dave ward billy hayes.. tossers not leaders.. what about fighters like n candy .j farnan... give them the top jobs...
sorry bob have heard you where a good guy.
ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (Updated 2021)... HERE
ANNOUNCEMENT : PLEASE BE AWARE WE ARE NOT ON FACEBOOK AT ALL!
2008 CWU National officers Elections
-
marky
- Posts: 402
- Joined: 18 May 2007, 23:41
- Gender: Male
- Location: could be barred
-
gspot01
- Posts: 148
- Joined: 04 Jun 2007, 08:29
must go
Dont know who it was that promised RM that we would stop striking if they came to table, but in my opinion that person or persons are entirely to blame for the situation we are in now. We had them by the balls and let them go.
This union needs stronger people at the top to continue this fight, and they must realize the strength they have pushing below them. Changes need to happen now.
VOTE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
This union needs stronger people at the top to continue this fight, and they must realize the strength they have pushing below them. Changes need to happen now.
VOTE NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
-
Tread
- Posts: 44
- Joined: 11 Oct 2007, 09:11
Some better voices than me here have suggested we need to change the way the union is run after all the union works for us not the other way around.
As for Christmas no one in thier right mind is going to vote this crap in those that do are obviousely care in the cummunity cases, the problem that I see is weather the union acts quick enough to get us out at Christmas.
As for Christmas no one in thier right mind is going to vote this crap in those that do are obviousely care in the cummunity cases, the problem that I see is weather the union acts quick enough to get us out at Christmas.
Though I'm not to hard the sight of my card makes me some kinda Superman.
Still Proud to be a member of South East No.5 Branch
Still Proud to be a member of South East No.5 Branch
-
gspot01
- Posts: 148
- Joined: 04 Jun 2007, 08:29
out at christmas
I still think an overtime ban.
Do the job properly
Streamline as much as you can
I think this is the way forward now and i think if done properly 100% across the board, would hit them as hard as strike action.
:cfo :lfo
Do the job properly
Streamline as much as you can
I think this is the way forward now and i think if done properly 100% across the board, would hit them as hard as strike action.
:cfo :lfo
-
TrueBlueTerrier
- FORUM ADMINISTRATOR
- Posts: 72700
- Joined: 30 Dec 2006, 10:29
- Gender: Male
- Location: On my couch
Re: out at christmas
I agree I think it would be a PR disaster if the Union brought us out for Christmas. AL/AC would call us Scrooges and it would stick.gspot01 wrote:I still think an overtime ban.
Do the job properly
Streamline as much as you can
I think this is the way forward now and i think if done properly 100% across the board, would hit them as hard as strike action.
:cfo :lfo
All post by me in Green are Admin Posts.
Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility.
If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link
My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility.
If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link
My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
-
dvbuk55
- EX ROYAL MAIL
- Posts: 16650
- Joined: 02 Jun 2007, 19:17
- Gender: Male
Re: out at christmas
You mean another "Do the Job Properly" campaign - pretty much like the last two? Bigger flops than Hearsay.TrueBlueTerrier wrote:I agree I think it would be a PR disaster if the Union brought us out for Christmas. AL/AC would call us Scrooges and it would stick.gspot01 wrote:I still think an overtime ban.
Do the job properly
Streamline as much as you can
I think this is the way forward now and i think if done properly 100% across the board, would hit them as hard as strike action.
:cfo :lfo
-
yorkie
- Posts: 141
- Joined: 20 May 2007, 10:34
-
yorkie
- Posts: 141
- Joined: 20 May 2007, 10:34
-
jemima
- Posts: 272
- Joined: 11 Sep 2007, 10:52
- Location: Cantre'r Gwaelod
Perhaps we could use the money that is now not going to be given to the Liebour Party to make some web-tv for the elections? Debates on the questions of the day etc, so we know who's good at talking and getting their point across? Would the CWU membership watch it? Ideally it should be shown on those plasma screens but RM might not play along with that idea.
Or, we could pay for someone to have lessons in power negotiating. There are lots of ways of getting people to do what you want. They can be learnt.
Let's be constructive. We can change things if we want to.
Or, we could pay for someone to have lessons in power negotiating. There are lots of ways of getting people to do what you want. They can be learnt.
Let's be constructive. We can change things if we want to.
-
dongash
- Posts: 341
- Joined: 25 May 2007, 14:11
- Location: Macclesfield, Cheshire
-
marky
- Posts: 402
- Joined: 18 May 2007, 23:41
- Gender: Male
- Location: could be barred
-
gunner
- Posts: 13
- Joined: 02 Apr 2007, 17:10
as soon as there is a proposed agreement that a lot of members dont like its like a witch hunt
we all voted dave ward and all the officers and pec in
some people believe that dave was voted for to get rid of john keggie following the way forward
slagging of the deal wont help anybody
slaging of the negotiators wont help anybody
if the vote goes down then it would be more constructive to tell your branch exactly what you dont like
and ensure that they attend any national briefing after the vote to put your views across
this will give the negotiators more direction and a fresh mandate for action
there is too much negativity since the proposal
it is not the end of the world to have a deal rejected
it has happened before and it will happen again
if the deal gets accepted then we will have to work hard to make it work for us
and stop management missusing it and mis-interperating it
just stop being negative
it is divisive and will not help anything
glad i got that off my chest
we all voted dave ward and all the officers and pec in
some people believe that dave was voted for to get rid of john keggie following the way forward
slagging of the deal wont help anybody
slaging of the negotiators wont help anybody
if the vote goes down then it would be more constructive to tell your branch exactly what you dont like
and ensure that they attend any national briefing after the vote to put your views across
this will give the negotiators more direction and a fresh mandate for action
there is too much negativity since the proposal
it is not the end of the world to have a deal rejected
it has happened before and it will happen again
if the deal gets accepted then we will have to work hard to make it work for us
and stop management missusing it and mis-interperating it
just stop being negative
it is divisive and will not help anything
glad i got that off my chest
-
gspot01
- Posts: 148
- Joined: 04 Jun 2007, 08:29
out
Good post Gunner,
you may be right that we have not shown the amount of dissent that we feel to make the executive push harder for the best deal they can get.
But the one thing i dont agree with is that i didnt think we had to. I actually thought these guys were voted in because they were tried and tested for toughness. I think that in order for them to ratify this deal then someone slipped in the back door and replaced these hardmen with telly tubbies.
I have been a union man my whole life, involved with different unions and have never seen any union agree to call off strike action in order to talk to the management, you stop when you win.
I also have never heard of the situation we had after the second meeting. Big announcement " we have come to a deal" then they sat round a table for a further week haggling it all out, surely that all has to be dealt with before you announce a deal.
Thirdly, when I look at this proposed deal I see exactly the opposite to what I was fighting for, remember the CWU headlines
No to later starts
No to summer lapsing
No to flexibility
No to extra D to D
Going on too long, everything on the sheet was no because it was being imposed with no payments.
Now it would seem that everything on the no sheet is now included in the yes sheet and for what. Total loss of all our conditions for a pay rise. The whole point of this fight was not to come out of it with more money but to protect those conditions.
I want someone at the top fighting in the middle of the ring and not slumped in the corner. Time for change.
you may be right that we have not shown the amount of dissent that we feel to make the executive push harder for the best deal they can get.
But the one thing i dont agree with is that i didnt think we had to. I actually thought these guys were voted in because they were tried and tested for toughness. I think that in order for them to ratify this deal then someone slipped in the back door and replaced these hardmen with telly tubbies.
I have been a union man my whole life, involved with different unions and have never seen any union agree to call off strike action in order to talk to the management, you stop when you win.
I also have never heard of the situation we had after the second meeting. Big announcement " we have come to a deal" then they sat round a table for a further week haggling it all out, surely that all has to be dealt with before you announce a deal.
Thirdly, when I look at this proposed deal I see exactly the opposite to what I was fighting for, remember the CWU headlines
No to later starts
No to summer lapsing
No to flexibility
No to extra D to D
Going on too long, everything on the sheet was no because it was being imposed with no payments.
Now it would seem that everything on the no sheet is now included in the yes sheet and for what. Total loss of all our conditions for a pay rise. The whole point of this fight was not to come out of it with more money but to protect those conditions.
I want someone at the top fighting in the middle of the ring and not slumped in the corner. Time for change.
-
bigsharkboy
- Posts: 681
- Joined: 07 Jun 2007, 22:33
- Location: north devon
totally agree with above i second thatgunner wrote:as soon as there is a proposed agreement that a lot of members dont like its like a witch hunt
we all voted dave ward and all the officers and pec in
some people believe that dave was voted for to get rid of john keggie following the way forward
slagging of the deal wont help anybody
slaging of the negotiators wont help anybody
if the vote goes down then it would be more constructive to tell your branch exactly what you dont like
and ensure that they attend any national briefing after the vote to put your views across
this will give the negotiators more direction and a fresh mandate for action
there is too much negativity since the proposal
it is not the end of the world to have a deal rejected
it has happened before and it will happen again
if the deal gets accepted then we will have to work hard to make it work for us
and stop management missusing it and mis-interperating it
just stop being negative
it is divisive and will not help anything
glad i got that off my chest
postman delivery rural driver devon workplace cwu rep
my bite is worse than my bark
my bite is worse than my bark
-
dvbuk55
- EX ROYAL MAIL
- Posts: 16650
- Joined: 02 Jun 2007, 19:17
- Gender: Male
Re: out
Yes! Remember Maggie - "This ladys' not for turning" and she didn't.gspot01 wrote:Good post Gunner,
you may be right that we have not shown the amount of dissent that we feel to make the executive push harder for the best deal they can get.
But the one thing i dont agree with is that i didnt think we had to. I actually thought these guys were voted in because they were tried and tested for toughness. I think that in order for them to ratify this deal then someone slipped in the back door and replaced these hardmen with telly tubbies.
I have been a union man my whole life, involved with different unions and have never seen any union agree to call off strike action in order to talk to the management, you stop when you win.
I also have never heard of the situation we had after the second meeting. Big announcement " we have come to a deal" then they sat round a table for a further week haggling it all out, surely that all has to be dealt with before you announce a deal.
Thirdly, when I look at this proposed deal I see exactly the opposite to what I was fighting for, remember the CWU headlines
No to later starts
No to summer lapsing
No to flexibility
No to extra D to D
Going on too long, everything on the sheet was no because it was being imposed with no payments.
Now it would seem that everything on the no sheet is now included in the yes sheet and for what. Total loss of all our conditions for a pay rise. The whole point of this fight was not to come out of it with more money but to protect those conditions.
I want someone at the top fighting in the middle of the ring and not slumped in the corner. Time for change.
Now we get to the CWU Leadership - "These boys are not for turning but we can be persuaded, cajoled, fooled and agree to anything as long as we remain in the game".