PEC REPORT

[lovejoy]

The Deal goes out to Ballot

October 2007 Executive Council Report

Pay & Conditions

The past month has been quite a roller coaster. We started off with two 48-hour strikes and ended up with a draft agreement passed by the postal Executive to go out to a ballot of the members, having passed most other points in between. The support for the strikes was magnificent, with some areas showing even more out than on previous strike days. This forced management back to the negotiating table whilst the action was still going on, an almost unprecedented event and Dave Ward and Billy Hayes came back to the Pec with a draft agreement. This was accompanied by a letter from TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber stating that this draft was not open to further amendment. The Pec, however, decided that the draft was inadequate in a number of areas, the main one being the imposition of later starts in delivery. We were also clear that there was no chance of us agreeing any deal so long as management were ploughing ahead with executive action and imposing sanctions on reps involved with unofficial action.

We sent Dave and Billy back to achieve the changes we were asking for and they came back with a further draft. This contained a substantially reworded section on later starts that kept the Saturday as it was before the executive action and allowed local Units to resolve all the other outstanding issues. It retained the early shift allowance for those who moved their duty times from May 2005 as opposed to January 2006 and contained further minor amendments that strengthened the section on flexibility. The PEC voted to endorse the agreement in principle but only on the condition that management withdrew their executive action and the sanctions against Reps. When we reconvened last Monday, a Joint Statement had been drawn up which withdrew all executive action from October 24 and put all Reps back on facilities. On that basis, we agreed for the deal to go out to a ballot of the members.

It’s no secret that the vote to endorse the agreement wasn’t unanimous. The main issues of concern were the pension proposals, flexibility and the productivity deal. It has to be said that if we were voting for this deal in a vacuum, then you would probably vote against. But we’re not. On the one hand we’re dealing with a company that’s getting slaughtered by the unfair rules of competition and that has to pay nearly £600 million a year to keep the pension fund going. A company that has a vision of a privatised, purely profit making future and doesn’t want our Union to be part of that. On the other, we have already taken 8 days of strike action amounting to over 1 million days.

I was clear that if any agreement didn’t deal adequately with the later starts and executive action then I would vote against. Once these were sorted, my view on the other issues was were they crucial enough to keep the dispute going, what further action would we need to take and what were our chances of winning? There is little doubt that the membership feel strongly enough about flexibility and pensions to keep the dispute going. On flexibility we could have watered down the agreement even further than it has been by taking more strike action. But does anyone think that this issue would have gone away? The only way to really deal with it is to take it into our own hands and deal with it in a way that benefits us. The agreement allows us to do this if we’re strong enough. On pensions, assuming that keeping the status quo was our aim, then no amount of strike action would achieve this. This was the one issue that management simply couldn’t afford to give into. Even if we’d been able to put it off this year, then it would have hung over us every time we went to management for something for years to come. As a Union, we needed to deal with this ourselves and if there are any alternatives to what has been put forward then we haven’t heard them yet.

Royal Mail have now started their 60-day consultation period on the pension changes. The PEC have endorsed a joint statement to go out with this and we are committed to a ballot of all our members in the pension scheme on the final outcome. What we have NOT decided on is how we will recommend our members to vote on this. That’s because we are still looking for changes to the scheme management have proposed, especially in regard to new starters. There is also the possibility that during the 60 days new ideas might come up that we would want to push. At this stage we’re not in a position to say what the final proposals will look like.

I voted to endorse the draft on the basis that it moved us a long way from where we started from in March, dealt adequately with most of the issues we were in dispute over and defeated management’s attempt to force the Union out of the workplace. Although there are many issues that we still have to deal with, I didn’t think that we would make any further significant gains at the present time and to prolong the dispute would have risked damaging the strength of the Union and our ability to deal with these in the future.

The draft will now go out to ballot and the members will decide. There will no doubt be a campaign to reject. If this deals with the issues and explains in an honest way how we could get a better deal, what this would look like, what it would involve in terms of further action and what chance we have of winning, then it will strengthen us as a Union. If it is just a case of shouting “sell outâ€

[IWW Fellow Worker]

Bloody hell Pete! At least you have the honesty to say you put your name to it though.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Well reading between the lines the PEC have agreed to this on a Political basis- ie their survival. But IMHO its still a bad deal for the posties on the ground and in Mail Centres.

[sol]

"As a result of the action we’ve taken, we will never have a better opportunity to gain the commitment from the Labour Party and, hopefully, a future Labour Government, to a future that secures the continued existence of Royal Mail as a public service and the jobs and conditions of our members that goes with that."

Hasn't he noticed they are privatising your work? The jobs and conditions of members are being attacked because of liberalisation which the government is enthusiastic about.

Pete K seems to be living on the same planet as Billy Hayes!

[IWW Fellow Worker]

"As a result of the action we’ve taken, we will never have a better opportunity to gain the commitment from the Labour Party and, hopefully, a future Labour Government, to a future that secures the continued existence of Royal Mail as a public service and the jobs and conditions of our members that goes with that."

Hasn't he noticed they are privatising your work? The jobs and conditions of members are being attacked because of liberalisation which the government is enthusiastic about.

Pete K seems to be living on the same planet as Billy Hayes!

I like Pete, but this fascination he has with the Labour Party (of which Leighton is a member and which appointed him and his accomplice Crozier) is senseless.

[Post Off]

We asked them if they had placed an order any of the machines yet and for an indication of where they intended to put them. We were told that although they had a preferred supplier, Solystic, no decision had yet been taken by the Royal Mail board on whether they wanted to buy any more machines or not. This is both incredible and worrying. Incredible because the trials have been going on for over a year and walk sequencing was supposed to be the future. Makes you wonder what exactly RM have spent the money the Government lent them for modernisation on. Worrying because it could mean that some on the board don’t see the future of RM in processing at all. This is something we will need to keep a close eye on.

Err, tell me that RM really do have a modernisation plan, and this hasn't just been one almighty smokescreen to dismantle the union?

[mailjock]

Pete Keenlyside in living in cloud cuckoo land.

The motion he moved at PEC states: 'This Committee calls on the General Secretary to prepare a document outlining the strategy necessary to advance CWU policies on the future of the Postal Service in the run-up to the General Election and to ensure that this issue becomes an election issue. This document should be presented to either the next meeting of the PFMC or to a special meeting if this can be held sooner.

As a result of the action we’ve taken, we will never have a better opportunity to gain the commitment from the Labour Party and, hopefully, a future Labour Government, to a future that secures the continued existence of Royal Mail as a public service and the jobs and conditions of our members that goes with that.'

Waken up and smell the coffee Pete - your uselss motion isn't even fit to be used for loo roll. The only thing the LP will take notice of is if we threaten to stop the political levy unless they help defend working people. In case you've forgotten Pete - on 10 October at PM Question Time, Gordon Brown stated with regard to our strike to retain our conditions and the public service: 'There is no justification for the continuation of the dispute. It should be brought to an end on the terms that have been offered as soon as possible. I urge the work force to go back to work.'

OK so the terms we have to vote on are slightly better apparently than what Brown told us to accept but only a fool can believe the LP has any interest in RM as a public service or in our terms and conditions or will do anything to protect these interests.

[lovejoy]

Pete Keenlyside in living in cloud cuckoo land.

The motion he moved at PEC states: 'This Committee calls on the General Secretary to prepare a document outlining the strategy necessary to advance CWU policies on the future of the Postal Service in the run-up to the General Election and to ensure that this issue becomes an election issue. This document should be presented to either the next meeting of the PFMC or to a special meeting if this can be held sooner.

As a result of the action we’ve taken, we will never have a better opportunity to gain the commitment from the Labour Party and, hopefully, a future Labour Government, to a future that secures the continued existence of Royal Mail as a public service and the jobs and conditions of our members that goes with that.'

Waken up and smell the coffee Pete - your uselss motion isn't even fit to be used for loo roll. The only thing the LP will take notice of is if we threaten to stop the political levy unless they help defend working people. In case you've forgotten Pete - on 10 October at PM Question Time, Gordon Brown stated with regard to our strike to retain our conditions and the public service: 'There is no justification for the continuation of the dispute. It should be brought to an end on the terms that have been offered as soon as possible. I urge the work force to go back to work.'

OK so the terms we have to vote on are slightly better apparently than what Brown told us to accept but only a fool can believe the LP has any interest in RM as a public service or in our terms and conditions or will do anything to protect these interests.

I agree with that post 100% with regards to Labour

Sadly we cannot withdraw from fund without Conference decision

If I were Billy Hayes though i'd show some leadership and suspend all funds until the 2008 Conference. That way if Conference decides to withdraw then he would have made the right decision

In the event (very unlikely) that conference vote to stay in Labour party we can simply pay back the funds

This would at least show the members that the national officials were as disgusted as us by the role of the Government during this dispute and even throughout their whole period in office

[dvbuk55]

Pete Keenlyside in living in cloud cuckoo land.

The motion he moved at PEC states: 'This Committee calls on the General Secretary to prepare a document outlining the strategy necessary to advance CWU policies on the future of the Postal Service in the run-up to the General Election and to ensure that this issue becomes an election issue. This document should be presented to either the next meeting of the PFMC or to a special meeting if this can be held sooner.

As a result of the action we’ve taken, we will never have a better opportunity to gain the commitment from the Labour Party and, hopefully, a future Labour Government, to a future that secures the continued existence of Royal Mail as a public service and the jobs and conditions of our members that goes with that.'

Waken up and smell the coffee Pete - your uselss motion isn't even fit to be used for loo roll. The only thing the LP will take notice of is if we threaten to stop the political levy unless they help defend working people. In case you've forgotten Pete - on 10 October at PM Question Time, Gordon Brown stated with regard to our strike to retain our conditions and the public service: 'There is no justification for the continuation of the dispute. It should be brought to an end on the terms that have been offered as soon as possible. I urge the work force to go back to work.'

OK so the terms we have to vote on are slightly better apparently than what Brown told us to accept but only a fool can believe the LP has any interest in RM as a public service or in our terms and conditions or will do anything to protect these interests.

I agree with that post 100% with regards to Labour

Sadly we cannot withdraw from fund without Conference decision

If I were Billy Hayes though i'd show some leadership and suspend all funds until the 2008 Conference. That way if Conference decides to withdraw then he would have made the right decision

In the event (very unlikely) that conference vote to stay in Labour party we can simply pay back the funds

This would at least show the members that the national officials were as disgusted as us by the role of the Government during this dispute and even throughout their whole period in office

BUT they aren't disgusted are they? They have carried out this campaign in the guise of leading the union whilst actually supporting a Government that has done nothing to support us. Despite the fact that there are MPs and Ministers who have accepted our sponsorship and support within this Government who have been conspicuous in their total lack of support for the CWU.

It is a sorry state of affairs when you pay someone to do a job who not only fails to do that job but actively works against the best interests of the client.

[mailjock]

Lovejoy - Good idea about withholding the levy until the conference decision but I'm afraid that I am now extremely jaundiced about the leadership of this union taking any action which might affect their chances of a Parliamentary Seat or getting their snout in the Quango gravy-train trough or, heaven forbid, a seat in The Lords.

I reckon we were within a fortnight of forcing RM to cut the crap and actually hold meaningful negotiations about where this business should be going and how to get there - we all know that some things have got to change if we are to survive the competition but is shouldn't be a one-way street with RM customers and lower-paid staff always expected to pay the penalties.

Maybe we could have forced RM to tell us exactly what the Government want RM turned into - let's not think for one minute that Leighton is solely responsible for the privatisation master plan. This has been in position for a while and probably driven by Brown when he was Chancellor because of the billions in revenue that could be raised by the sell-off of a slimmed-down, casualised, non-union RM, would bring to his exchequer.

Does anyone believe that Postcomm would be pursuing such a vicous vendetta against this company unless it had the green light from its political master, Bottler Brown?

He should be grateful to us for preventing a General Election being called because of our industrial action because he would have lost it. And what do we get except cr*p about accepting HIS terms and get back to work - when I think of the years of my life I spent working for the return of a Labour Government I could weep at the betrayal that Blair and now Brown are guilty of.

[goinpostal]

I agree with that post 100% with regards to Labour

Sadly we cannot withdraw from fund without Conference decision

If I were Billy Hayes though i'd show some leadership and suspend all funds until the 2008 Conference. That way if Conference decides to withdraw then he would have made the right decision

Very unlikely Billy "i wanna be an MP" Hayes will do anything of the sort! We ought to at next conference though, and build a new workers party, we can't just fight for ourselves, the unions represent the working class having acheived a certain level of organisation, and those that are organised should fight to organise the rest. That means a party.

I put a resolution to our last AGM that the local bureaucrats got thrown out, though it was perfectly allowable under union rules. local branches don't have to fund the local labour party or its candidates, they simpley dont get the refund of their national political fund contriubtions if they don't. If a groundswell of branches did that then the national affiliation would collapse.

Pete Keanleyside is coming to leeds tomorow to lecture us on why we should vote yes, thanks to whoever putthat post up! What a miserable bunch the "labour left" are, rotten to the core.

[left739]

The Deal goes out to Ballot

<snip>
October 2007 Executive Council Report

Pete Keenlyside
Postal Executive
1 November 2007

Thanks for posting this Lovejoy. It helps make sense of a question that has been puzzling me.

I have been trying to understand why union types like those in my area - East London area - to their credit organized unofficial action (if not for as long as Liverpool) are now getting behind what even they admit is a pretty bad deal. Some of their arguments are like those this Pete is making and that you have made on other threads. This assessment by Pete K. gives some insight into how some of the members of the higher union ranks think. At the same time it shows the limits of such union thinking for a real fight and the bad effect that such thinking has even on the lower level union reps.

“The support for the strikes was magnificent, with some areas showing even more out than on previous strike days. This forced management back to the negotiating table whilst the action was still going on, an almost unprecedented event and Dave Ward and Billy Hayes came back to the PEC with a draft agreement.â€

[dvbuk55]

Pete Keanleyside is coming to leeds tomorow to lecture us on why we should vote yes, thanks to whoever put that post up! What a miserable bunch the "labour left" are, rotten to the core.

Aren't you the lucky ones! How many times before tomorrow have you seen a member of the PEC visit you? I thought it was a bit odd that we hadn't had the ballot papers yet - so they are sending members of the PEC who agreed to the deal on a "rouse the troops" tour - bloody hell how worried they are and how bloody cynical.

[goinpostal]

It gets even worse, whenever we have one of these all-branch meetings we get a mailout to everyones home. This time however that didn't happen for some reason, so despite almost every postie i've talked to wanting to reject this deal, nobody knows about the meeting to decide on how the branch will recommend - except the branch leadership and a few reps. Hmmm something smells fishy.

[dvbuk55]

It gets even worse, whenever we have one of these all-branch meetings we get a mailout to everyones home. This time however that didn't happen for some reason, so despite almost every postie i've talked to wanting to reject this deal, nobody knows about the meeting to decide on how the branch will recommend - except the branch leadership and a few reps. Hmmm something smells fishy.

There's been something fishy about this whole business - although I've read the court papers for the injunction, the notification was in line with every other action, and yet those actions have not been deemed illegal and consequently punishable by a fine. Don't you get the feeling that something is going to come out of the woodwork sooner or later to explain this whole shambles; and we're not going to like it!