I agree with all of RM's proposals bar 1

[steve1873]

You are free to do as you feel is right. What you aren't free to do, is make spurious claims about democracy whilst acknowledging your own unwillingness to abide by a legitimate democratic process. Expect to be called out on it.

What have I achieved? On a personal level? Nothing of great significance if I am being honest.

However, I am proud to be part of a trade union that HAS achieved a number of things for a great many, not the least, in securing what Royal Mail themselves acknowledge are the best pay and terms & conditions within our industry.

[steve1873]

yawn. You sound like a broken record. I get it. You like saying social contract. Democratic mandate. Cool. Doesnt mean anything. Il do as i please thankyou very much. Maybe I will leave. Maybe alot of others will leave also based off your suggestions. Less money for the CWU in the long run. All this talk of solidarity but its nowhere to be seen any other time. Im alright jack. What is so hard for you to understand. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE UNIONS CURRENT POSITION SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING IT!

I'll probably get a yawn as well but hey ho, I am at least trying to understand your position. But in this post, you are saying you won't show solidarity because you haven't been shown it in the past. You are then perpetuating what you see, quite rightly, as an injustice.

I've been let down by the Union, I've voted against proposals that I saw as not benefiting all workers in my office, but it was carried anyway. I have also voted against national proposals that I didn't agree with. However, I firmly believe Solidarity is an acceptance of the will of the majority, you either accept it and its consequences or you don't. But certainly its unfair and selfish to say I won't show solidarity because I didn't get it the past, my nephews gave up the "its not fair" argument shortly after leaving their teens, that comment isn't meant as personal and please don't take it that way but that's how it strikes me.

You are putting words in my mouth and I think you know thats not what I meant. I was merely pointing out that this solidarity lark that is being spouted is all a hypocrisy. Im being quite the opposite you'll find, honest with my opinion and intentions all to be called a "Troll" and "vermin" Charming really. Its not lack of past solidarity that is my gripe. I just do not agree with the union pushing us to strike action over these proposals.

I haven't called you any such names and don't think you are a troll or vermin. I am not trying to understand your position with regards to Royal mail's proposal, you have made some good points and striking is risky there is no doubt, but I am trying to understand your position with regards to being a member of a union.
You say you disagree with the union leadership regarding this issue which is a completely personal issue. You must agree that whenever a dispute like this arises, there must be a vote to ascertain as to whether the membership agrees with the union leadership position regarding a dispute?
Then at the last second you say you'd disregard the views of the membership if it didn't coincide with yours.

I get that supporting a strike you didn't agree with, and that you believe will have long term damage to the business is a tough pill to swallow but have you considered that if there was a no vote, but the yes voters decided to strike against the democratic will of the majority, would that be okay?
Also, if a yes vote was undermined by strike breakers, aren't those people undermining the rest and putting their t&c's at risk because a broken strike could result in an emboldened business looking to cut costs further?

If yes voters decided to strike in the result of a no vote they wouldn't get far anyway. What little leverage they have would be greatly diminished by their few in numbers striking. Plus, Wild cat strikes do happen without a ballet. The reps are more than happy to undermine democracy on them. The ballot is a vote of confidence for the union to call upon its members to strike. They can call upon me as much as they like but if i believe what they are doing will be detrimental to the business and security of my job then I will not follow orders as I do not want them to succeed.

You talk about the risks of a broken strike but that is for the union to think long and hard about. Do they want to risk taking people down this road and like you say face an emboldened business. Well, unfortunately even with strike action I believe RM will win what ever a win will look like and it will embolden them massively. Its all If's and Buts and for every argument I hear you could easily flip it on its head.

Everything else I could add here I have already said a dozen times.

Can I ask you this. If part of the deal on the table was a 5% pay cut to all royal mail employees instead of the 1.5% rise, would your position be the same? All the same arguments you have made would apply as to risking the business etc....

Given the cuts to pension proposed, the deal on the table is massively more than a 5% pay cut, given that our pension is deferred wages in retirement.

[UrbanPirate]

You are free to do as you feel is right. What you aren't free to do, is make spurious claims about democracy whilst acknowledging your own unwillingness to abide by a legitimate democratic process. Expect to be called out on it.

What have I achieved? On a personal level? Nothing of great significance if I am being honest.

However, I am proud to be part of a trade union that HAS achieved a number of things for a great many, not the least, in securing what Royal Mail themselves acknowledge are the best pay and terms & conditions within our industry.

All you have done is succeeded in furthering the creation of the echo chamber the left find themselves trapped in by ostracising all that have an opposing view and opinion. Congrats.

[banner]

yawn. You sound like a broken record. I get it. You like saying social contract. Democratic mandate. Cool. Doesnt mean anything. Il do as i please thankyou very much. Maybe I will leave. Maybe alot of others will leave also based off your suggestions. Less money for the CWU in the long run. All this talk of solidarity but its nowhere to be seen any other time. Im alright jack. What is so hard for you to understand. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE UNIONS CURRENT POSITION SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING IT!

I'll probably get a yawn as well but hey ho, I am at least trying to understand your position. But in this post, you are saying you won't show solidarity because you haven't been shown it in the past. You are then perpetuating what you see, quite rightly, as an injustice.

I've been let down by the Union, I've voted against proposals that I saw as not benefiting all workers in my office, but it was carried anyway. I have also voted against national proposals that I didn't agree with. However, I firmly believe Solidarity is an acceptance of the will of the majority, you either accept it and its consequences or you don't. But certainly its unfair and selfish to say I won't show solidarity because I didn't get it the past, my nephews gave up the "its not fair" argument shortly after leaving their teens, that comment isn't meant as personal and please don't take it that way but that's how it strikes me.

You are putting words in my mouth and I think you know thats not what I meant. I was merely pointing out that this solidarity lark that is being spouted is all a hypocrisy. Im being quite the opposite you'll find, honest with my opinion and intentions all to be called a "Troll" and "vermin" Charming really. Its not lack of past solidarity that is my gripe. I just do not agree with the union pushing us to strike action over these proposals.

I haven't called you any such names and don't think you are a troll or vermin. I am not trying to understand your position with regards to Royal mail's proposal, you have made some good points and striking is risky there is no doubt, but I am trying to understand your position with regards to being a member of a union.
You say you disagree with the union leadership regarding this issue which is a completely personal issue. You must agree that whenever a dispute like this arises, there must be a vote to ascertain as to whether the membership agrees with the union leadership position regarding a dispute?
Then at the last second you say you'd disregard the views of the membership if it didn't coincide with yours.

I get that supporting a strike you didn't agree with, and that you believe will have long term damage to the business is a tough pill to swallow but have you considered that if there was a no vote, but the yes voters decided to strike against the democratic will of the majority, would that be okay?
Also, if a yes vote was undermined by strike breakers, aren't those people undermining the rest and putting their t&c's at risk because a broken strike could result in an emboldened business looking to cut costs further?

If yes voters decided to strike in the result of a no vote they wouldn't get far anyway. What little leverage they have would be greatly diminished by their few in numbers striking. Plus, Wild cat strikes do happen without a ballet. The reps are more than happy to undermine democracy on them. The ballot is a vote of confidence for the union to call upon its members to strike. They can call upon me as much as they like but if i believe what they are doing will be detrimental to the business and security of my job then I will not follow orders as I do not want them to succeed.

You talk about the risks of a broken strike but that is for the union to think long and hard about. Do they want to risk taking people down this road and like you say face an emboldened business. Well, unfortunately even with strike action I believe RM will win what ever a win will look like and it will embolden them massively. Its all If's and Buts and for every argument I hear you could easily flip it on its head.

Everything else I could add here I have already said a dozen times.

Can I ask you this. If part of the deal on the table was a 5% pay cut to all royal mail employees instead of the 1.5% rise, would your position be the same? All the same arguments you have made would apply as to risking the business etc....

Given the cuts to pension proposed, the deal on the table is massively more than a 5% pay cut, given that our pension is deferred wages in retirement.

Well yes but the point is I am trying to ascertain the rationality of his position, that being is there any point at which all the points he has made become invalid, about how lucky we are to have a job and how striking will ruin the job etc... Those arguments could be used to beat us to minimum wage and government minimum terms and conditions.

[steve1873]

yawn. You sound like a broken record. I get it. You like saying social contract. Democratic mandate. Cool. Doesnt mean anything. Il do as i please thankyou very much. Maybe I will leave. Maybe alot of others will leave also based off your suggestions. Less money for the CWU in the long run. All this talk of solidarity but its nowhere to be seen any other time. Im alright jack. What is so hard for you to understand. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE UNIONS CURRENT POSITION SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING IT!

I'll probably get a yawn as well but hey ho, I am at least trying to understand your position. But in this post, you are saying you won't show solidarity because you haven't been shown it in the past. You are then perpetuating what you see, quite rightly, as an injustice.

I've been let down by the Union, I've voted against proposals that I saw as not benefiting all workers in my office, but it was carried anyway. I have also voted against national proposals that I didn't agree with. However, I firmly believe Solidarity is an acceptance of the will of the majority, you either accept it and its consequences or you don't. But certainly its unfair and selfish to say I won't show solidarity because I didn't get it the past, my nephews gave up the "its not fair" argument shortly after leaving their teens, that comment isn't meant as personal and please don't take it that way but that's how it strikes me.

You are putting words in my mouth and I think you know thats not what I meant. I was merely pointing out that this solidarity lark that is being spouted is all a hypocrisy. Im being quite the opposite you'll find, honest with my opinion and intentions all to be called a "Troll" and "vermin" Charming really. Its not lack of past solidarity that is my gripe. I just do not agree with the union pushing us to strike action over these proposals.

I haven't called you any such names and don't think you are a troll or vermin. I am not trying to understand your position with regards to Royal mail's proposal, you have made some good points and striking is risky there is no doubt, but I am trying to understand your position with regards to being a member of a union.
You say you disagree with the union leadership regarding this issue which is a completely personal issue. You must agree that whenever a dispute like this arises, there must be a vote to ascertain as to whether the membership agrees with the union leadership position regarding a dispute?
Then at the last second you say you'd disregard the views of the membership if it didn't coincide with yours.

I get that supporting a strike you didn't agree with, and that you believe will have long term damage to the business is a tough pill to swallow but have you considered that if there was a no vote, but the yes voters decided to strike against the democratic will of the majority, would that be okay?
Also, if a yes vote was undermined by strike breakers, aren't those people undermining the rest and putting their t&c's at risk because a broken strike could result in an emboldened business looking to cut costs further?

If yes voters decided to strike in the result of a no vote they wouldn't get far anyway. What little leverage they have would be greatly diminished by their few in numbers striking. Plus, Wild cat strikes do happen without a ballet. The reps are more than happy to undermine democracy on them. The ballot is a vote of confidence for the union to call upon its members to strike. They can call upon me as much as they like but if i believe what they are doing will be detrimental to the business and security of my job then I will not follow orders as I do not want them to succeed.

You talk about the risks of a broken strike but that is for the union to think long and hard about. Do they want to risk taking people down this road and like you say face an emboldened business. Well, unfortunately even with strike action I believe RM will win what ever a win will look like and it will embolden them massively. Its all If's and Buts and for every argument I hear you could easily flip it on its head.

Everything else I could add here I have already said a dozen times.

Can I ask you this. If part of the deal on the table was a 5% pay cut to all royal mail employees instead of the 1.5% rise, would your position be the same? All the same arguments you have made would apply as to risking the business etc....

Given the cuts to pension proposed, the deal on the table is massively more than a 5% pay cut, given that our pension is deferred wages in retirement.

Well yes but the point is I am trying to ascertain the rationality of his position, that being is there any point at which all the points he has made become invalid, about how lucky we are to have a job and how striking will ruin the job etc... Those arguments could be used to beat us to minimum wage and government minimum terms and conditions.

All fair points. I just wanted to highlight the proposed pension issue is a massive cut to our wages in and of itself.

[Lounge Lizard]

That other 45% would be totally within their right to go in as they accept the proposals RM are offering. That is democracy. Not what is being spouted here.

That is the total opposite of democracy FFS!

Steve,
Yes, if 55% vote Conservative and 45% vote Labour in a General election then us 45% would be totally within our rights to not pay taxes to the Tory government as we don't like what they are offering.

Guys, just no. False analogy.


Your first mistake is thinking business is in any form Democratic. Its not.
Your second mistake is to think that the CWU have any legal basis to force me not to work. They do not.
Your third mistake is to think that I work for the CWU. Incorrect. I work for RM. RM works for its shareholders. Its shareholders want profits. Its RM who pays me, with those profits. Where as I pay the CWU to represent me! Perhaps not for long as the level of debate and intellect shown here by its members really does shine a light on it as an institution. Yeh they do some good, but they are also capable of doing damage. Which they will do now. Change averse, but businesses must change to maintain competitiveness.

People saying that people shouldn't be aloud the benefits the union get us if they don't support them. Well how about these same people should be the first to go if they do irreversible damage to the business due to this strike action? Sounds about right?

if 55% vote Conservative and 45% vote Labour in a General election then us 45% would be totally within our rights to not pay taxes to the Tory government as we don't like what they are offering.

You all need to get this analogy out of your heads because it doesn't compare.

A trades union is a team of workers that is more effective than however many individuals, the union leaders representing and acting on behalf of the workers.
If you were in a football team might we assume that, if you disagreed with him, you would often take no notice of the captain who is there for the benefit of all team members ?
And if that's another "false analogy" I'll come up with a different one.

You are correct. That is another false analogy. The captain in that scenario is more likely the DOM not the CWU. Try again...

No, not false as the captain is "primus inter pares" whereas the DOM is the manager.
If someone as self centred as you has actually found someone to settle down with is your version of family life your wife and children having to agree with you, and if they dare disagree being beaten to a pulp until they change their mind ?

What on earth are chatting!?

What sort of a question is "What on earth are chatting!?" ?

[UrbanPirate]

Sorry, My bad. I made a grammatical error. What on earth are YOU chatting!?" ?

[Lounge Lizard]

yawn. You sound like a broken record. I get it. You like saying social contract. Democratic mandate. Cool. Doesnt mean anything. Il do as i please thankyou very much. Maybe I will leave. Maybe alot of others will leave also based off your suggestions. Less money for the CWU in the long run. All this talk of solidarity but its nowhere to be seen any other time. Im alright jack. What is so hard for you to understand. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE UNIONS CURRENT POSITION SO I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING IT!

I'll probably get a yawn as well but hey ho, I am at least trying to understand your position. But in this post, you are saying you won't show solidarity because you haven't been shown it in the past. You are then perpetuating what you see, quite rightly, as an injustice.

I've been let down by the Union, I've voted against proposals that I saw as not benefiting all workers in my office, but it was carried anyway. I have also voted against national proposals that I didn't agree with. However, I firmly believe Solidarity is an acceptance of the will of the majority, you either accept it and its consequences or you don't. But certainly its unfair and selfish to say I won't show solidarity because I didn't get it the past, my nephews gave up the "its not fair" argument shortly after leaving their teens, that comment isn't meant as personal and please don't take it that way but that's how it strikes me.

You are putting words in my mouth and I think you know thats not what I meant. I was merely pointing out that this solidarity lark that is being spouted is all a hypocrisy. Im being quite the opposite you'll find, honest with my opinion and intentions all to be called a "Troll" and "vermin" Charming really. Its not lack of past solidarity that is my gripe. I just do not agree with the union pushing us to strike action over these proposals.

I haven't called you any such names and don't think you are a troll or vermin. I am not trying to understand your position with regards to Royal mail's proposal, you have made some good points and striking is risky there is no doubt, but I am trying to understand your position with regards to being a member of a union.
You say you disagree with the union leadership regarding this issue which is a completely personal issue. You must agree that whenever a dispute like this arises, there must be a vote to ascertain as to whether the membership agrees with the union leadership position regarding a dispute?
Then at the last second you say you'd disregard the views of the membership if it didn't coincide with yours.

I get that supporting a strike you didn't agree with, and that you believe will have long term damage to the business is a tough pill to swallow but have you considered that if there was a no vote, but the yes voters decided to strike against the democratic will of the majority, would that be okay?
Also, if a yes vote was undermined by strike breakers, aren't those people undermining the rest and putting their t&c's at risk because a broken strike could result in an emboldened business looking to cut costs further?

If yes voters decided to strike in the result of a no vote they wouldn't get far anyway. What little leverage they have would be greatly diminished by their few in numbers striking. Plus, Wild cat strikes do happen without a ballet. The reps are more than happy to undermine democracy on them. The ballot is a vote of confidence for the union to call upon its members to strike. They can call upon me as much as they like but if i believe what they are doing will be detrimental to the business and security of my job then I will not follow orders as I do not want them to succeed.

You talk about the risks of a broken strike but that is for the union to think long and hard about. Do they want to risk taking people down this road and like you say face an emboldened business. Well, unfortunately even with strike action I believe RM will win what ever a win will look like and it will embolden them massively. Its all If's and Buts and for every argument I hear you could easily flip it on its head.

Everything else I could add here I have already said a dozen times.

It's taken a long time but with "Wild cat strikes do happen without a ballet" you have eventually made a comment with which I can agree,
quite possibly your most sensible contribution to this forum yet.

[jetblack]

It'd be quite nice to be at the gate with D'arcy Bushell doing Swan Lake in the car park but.

[Martin Walsh]

In my opinion this union will next Tuesday announce the biggest yes vote it has achieved since workplace industrial action ballots were abolished in 1992. Senior Royal Manager are fearing the worst and openly saying their comms have been poor and they have totally misjudged the anger that their pension proposals , their pay offer and their pipelines have caused. In my 33 years of working for this company I have been in several disputes but never have I seen where the company have totally lost their workforce.

In modern day communications Royal Mail under the employee opinion survey , works Class Mail , one plan and my bundle have tried to win the hearts and minds of the workforce. They have failed missably and lost the confidence of the most important people in the business the front line staff. Additionally managers have also rejected their pension proposal in the consultation ballot.

Whilst there are some who believe that the business must be allowed to make the decisions and the union and staff should just simply obey, they are wrong.

Trade unions have shaped the post office job for over 100 years. Trade union officials in the early 1900s were sent to the workhouse if they were caught ! Over generations postal workers fought for better rights , we fought for pensions , widow pensions , annual leave , sick leave , over time , paid meal reliefs , overtime payments , shift payments , maternity leave , paternity leave , skills payments , SA payments , risk assement s , London Weighting , DRAS , christmas bonus , training allowance the list goes on. Either previous generations or us have fought for these and we have a duty too fight again if not for ourselves for future generations of postal workers.

Anyone who does not want too support the strike or the issues have that right but let's be clear when the ballot announcement is made next Tuesday the workers will have spoken and we should unite behind the collective force and fight for a better deal. Remember we are the many the no's will be the few !

Many postal workers are lifers we care about this industry and its future unlike some of senior Royal Mail leaders who can't to escape to pastures new.

Every strike we have ever had we have come out with a better deal than we started. Rise up and support the CWU and be proud to say that Royal Mail pension proposals are not good enough and it is them who want to remain having two schemes , the CWU want one . Reject Royal Mail's pipeline changes which is designed to run this company into the ground.

[tommyrep]

Well, UrbanPirate, you have certainly touched the nerves of many natives on the thread YOU perpetuated !
If it's not trolling, you are being extremely mischievous.
The response from fellow posters was to be expected and you have truly succeeded, well done you have got your wish!
The fact of the matter is, that working classes have throughout history strived for a fair crack of the whip. We have enough on our hands dealing with RM intimidation in our daily life without you assisting their unfair actions. Without unions to back workers, unscrupulous employers have always taken advantage through fear and intimidation.
When fellow colleagues read blatant undermining of their view of this unfair treatment planned by RM, the thread reaction was obvious.
You are your own man and have a right to express opinion. But, there is a fine line to be drawn.
During the miners strike, working miners were known to wave pay lines at striking miners, smoking cigars with a burning £5 note ! Those men are still remembered 30 years later and their poor families as well. Any strike action would be short lived by comparison to what the miners endured. What I mean is no matter how thick skinned you are, many would see it as the ultimate betrayal in not supporting the majority decision. Solidarity would be appreciated, even if your workmates view differs from yours. It's known as support !
Your view/stance of not supporting a large yes vote is shameful and trying to mock/ridicule colleagues who have a lot more conviction and principal than you have on a far reaching situation for all our futures with RM is unfortunate.
The thread has run its course now, do what you need to do and live with the decisions you make.

[borders]

[POSTMAN]

POSTMAN:

I don't want this thread locked as it's a very good thread from what I am reading.

But I am also reading in the site logs the amount of editing that Teebs has done in this thread!
That is not on as he wants to use the site as a user as well without having to baby sit!

Would appreciate if you had some respect for Teebs and his moderating to stop all hell breaking loose,the rules as well, and the fact you have somewhere to debate the issues in hand and the amount of info we provide for YOU on here.

Please don't reply to this post, no more off topics, please carry on.

[fishtank]

Democracy is having the freedom to do what you feel is right.

What you are describing is democratic individualism or radical egalitarianism, it's a fruit loop sect of "democracy" favoured by certain sections of redneck American society usually backed up with lots of guns. Civilised countries tend to lean more towards the kind of democracy that involves collective responsibility. Not just what you feel is right but what the majority feels is right.

You see the main problem with individualism is the level of hypocrisy and self- denial. The idea that someone in this country who has benefited from the democratic collective decisions and sacrifice of generations of people through free education, free health care and a high standard of living as well as improved working conditions could suddenly declare themselves free from the shackles of collective responsibility while sitting at a keyboard in a nice warm house is quite frankly ridiculous.

Democracy is the freedom to make a noise, you've made yours but the majority doesn't think much of it. Have the decency to consider that you might just be the one that's tone deaf.

[UrbanPirate]

I shall return to this thread after its all said and done. I suspect this solidarity being spoken of will soon go out the door when you stiff over the new joiners, like been done before, so you can protect yourselves. Rank Hypocrisy.

Anyone would think you lot were fighting apartheid or civil rights with the rhetoric being spouted ere. Its the 21st century not the 70s/80s. Do catch up or you will be left behind.

To the fellas chatting about burning Fivers and Gone toting Americans. What? Have you lost the plot? and as for the veiled threat of being remembered as a strike breaker. That I will be the few and you the many. Just more mob rule outdated nasty attitudes.

There is literally nothing more to add to this debate. I get it, you think im some form of anti democratic facist because I don't support you as I am quite happy to except the changes we are facing.