Policies or Personality?

[rupertthebear]

I won't be voting for Billy on the basis of two actions:

Taking £29000+ for annual leave accrued over 10 years.

Having been elected for a 5 year term he brings forward the election by a year and us plebs aren't worth an explanation or a debate on him doing that.

If I was to be really picky I'd also say he is very keen on promoting the proportionality agenda but it looks like he only wants it fully implemented once he has gone in a few years time.

[fishtank]

I won't be voting for Billy on the basis of two actions:

Taking £29000+ for annual leave accrued over 10 years.

To make an informed decision on that you would have to know who else has "sold" their annual leave. Is Billy the only one who did it or the only one who admitted it?

Having been elected for a 5 year term he brings forward the election by a year and us plebs aren't worth an explanation or a debate on him doing that.

Terry Pullinger and Sally Bridge have also brought forward their elections, one would suspect the fractures at HQ are turning into fissures, who will unite the union? Not likely to be Dave or Billy since they have mainly been responsible for the split.

[dvbuk55]

Having been elected for a 5 year term he brings forward the election by a year and us plebs aren't worth an explanation or a debate on him doing that.

This was the response I got when I asked him and in fairness he was very prompt in in his response


I have brought my election forward to run in line with the NEC elections. Since they have moved to every two years, the NEC has debated moving national officer elections to every four years, to run in time. Where the officer elections run in the 5th year, they run separately and cost the union around £100 000 extra. So I agree with the desire to shift elections to every 4 years, to save money. I take the members money seriously and the saving of £100 000 is worthwhile.

[trythat]

Got to admit, I'm not that impressed with either, my branch has gone with Billy. He did come to our AGM last year, and to be honest, I didn't rate him anymore in the flesh than the poor performances on radio or TV.

I also think both of them should take the blame for the piss poor state we're in, there really isn't any proper backup or help for the local rep, if you don't get on with ADR or Branch sec, then you're stuffed and on your own.

As I've said before, to me, the CWU are on the RM board of directors and both candidates seem to think that is good, I'm not sure I can see the benifit. I'd also like us to step away from supporting the Labour party the same as other unions have done, I mean it was a Labour government who started off the privatisation of RM and the ex leader of CWU backed them!!

I don't really know anything about the people who work for us at HQ and what they do or are supposed to do. It looks as though HQ could do with experiencing the same sort of brutal removal of staff as we in Delivery Office's around the country have done since 2010.

I will vote, but to me its a lame duck of an election, and they both seem to be telling the same bullshit!

[rupertthebear]

I won't be voting for Billy on the basis of two actions:

Taking £29000+ for annual leave accrued over 10 years.

To make an informed decision on that you would have to know who else has "sold" their annual leave. Is Billy the only one who did it or the only one who admitted it?

Having been elected for a 5 year term he brings forward the election by a year and us plebs aren't worth an explanation or a debate on him doing that.

Terry Pullinger and Sally Bridge have also brought forward their elections, one would suspect the fractures at HQ are turning into fissures, who will unite the union? Not likely to be Dave or Billy since they have mainly been responsible for the split.

To make that informed decision I can only base it on what was available. The CWU accounts named Billy Hayes and no one else.

[Martin Walsh]

For The record fish Dave has never had his leave paid by the members if that was what you were fishing for !

Secondly Terry Pullinger role has changed to take on the mail centres and he wanted a new mandate as things like mail's optimisation are going to effect mail centres.

Sally Bridge really had no choice once Billy and Terry decided to early ! She had not volunteered to go early but once they did it would have looked bad if she did not go early.

However let's be clear the issue of going early is one thing but to do it without much notice is another. Billy came back from leading a cwu delegation to South Africa in late December and then decided to go a year early. That is hardly allowing a open debate. The SDGS then put a timetable to the NEC which would have meant that the election would been over by now. The NEC to their credit amended the timetable to allow an open debate on the elections. Remember at this time Dave was involved in the neogotioms on the CVIT dispute to stop complusory redundancies and Billy tried to capitalise on this by calling it early with a shorten timetable.

Now some on here clearly do not understand the CWU leadership roles Billy 's number 2 is Tony Kearns not Dave or Andy Kerr. Billy does not get involved in any industrial matter outside of a campaign or dispute. Dave in his current role does not have a big say on the Politcal direction or policies which the CWU persue outside of any impacts it has on Royal Mail or POL.

This is why Dave has outlined what will be different under his leadership. People who say they are two peas in the same POD do not understand the difference in the roles they currently have !

The next 3 weeks is going to be massive in terms of who leads the CWU ! If you think we been let down politically over the last 14 years then Dave is the man to change it !

[dvbuk55]

For The record fish Dave has never had his leave paid by the members if that was what you were fishing for !

Secondly Terry Pullinger role has changed to take on the mail centres and he wanted a new mandate as things like mail's optimisation are going to effect mail centres.

Sally Bridge really had no choice once Billy and Terry decided to early ! She had not volunteered to go early but once they did it would have looked bad if she did not go early.

However let's be clear the issue of going early is one thing but to do it without much notice is another. Billy came back from leading a cwu delegation to South Africa in late December and then decided to go a year early. That is hardly allowing a open debate. The SDGS then put a timetable to the NEC which would have meant that the election would been over by now. The NEC to their credit amended the timetable to allow an open debate on the elections. Remember at this time Dave was involved in the neogotioms on the CVIT dispute to stop complusory redundancies and Billy tried to capitalise on this by calling it early with a shorten timetable.

Now some on here clearly do not understand the CWU leadership roles Billy 's number 2 is Tony Kearns not Dave or Andy Kerr. Billy does not get involved in any industrial matter outside of a campaign or dispute. Dave in his current role does not have a big say on the Politcal direction or policies which the CWU persue outside of any impacts it has on Royal Mail or POL.

This is why Dave has outlined what will be different under his leadership. People who say they are two peas in the same POD do not understand the difference in the roles they currently have !

The next 3 weeks is going to be massive in terms of who leads the CWU ! If you think we been let down politically over the last 14 years then Dave is the man to change it !

The one phrase you have used to death dingo is "lets be clear" - there is nothing about the CWU, the leadership and their roles clear. The meetings are held in camera when it involves the future of the membership and then they are presented with a fait accompli with no plan B and a union which has tacitly agreed to any changes by recommending them for a YES vote. You make Dave Ward sound like the messiah who is going to drive the union forward, so what's he been doing for the last 14 years, more to the point is it not the members who decide the policy and the leadership who follow their wishes, not the other way round. You say "clearly" some people don't understand the leadership roles and that could be expanded to everyone doesn't understand what the role of the leaders and indeed the whole of the CWU actually is.

Sally Bridge thought it would "look bad" if she didn't follow suit, look bad to who exactly, the little cabal that is the CWU employees? Because in truth outside of that group probably less than 1% of the membership know who she is!

I recall when Billy took his "holiday" money you defended him and now you seem to think it wasn't exactly au fait and bordering on shady, oh how an election can change a persons opinion.

I envision CWU HQ like the hold of a sinking ship, lots of scuttering, scrabbling and the sound of claws scratching at the walls.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Now some on here clearly do not understand the CWU leadership roles Billy 's number 2 is Tony Kearns not Dave or Andy Kerr. Billy does not get involved in any industrial matter outside of a campaign or dispute. Dave in his current role does not have a big say on the Political direction or policies which the CWU pursue outside of any impacts it has on Royal Mail or POL.

People who say they are two peas in the same POD do not understand the difference in the roles they currently have !

Both correct, and who has the responsibility of educating, informing and dare I say it, engaging the members. Lack of understanding by ordinary members is not a fault of the members, its a symptom of disengagement and entrenchment.

[motherhubbard]

Apparently, although Ward has the numerical advantage on paper, the BT side of the union supports Hayes and they are far better at actually voting.

So what is the future of the CWU?
Is the break up of the CWU a possibility?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Actually I am getting a different picture, it seems that there was a bit of briefing against Dave Ward by Hayes loyalists, but on his Q&A session he seemed to engage with the grass roots activists quite well. There may be a disconnect between ordinary members/activists, and careerists on the BT side as well, even so the Postal constituency vote is greater than the Telephony one.

Hopefully most will vote as people such as the suffragettes and levellers sacrificed a lot to gain voting and equal rights, and I personally think its a civic duty everyone should perform whenever there is an option to. Failure to vote in any election for me shows disrespect to the memories of those that came before us.

Even spoiling your vote, or returning it with a "None of the Above" is exercising your democratic duty, screwing it up and throwing it away exercises nothing except your throwing arm.

[dvbuk55]

Well I won't be throwing myself under one of the queens horses nor chaining myself to railings to vote in an election for nothing.

[dvbuk55]

Apparently, although Ward has the numerical advantage on paper, the BT side of the union supports Hayes and they are far better at actually voting.

So what is the future of the CWU?
Is the break up of the CWU a possibility?

The future will most certainly involve an amalgamation with another union because the employee issue in terms of numbers and part time members will soon be a major problem not least of all because the CWU doesn't seem to want to engage in savings by getting its pensions in order and indeed the numbers of its employees. They increase the subs year on year and made PT subs commensurate with hours worked but there is a limit to what people think is a fair price for the services received. There are too many in the ivory tower and those closely linked to it that live in cloud cuckoo land.

[Van Driver]

Having been elected for a 5 year term he brings forward the election by a year and us plebs aren't worth an explanation or a debate on him doing that.

This was the response I got when I asked him and in fairness he was very prompt in in his response


I have brought my election forward to run in line with the NEC elections. Since they have moved to every two years, the NEC has debated moving national officer elections to every four years, to run in time. Where the officer elections run in the 5th year, they run separately and cost the union around £100 000 extra. So I agree with the desire to shift elections to every 4 years, to save money. I take the members money seriously and the saving of £100 000 is worthwhile.

With what I've picked up on here and thru my letter box all members got at least 3 circulars which looked like election stuff eg, CWU is 20 years old (do we need to be told that with an personal letter). I hear retireds got separate letters - with postage, printing, design etc I think it looks like HALF A MILLION QUID and he says he takes_'the members money seriously' - my backside he does!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[motherhubbard]

With what I've picked up on here and thru my letter box all members got at least 3 circulars which looked like election stuff eg, CWU is 20 years old (do we need to be told that with an personal letter). I hear retireds got separate letters - with postage, printing, design etc I think it looks like HALF A MILLION QUID and he says he takes_'the members money seriously' - my backside he does!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Could you please provide a detailed breakdown of where you think this all adds up to HALF A MILLION QUID?
Without some sort of objective corroboration of your assertion it looks as though you are talking out of your arse.
And indeed such unfounded hyperbole could be construed as negative campaigning - something I think Hayes' supporters are charged with.

Undecided voters may well be put off voting at all by blatant lies by either side and a low turnout isn't going to help anyone.

[Van Driver]

With what I've picked up on here and thru my letter box all members got at least 3 circulars which looked like election stuff eg, CWU is 20 years old (do we need to be told that with an personal letter). I hear retireds got separate letters - with postage, printing, design etc I think it looks like HALF A MILLION QUID and he says he takes_'the members money seriously' - my backside he does!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Could you please provide a detailed breakdown of where you think this all adds up to HALF A MILLION QUID?
Without some sort of objective corroboration of your assertion it looks as though you are talking out of your arse.
And indeed such unfounded hyperbole could be construed as negative campaigning - something I think Hayes' supporters are charged with.

Undecided voters may well be put off voting at all by blatant lies by either side and a low turnout isn't going to help anyone.

I don't mind justifying wot I say - the abuse well that's easy on an anonymous site. As I said I think it looks like - this was on basis of another post saying it cost £100000 for a national mailing of 200,000 members. Perhaps a better breakdown might suggest I am not far away with wot I thought, Iv had at least 3 mailings as a workin member so that's 600000 members, for easy maths lets say the postage is 50p = £300000. I understand there were a at least 2 postings to retireds and others say 100000 x 50p = £50000. The envelopes and leaflets were of very high quality, but on a quick google for cheap costs - £25 for a 1000 for each that's £17500+£17500 = £35000. So far that's £300000 + £50000 + £35000 which totals = £385000 - I have no idea wot design, labour costs of stuffin envelopes as well as I hear lots of textin etc but I have little doubt this is all well over £400000. I think I have been generous with my estimates. Its clear this whole thing has cost the members a load of money and one thing I do not do is lie. I would like motherhubbard to accept I am not lyin or provide some alternative figures.

Apart from all this the point I was makin which was ignored was one of the candidates saying he cared about the members money. Regardless of all this I am voting in all elections and would suggest everyone does.