc absence and non-drivers; it is something I have come to accept.

You can disagree all you like but it is now an unstoppable force - we are moving towards a more flexible and diversed offices; many different types of contracts within contracts.

* Some offices have Saturday workers, some have actually voted to have people getting non-saturdays off and Reserves rarely gets that many Saturdays off in offices where there is no-overstaffing or a high number of part-timers...

It is the Way Forward - you want a job or you want Saturdays off?

what the reps are in favour for doesnt really matter, at end of the day its what the office votes for that they have to represent, and following the IR process through does work as at the end of the process if followed right all the stages through leaves RM only the option of implementing the change by executive action which currently they will not do, its all about the office sticking to their guns, if rep, area rep etc agree with RM it does not matter its what the office want that they are supposed to push for and if they wont then simply go above them, and yes it is that simple

well a lot of us said EXACTLY what you said there zx....but the branch were brought in and we were told that we could not get what WE wanted as members or go back to the status quo because it would mean losing 9 full time jobs, and the union were not prepared to sacrifice 9 full time jobs so that we could keep our duty stuctures. so we had to accept it. we all suspect it most definitely WAS a smokescreen to get what they wanted in. as soon after there was a preference exercise for VRs.....and at least 9 people wanted VR. the manager said they couldn't afford to lose 9 people out of the office...it just wasn't feasible. and we couldn't function.!!...sold down the river.

sorry got to disagree you were not sold down the river, you went down willingly if the branch agreed with management so what, it doesnt stop the disagreement process from happening, you and the other members are the union not the branch or rep so to speak, if the office wants to put in a disagreement then the rep puts it in, if he wont then go above him, if the branch wont, then go above them, at the end of the day the process is there to be followed if the members in the office allow it to not be followed then they have no real grounds to complain

well we all think we were....for the branch and rep and management all to tell us it would cost jobs, then to reveal it was a smokescreen by saying they couldn't run the office if people were allowed VRs, stinks of shyte. they got people believing their story of joblosses to do away with our shift patterns. yes some did take it all in,,,but some didn't. but we were all led down the garden path.

[chrisj]

We have Representations and Representatives - that is how the politics of Union and Politics of government works.

You cannot organise yourself as workers without your Union behind you - you might as well start a New or Rival Union... Or have a wildcat strike!

Waste of time talking about having private votes and doing office disagreements without Area Rep and Branch - nonsense!

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

We have Representations and Representatives - that is how the politics of Union and Politics of government works.

You cannot organise yourself as workers without your Union behind you - you might as well start a New or Rival Union... Or have a wildcat strike!

Waste of time talking about having private votes and doing office disagreements without Area Rep and Branch - nonsense!

Who said anything about private votes? And I did say to involve the rep but to go above if he won't do it

[daveyeff]

its all very well saying go above the unit rep, but when the branch secretary and area rep are saying no to a 'status quo' situation and there will be job losses, then people actually believe their branch. its almost impossible to get people to go against what their branch is saying. they think whats the point of going to the div rep or hq when the branch is telling you how it is....if you cant believe them then who? this is the way people were viewing the situation, and why would they doubt it.

[chrisj]

When you run out of people to go 'above their heads', then what?

You are right daveyeff, when a Branch does not support you then you have almost no chance above that... The guys at the very top are not usually the ones that really make the decisions about what happens on the ground. What will a Divisional Rep do that differently? They will consult the people much lower down and then make their decisions; and they will be loathe to undermine their subordinates...

To be honest, the higher you go, the more likely the CWU hierarchy will in bed with RM. Go to Bob Gibson - it will make no difference; in this case. Although we still do not know whether we are talking about 1 in 6 or 1 in 4 being rid of?

CWU is now about saving jobs not antagonising RM over small issues like number of saturdays off or shift patterns.

[chrisj]

As you can see Dingo's silence on this sort of issues is deafening!

How many posts did daveyeff posted on losing his 9-day fortnights? Yet no a single comment from the Resident Divisional Rep - but then, this is not about London, why bother giving us his pearl of wisdom?

[Spartacus]

Saving full time jobs has to the unions highest priority, above all else, it's about time union members acted like trade unionists instead of acting out of parochial self interest.

The interests of the members lies not in how many Saturdays we have off but in how many of us there are to do the work that comes through the door.

It's not pleasant and isn't easy for the reps to convince people to act in the interests of the wider office as opposed to the interest of the individuals concerned.

It's a tough time for reps and it's only going to get tougher, they need support.

[clashcityrocker]

As you can see Dingo's silence on this sort of issues is deafening!

To be fair, unless he has direct knowledge of the office involved, what comment can he make.
We only have one jaundiced side of the story.
Either the rotation is sustainable or it isn't.

Apparently, RM, the unit rep, the Area Rep, the Divisional Rep and the Branch Secretary are all wrong..........

[chrisj]

I do not think daveyeff issue is that complicating to have an opinion on. They were to lose their shift pattern and reasons were given. Should they fight it or not, what will dingo do if it were one of his offices?

Dingo gives his opinions about certain things that he is not fully aware of...

Either the rotation is sustainable or it isn't.

Simple!

I actually do not agree with daveyeff but you can read between the lines of his post - he clearly wants to get his way and have said all sorts of things - even after the event; like they were conned and the reasons were not genuine - I do not agree.