The deal

[krooserman1802]

At the risk of being lambasted for this view, I thought feck it and I would start the topic anyway.

We are all slating the deal and what crap it appears to be at the moment, but do we also have to look at ourselves for this situation as well. Could it not be that the negotiators position was comprimised by some branches not sticking to the script and towing the line? We all understand our hatred and anger at executive action, but we all knew RM was going to pull that crap sometime, maybe because they could not allow the rolling strikes to restart. That was where we were hurting them. They had no idea what to do to deal with that scenario again.
Unfortunately, and not knocking them cos we are all activists and we feel strongly about our cause, but could it have been the unnofficial action that started to kick off, that made Billy and Dave's position dodgy as we wanted to stay legal. Staying legal meant we had control and discipline and we could have, maybe got a better deal than they were rushed into getting.

We, as reps, have all been in positions where the situation has quickly got out of hand and we have had to make decisions that try to put us back on top, noty saying that is the case here, but it is something we should think about.


Right....now let me have it....lol

[mdtomuk]

Hey, your quite right actually. Feelings have been running so high in this dispute, we are all so angry about the disgusting way we have been treated. AND we have been up against Leighton and Croziers friends in the 'Establishment' who carry so much weight and power. Our Union leaders have only had help and good wishes from Labour backbenchers, nothing from the Leadership of the party that I voted in.

Like you I'm sure - Only one side of this dispute has shown any respect and consideration, and it ain't RM!

:cfo :lfo

[BELIAL]

Chicken and egg a bit . Perhaps the UA was partly the result of weak leadership, piss poor communication, a feeling of fear and powerlessness resulting from the previous; very poor unprofessional planning regarding failures to lock down legally strike action; generally slow response times to events and afailure to anticipate and pre plan for RM tactics.
On the whole will go down as a classic textbook case of how to take overwhelming support for action and convert it to total and abject defeat

[davidessex]

i think the action we were taking was having a significant effect, unfortunately it was not enough for the " militants" who ignored the actions we were directed to take by our leaders. once again, if it,s not in their agenda. it,s not good enough for them. they then go on to form their own action group ( unofficial action) and split the cwu three ways 1) poeople taking official action even though some of them didn,t vote for it. 2) strike breakers, 3) people taking unofficial action. rm will surely have noted this with glee, the cwu will have noted it with resignation. the deal, in my opinion, reflects this. i am very pleased that the DO i work in supported the strike action 100% on all days even though we were very split when it was voted for. we also caused major disruption in our area by doing our jobs properly as a unit. my point is that once a vote has taken place we must act as one and not be divided because you didn,t get your way. i have read the deal twice, and i have no idea what it means. it can be interpreted whichever way you look at it as two different deals, one in the eyes of rm and the other the cwu version. i think we should all be preparing for a no vote. be aware of reassurances from cwu or rm that are not clearly put in print. if it is a no vote have the stomach for the difficult time ahead. if it is a yes vote be prepared for an even more difficult time ahead.

ps took note of request not to use capitals, now i can,t see what i have written!!!

[tenpole tudorsack]

There have been some absolute "howlers" from our leaders (the CWU) in the planning of this campaign, take for example the embarassment of being handcuffed by the high court and being stopped from further strike action. But I don't put it all down to the CWU crapping themselves because of wildcat strikes. They could certainly plead that MOST of the members were towing the official line in the strike and it would be a very unsympathetic judge that would overule those percentages when analysed. I DO NOT ACCEPT THAT MESSRS HAYES/WARD HAVE BEEN CORNERED INTO ACCEPTING A DEAL IN ANY FORM OF HURRIED MANNER DUE TO WILDCAT ACTIVITY. Please don't use that as an excuse for a bad deal

[semacsorter]

We can all play the blame game as to who or why but it seems that OUR leadership just didnt have the bottle or stamina to follow it all through. No i'm not a millitant and personaly think from the agreement we all wasted time and money getting where we were 6 months ago. Billy and Dave have at the best shown themselves to be inept and unable to negotiate at the level they were asked this was then carried by a split exec commitee who should of stood up to them. now they want to stand there and say " it's not my fault guv it was him " basiccally they should have the courage to stand up and say "we bottled it " and then throw themselves on their swords ( resignation is too good ) adding my union subs to my pay rise then at least gives me a couple of quid a week extra !!

[pat41]

On the High Court injunction - I was at a meeting about the Trade Union Freedom Bill where John Hendy (the barrister who represented the CWU in the High Court) set out why the injunction was granted. He indicated that the injunction was granted because of the total number of different grades being taken out on strike was not included, even though the union provided all of the information on the workplaces that would be affected, the grades in each of those workplaces (some 80,000 members) and even though the total number of grades that would be on strike was obvious to anyone with a calculator (or for that matter, an abacus!) from the information that was included.

What John Hendy was pointing out, is that the legislation governing ballots is so restrictive as to be nonsensical, and the point I am trying to make is that all trade unions are handicapped by the legislation in question, as unions are required to jump through hoops whilst juggling elephants!!

This cannot be blamed on Billy, Dave or the PEC - put the blame for this where it lives, which is with an allegedly Labour government who have not had the political will to repeal anti trade union laws brought in during the Thatcher years.

[strangler]

i think the action we were taking was having a significant effect, unfortunately it was not enough for the " militants" who ignored the actions we were directed to take by our leaders. once again, if it,s not in their agenda. it,s not good enough for them. they then go on to form their own action group ( unofficial action) and split the cwu three ways 1) poeople taking official action even though some of them didn,t vote for it. 2) strike breakers, 3) people taking unofficial action. rm will surely have noted this with glee, the cwu will have noted it with resignation. the deal, in my opinion, reflects this. i am very pleased that the DO i work in supported the strike action 100% on all days even though we were very split when it was voted for. we also caused major disruption in our area by doing our jobs properly as a unit. my point is that once a vote has taken place we must act as one and not be divided because you didn,t get your way. i have read the deal twice, and i have no idea what it means. it can be interpreted whichever way you look at it as two different deals, one in the eyes of rm and the other the cwu version. i think we should all be preparing for a no vote. be aware of reassurances from cwu or rm that are not clearly put in print. if it is a no vote have the stomach for the difficult time ahead. if it is a yes vote be prepared for an even more difficult time ahead.

ps took note of request not to use capitals, now i can,t see what i have written!!!

Good post.

[strangler]

At the risk of being lambasted for this view, I thought feck it and I would start the topic anyway.

We are all slating the deal and what crap it appears to be at the moment, but do we also have to look at ourselves for this situation as well. Could it not be that the negotiators position was comprimised by some branches not sticking to the script and towing the line? We all understand our hatred and anger at executive action, but we all knew RM was going to pull that crap sometime, maybe because they could not allow the rolling strikes to restart. That was where we were hurting them. They had no idea what to do to deal with that scenario again.
Unfortunately, and not knocking them cos we are all activists and we feel strongly about our cause, but could it have been the unnofficial action that started to kick off, that made Billy and Dave's position dodgy as we wanted to stay legal. Staying legal meant we had control and discipline and we could have, maybe got a better deal than they were rushed into getting.

We, as reps, have all been in positions where the situation has quickly got out of hand and we have had to make decisions that try to put us back on top, noty saying that is the case here, but it is something we should think about.


Right....now let me have it....lol

You have a point, difficult to tell really but worth thinking about.

[davidessex]

was the total number of grades to difficult to calculate, also can someone have it ready for the day after the ballot result?

[tenpole tudorsack]

On the High Court injunction - I was at a meeting about the Trade Union Freedom Bill where John Hendy (the barrister who represented the CWU in the High Court) set out why the injunction was granted. He indicated that the injunction was granted because of the total number of different grades being taken out on strike was not included, even though the union provided all of the information on the workplaces that would be affected, the grades in each of those workplaces (some 80,000 members) and even though the total number of grades that would be on strike was obvious to anyone with a calculator (or for that matter, an abacus!) from the information that was included.

What John Hendy was pointing out, is that the legislation governing ballots is so restrictive as to be nonsensical, and the point I am trying to make is that all trade unions are handicapped by the legislation in question, as unions are required to jump through hoops whilst juggling elephants!!

This cannot be blamed on Billy, Dave or the PEC - put the blame for this where it lives, which is with an allegedly Labour government who have not had the political will to repeal anti trade union laws brought in during the Thatcher years.

In courts of law, the jury are not allowed to have an unclear decision in cases...why did the PEC go to Royal Mail bearing the scars of a 9 to 5 vote in favour of this deal? it signals disorganisation and lack of solidarity to RM