Don't abandon the CWU!!!!!

[Malatesta1954]

Grover Iwant your ,house your partner ,your future ,your time your garden and your dog.
Oh okay lets have a local agreement on your dog an garden
hands up all those who'll strike in defence of Grovers local dog an garden. Think I might BE underwhelmed ,feel free to disagree just talking practicallity you understand

If people are not prepared to stick up for each other what difference does it make whether we have a deal (any deal) or not? We might as well pack up and go home.

We the Union agreed staffing to traffic in 1985 (got £175 lump sum ring any bells) under Safeguarding the Future of the Mails Business aka Business Efficiency with the section on Revised Revision Procedures and compulsory Improved Working Methods bonus scheme. Within 3 years Royal Mail gave notice they were ceasing the bonus as we were taking them to the cleaners and Alan Johnson capitulated. Now that was a totally useless bosses man who couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag now part of the nu labor cabal of class traitors.

Can't see the logic in your statements Grover ,"this is a good deal " Got to stick together "Billy Hayes is a scab"

Know what I think,suggest you make up your mind or go home

Belial:I don't think this is a good deal and I haven't said Billy Hayes is a scab

i don't have to make up my mind on anything to post on this chat room.

I don't think what is happening is logical.

All i've said is on balance I thought the good out weighed the bad.
After yesterdays pensionsbriefing when we were told that both the deal and the statement on pensions were inextricabily linked
and you could not have one without the other
that the union would be recomending a yes vote on the pensions regardless of the outcome of the consultation
and that if the members rejected changes to their pensions RM would just go to the Trustees for their agreement instead
I am having to rethink my argument of taking what's on offer and continuing the fight
as it now appears all or nothing. On that basis we would all have to oppose. Dave Ward is supposed to be putting out a statement
saying pensions are de-coupled from the deal. 3 PEC members are saying that if they are inextricably linked they wouldn't have voted for the deal.

I think i'll go home and make my mind up another day.

[rathbonepostie]

Grover,
Its been pointed out by many of us that pensions were never "decoupled", its good that you now realise this. There is even the letter from Brendan Barber (who chaired the negotiations) to Dave Ward pointing this out. Posted on this site.
But you continue to defend the rest of the deal. We were told we wanted a pay increase at least level with inflation - we haven't got it.
We were told Royal Mail's plans on flexibility were not acceptable. The deal accepts longs and shorts, accepts their right to extend our day by 30 minutes, accepts their right to move people around.
The working party are to discuss HOW to implement the various changes, not WHETHER to implement them. That means they are accepted in principle. Moreover the 1.5% is only paid when they are brought in in full.
Saying we can fight the changes office by office is no answer. That means accepting that the weaker offices go to the wall and the stronger ones look after themselves. That goes against all trade union principles. It also means when they decide to go for the stronger offices that might be able to hold out others are not going to be in a position to defend them.
The guff in the agreement about "swings and roundabouts" and "reasonable requests" is sheer waffle which could only have been agreed to by people who have no concept of the day-to-day realities on the floor.
Elsewhere you say no-one in your office (W1) could really quibble about the 30 minutes. Maybe this shows the lack of knowledge on your part of the realities in W1. There are walks and drives in the s**t every day and some failing nearly every day. People being threatened with `wilful delay' who rightly see the flexibility proposals as a way of getting them to finish a job which cannot be done in the allocated time.

The one thing I agree with you on is no-one should abandon the union. Without it, even if it is weakened, we are all at the individual mercy of management. The way forward (sorry!) is to kick out the deal (all of it), deal with the people responsible come elections, and to organise ourselves so that such deals don't happen in the future.

[Malatesta1954]

Grover,
Its been pointed out by many of us that pensions were never "decoupled", its good that you now realise this. There is even the letter from Brendan Barber (who chaired the negotiations) to Dave Ward pointing this out. Posted on this site.
But you continue to defend the rest of the deal. We were told we wanted a pay increase at least level with inflation - we haven't got it.
We were told Royal Mail's plans on flexibility were not acceptable. The deal accepts longs and shorts, accepts their right to extend our day by 30 minutes, accepts their right to move people around.
The working party are to discuss HOW to implement the various changes, not WHETHER to implement them. That means they are accepted in principle. Moreover the 1.5% is only paid when they are brought in in full.
Saying we can fight the changes office by office is no answer. That means accepting that the weaker offices go to the wall and the stronger ones look after themselves. That goes against all trade union principles. It also means when they decide to go for the stronger offices that might be able to hold out others are not going to be in a position to defend them.
The guff in the agreement about "swings and roundabouts" and "reasonable requests" is sheer waffle which could only have been agreed to by people who have no concept of the day-to-day realities on the floor.
Elsewhere you say no-one in your office (W1) could really quibble about the 30 minutes. Maybe this shows the lack of knowledge on your part of the realities in W1. There are walks and drives in the s**t every day and some failing nearly every day. People being threatened with `wilful delay' who rightly see the flexibility proposals as a way of getting them to finish a job which cannot be done in the allocated time.

The one thing I agree with you on is no-one should abandon the union. Without it, even if it is weakened, we are all at the individual mercy of management. The way forward (sorry!) is to kick out the deal (all of it), deal with the people responsible come elections, and to organise ourselves so that such deals don't happen in the future.

What I said was this "As for so called flexibility I don't know a Postie in my office who if asked to work an extra 30 minutes couldn't argue for so long it wouldn't be worth their while bothering. "

You must be a trot if you can misrepresent someone blatantly and think you can get away with it

[rathbonepostie]

Not sure what it has to do with anything whether anyone here is a "trot" or not.
People would argue over the 30 minutes because they don't see why they should dig management out of a hole they have made.
If the walks are in the s**t every day, then the 30 minutes could easily become every day, then you would be a fool not to argue with it.

[Malatesta1954]

I cannot accept that after all the strike days and negotiations we have achieved nothing. The trouble is with the alternative argument that we want it all and we want it now is that we all know it is unachievable. So there comes a point where a compromise has to be put to the members. The members will decide. We all know though their are a minority who would oppose any deal and indeed opposed this one before they had seen it. They are the ones who will criticise me for not making my mind up before we have had a debate on the deal. Who see things in black and white not varying shades of grey. There is a great danger in that way of thinking; although these people support any strike against anything their negativity about what is achieved by strike action can have the effect of saying to the other members there is no point in striking the only outcome will be a s**t deal and that gives the impression there is no point of being in a union that negotiates as that will only lead to s**t deals. The reality is that many strikes have been successful and many deals have had more good points than bad in them.

Whether we have a deal or not the only thing that is going to support the "weak" offices is their willingness to fight and our willingness to give real support in solidarity. Offices have to be supported by their Branch, Area Reps and Divisional Reps.

We are the Union not Wimbledon don't expect CWUHQ to come and hold your hand, deal or no deal, we the members have to stick up for ourselves.

[andy2007]

I cannot accept that after all the strike days and negotiations we have achieved nothing. The trouble is with the alternative argument that we want it all and we want it now is that we all know it is unachievable. So there comes a point where a compromise has to be put to the members. The members will decide. We all know though their are a minority who would oppose any deal and indeed opposed this one before they had seen it. They are the ones who will criticise me for not making my mind up before we have had a debate on the deal. Who see things in black and white not varying shades of grey. There is a great danger in that way of thinking; although these people support any strike against anything their negativity about what is achieved by strike action can have the effect of saying to the other members there is no point in striking the only outcome will be a s**t deal and that gives the impression there is no point of being in a union that negotiates as that will only lead to s**t deals. The reality is that many strikes have been successful and many deals have had more good points than bad in them.

Whether we have a deal or not the only thing that is going to support the "weak" offices is their willingness to fight and our willingness to give real support in solidarity. Offices have to be supported by their Branch, Area Reps and Divisional Reps.

We are the Union not Wimbledon don't expect CWUHQ to come and hold your hand, deal or no deal, we the members have to stick up for ourselves.

Although it is true that a few people made their mind up before seeing the deal. They are the minority. Most of us DID wait until the details became available!

You must also bear in mind, that we have seen time, and time again, that management can't be trusted in these matters. They have abused and ignored deal, after deal. The fact that there is so much ambiguity in the safeguards, means that it will be open season on us.

If the safeguards were specific enough to give us grounds to complain if and when they are abused, then it would be a different matter. But at the moment, it is just not acceptable.

Not only that. There is a heavy reliance on "Grandfather Rights", which means that we would be selling future genereations down the river!!!!!

If we stick together, we can protect the "weak" offices, before the rot sets in too badly.

We don't just see things in "black and white", we see things in the context of past experiences, and have learned from those past experiences.

Finally. I suggest that you download and listen carefully to the recording of a conference call in another Thread. I'm sorry I don't know how to make a link directly to it, but it's in the Pay and Modernisation section.

It shows just what kind of people we are dealing with here!

[KawasakiKid]

:lfo :cfo grover, look, I kept an open mind. It was difficult because of the time span kept on 'secret' negotiations. I kept an open mind on those negotiations thinking the union was playing for time until Parliament re-convened, allowing us a breather from IA during the summer parliamentary break when our actions would not have the desired effect as Gordy Broon was not at home. I also remember the euphoria at conference at the fantastic 77% positive result. 'Heady Days', a smiling confident Dave Ward promising a far different outcome to the one we now have. The 77% turned into 98% support during the strikes. No union negotiators could have asked for a better hand to play. I've thought long and hard. I have no doubt that the Ward and Hayes political ambitions whether for themselves or for the Liebour party have influenced the outcome of those talks. If I, as an inexperienced office rep immediately realised our weakness in local negotiations then Ward and Hayes with far more experience than myself know that weakness too. grover, we've been shafted and the only way forward is with a decisive no vote and two different, committed negotiators for fresh talks. My office is not militant but they have let me know that this agreement is far from acceptable. ----------------------A KONCENTRATED KWAK

[Malatesta1954]

I'm coming round to your way of thinking but we'll have a bl**dy fight on our hands against the Wimbledon Nu Laborites, Royal Mail and the Government.