Revalations on PEC voting

[kingkong]

I've thought long and hard about this my first contribution to this wonderful forum. I felt the need because certain people have been hailed as heros who we should promote. I've been as objective as possible in order for you to make your own minds up.

On 11th Oct the PEC voted unanimously on a document that contained the following:

"Pay: We acknowledge that there is going to be no additional money on offer. We may look at options on how that could be re-shaped".

The document was in the names of: Ward, Hayes, Collins, Ellis, Gibson, Pulliger. The only member of the PEC not there was Fishwick. This was open to amendments but there were none to alter this from anybody including Warren who has subsequently clearly stated the below inflation offer as a reason for voting against.

How do I know this - I have the official papers in front of me.

On the day the PEC met to make the final decision (19th Oct) at the TUC the agreement document put to the PEC had the name of all the officers on it. Only after PEC members put there amendments on the table was it announced that Gibson, Collins and Pullinger were taking there names off - I am told there was a near riot. When those individuals gave an explanation to why they didnt want there names to appear Pullinger said the PEC should vote for the deal but he was taking his name off in solidarity with collins and gibson.

I am also told Pullinger was leading on Pensions with Ellis - Why has it been left to the one we know little about to carry the can. Looks like when theres a sh"t job to do he gets it. Remember we loved to hate MTSF - one of the things we went on strike over - Ellis again took the crap.

How do I know this - I have checked the details with 2 reliable sources 1 in favour of deal and 1 opposed.

Now I've got that off my chest I thought I was going to feel better, afraid its made me feel sick.

Kill Joy I think you are right Ray tends to get the s**tty end of the stick most of the time, firstly because he’s fairly easy going and he tends just to accept the crap jobs passed to him by the postal department and that has included being given difficult debates at Conference which are not proper to his dept and secondly he is an appointed Officer and is not up for election every five years. The last deal Dave Ward did on raising the status of the Postal worker (not a very good deal again) he passed the buck onto Ray to sign off the agreement whilst he went on leave conveniently for three or more weeks and of course in some quarters Ray got the blame for doing the deal a deal he had no real input into.

As far as Terry Pullinger heading up the Pension talks I don’t really know but I will check, I do know however, he feels the pension issues is the biggest we face and he does not agree with the current stance and feels the Union must push the Government harder on the pensions issue rather than the burden falling directly onto our members.

Wot was the deal Ray had to sign when ward was on leave? New one on me.

Did you check Terrys involvement on pensions, my understanding is a working group was set up involving him and ellis as well as Executive members.

The deal Ray signed on behalf of Dave was last years pay deal(Shaping our future) I am sure the title was meant as a joke as it contained words like firm commitment to work with the Union, significant pension investment(RM and Government to fund the pension deficit in full) an agreement with RM that wasn't worth the paper it was wrote on.

I have found out who the main players were on the pensions group who met with RM to negotiate the deal, they were Ray Ellis, Norman Candy, Jane Loftus, Mark Baulch, Lionel Sampson. Terry Pullinger sat on group at CWU HQ who were given feedback from the negotiators he did not attend one meeting with RM and in fact I understand questioned why we were negotiating with them.

Either your sources gave you the info incorrectly or were playing on words again by saying Pullinger was heading up the pension talks when in fact he sat on a group outside of the talks and had very little input. I guess some see Pullinger as a threat to Dave Ward and his Empire of cronies and will use whatever they can to discredit him

why am I not surprised, too much time on internal politics not enough representing us

[kill Joy]

I've thought long and hard about this my first contribution to this wonderful forum. I felt the need because certain people have been hailed as heros who we should promote. I've been as objective as possible in order for you to make your own minds up.

On 11th Oct the PEC voted unanimously on a document that contained the following:

"Pay: We acknowledge that there is going to be no additional money on offer. We may look at options on how that could be re-shaped".

The document was in the names of: Ward, Hayes, Collins, Ellis, Gibson, Pulliger. The only member of the PEC not there was Fishwick. This was open to amendments but there were none to alter this from anybody including Warren who has subsequently clearly stated the below inflation offer as a reason for voting against.

How do I know this - I have the official papers in front of me.

On the day the PEC met to make the final decision (19th Oct) at the TUC the agreement document put to the PEC had the name of all the officers on it. Only after PEC members put there amendments on the table was it announced that Gibson, Collins and Pullinger were taking there names off - I am told there was a near riot. When those individuals gave an explanation to why they didnt want there names to appear Pullinger said the PEC should vote for the deal but he was taking his name off in solidarity with collins and gibson.

I am also told Pullinger was leading on Pensions with Ellis - Why has it been left to the one we know little about to carry the can. Looks like when theres a sh"t job to do he gets it. Remember we loved to hate MTSF - one of the things we went on strike over - Ellis again took the crap.

How do I know this - I have checked the details with 2 reliable sources 1 in favour of deal and 1 opposed.

Now I've got that off my chest I thought I was going to feel better, afraid its made me feel sick.

Kill Joy I think you are right Ray tends to get the s**tty end of the stick most of the time, firstly because he’s fairly easy going and he tends just to accept the crap jobs passed to him by the postal department and that has included being given difficult debates at Conference which are not proper to his dept and secondly he is an appointed Officer and is not up for election every five years. The last deal Dave Ward did on raising the status of the Postal worker (not a very good deal again) he passed the buck onto Ray to sign off the agreement whilst he went on leave conveniently for three or more weeks and of course in some quarters Ray got the blame for doing the deal a deal he had no real input into.

As far as Terry Pullinger heading up the Pension talks I don’t really know but I will check, I do know however, he feels the pension issues is the biggest we face and he does not agree with the current stance and feels the Union must push the Government harder on the pensions issue rather than the burden falling directly onto our members.

Wot was the deal Ray had to sign when ward was on leave? New one on me.

Did you check Terrys involvement on pensions, my understanding is a working group was set up involving him and ellis as well as Executive members.

The deal Ray signed on behalf of Dave was last years pay deal(Shaping our future) I am sure the title was meant as a joke as it contained words like firm commitment to work with the Union, significant pension investment(RM and Government to fund the pension deficit in full) an agreement with RM that wasn't worth the paper it was wrote on.

I have found out who the main players were on the pensions group who met with RM to negotiate the deal, they were Ray Ellis, Norman Candy, Jane Loftus, Mark Baulch, Lionel Sampson. Terry Pullinger sat on group at CWU HQ who were given feedback from the negotiators he did not attend one meeting with RM and in fact I understand questioned why we were negotiating with them.

Either your sources gave you the info incorrectly or were playing on words again by saying Pullinger was heading up the pension talks when in fact he sat on a group outside of the talks and had very little input. I guess some see Pullinger as a threat to Dave Ward and his Empire of cronies and will use whatever they can to discredit him

I think it is your source that is wrong, how can you be so sure you are not unwittingly havin the wool pulled over your eyes? My info is clear that the group that was set up at HQ was fronted by 2 officers Ellis and Pullinger. Do you seriously think that Terry would have been excluded from any negotiations, if you know him as well as I think you do you know only too well he would have been at them talks - PEC members were in attendance so would Terry if he wanted to. Simple fact is he didnt want to get his hands dirty. Still haven't had any explanation for why Terry said to the PEC they should vote for the final deal even though he was removing his name. Seems to me it's easier to exclude oneself and snipe from the sidelines. Nothing to do with discrediting anyone. As I've always said all I am intersted in is the truth and nothing but the truth. I challenge anyone to provide any evidence otherwise - sorry, it just aint there.

[marky]

kill joy. you sound like a pec member who voted yes for the sell -out deal.

[geopip]

I've thought long and hard about this my first contribution to this wonderful forum. I felt the need because certain people have been hailed as heros who we should promote. I've been as objective as possible in order for you to make your own minds up.

On 11th Oct the PEC voted unanimously on a document that contained the following:

"Pay: We acknowledge that there is going to be no additional money on offer. We may look at options on how that could be re-shaped".

The document was in the names of: Ward, Hayes, Collins, Ellis, Gibson, Pulliger. The only member of the PEC not there was Fishwick. This was open to amendments but there were none to alter this from anybody including Warren who has subsequently clearly stated the below inflation offer as a reason for voting against.

How do I know this - I have the official papers in front of me.

On the day the PEC met to make the final decision (19th Oct) at the TUC the agreement document put to the PEC had the name of all the officers on it. Only after PEC members put there amendments on the table was it announced that Gibson, Collins and Pullinger were taking there names off - I am told there was a near riot. When those individuals gave an explanation to why they didnt want there names to appear Pullinger said the PEC should vote for the deal but he was taking his name off in solidarity with collins and gibson.

I am also told Pullinger was leading on Pensions with Ellis - Why has it been left to the one we know little about to carry the can. Looks like when theres a sh"t job to do he gets it. Remember we loved to hate MTSF - one of the things we went on strike over - Ellis again took the crap.

How do I know this - I have checked the details with 2 reliable sources 1 in favour of deal and 1 opposed.

Now I've got that off my chest I thought I was going to feel better, afraid its made me feel sick.

Kill Joy I think you are right Ray tends to get the s**tty end of the stick most of the time, firstly because he’s fairly easy going and he tends just to accept the crap jobs passed to him by the postal department and that has included being given difficult debates at Conference which are not proper to his dept and secondly he is an appointed Officer and is not up for election every five years. The last deal Dave Ward did on raising the status of the Postal worker (not a very good deal again) he passed the buck onto Ray to sign off the agreement whilst he went on leave conveniently for three or more weeks and of course in some quarters Ray got the blame for doing the deal a deal he had no real input into.

As far as Terry Pullinger heading up the Pension talks I don’t really know but I will check, I do know however, he feels the pension issues is the biggest we face and he does not agree with the current stance and feels the Union must push the Government harder on the pensions issue rather than the burden falling directly onto our members.

Wot was the deal Ray had to sign when ward was on leave? New one on me.

Did you check Terrys involvement on pensions, my understanding is a working group was set up involving him and ellis as well as Executive members.

The deal Ray signed on behalf of Dave was last years pay deal(Shaping our future) I am sure the title was meant as a joke as it contained words like firm commitment to work with the Union, significant pension investment(RM and Government to fund the pension deficit in full) an agreement with RM that wasn't worth the paper it was wrote on.

I have found out who the main players were on the pensions group who met with RM to negotiate the deal, they were Ray Ellis, Norman Candy, Jane Loftus, Mark Baulch, Lionel Sampson. Terry Pullinger sat on group at CWU HQ who were given feedback from the negotiators he did not attend one meeting with RM and in fact I understand questioned why we were negotiating with them.

Either your sources gave you the info incorrectly or were playing on words again by saying Pullinger was heading up the pension talks when in fact he sat on a group outside of the talks and had very little input. I guess some see Pullinger as a threat to Dave Ward and his Empire of cronies and will use whatever they can to discredit him

I think it is your source that is wrong, how can you be so sure you are not unwittingly havin the wool pulled over your eyes? My info is clear that the group that was set up at HQ was fronted by 2 officers Ellis and Pullinger. Do you seriously think that Terry would have been excluded from any negotiations, if you know him as well as I think you do you know only too well he would have been at them talks - PEC members were in attendance so would Terry if he wanted to. Simple fact is he didnt want to get his hands dirty. Still haven't had any explanation for why Terry said to the PEC they should vote for the final deal even though he was removing his name. Seems to me it's easier to exclude oneself and snipe from the sidelines. Nothing to do with discrediting anyone. As I've always said all I am intersted in is the truth and nothing but the truth. I challenge anyone to provide any evidence otherwise - sorry, it just aint there.

I am afraid my friend you are the one having the wool pulled over your eyes I can send you a copy of an email from Ray Ellis to Terry Pullinger confirming that he is not part of the negotiating team and would not be in attendance at any of the talks. Your source will only want you to feed this site with their spin from CWU HQ or maybe it’s your own spin. You know the real truth is the best negotiators were left on the side lines during the talks because they did not agree with Dave’s views. When Billy was the outdoor Secretary he was hardly know for great agreements and yet he was the only elected official involved in the talks at the end (there was of course the involvement of non elected individuals). I hear you mention Terry on this site but no real view on either Bob Gibson or Martin Collins?? I do know Terry I also know Dave, Bob, Martin, Ray and Billy. I have defend Ray on this site because I don’t like the internal politics at HQ and the self preservation society and you are close enough to know what’s going on and one day the truth will out. I don't sell anyone else’s view but my own I am no patsy for anybody and nor should you be.

[kill Joy]

Kill Joy.............. nice name

These revelations have been floating on here for ages now.

Do you support or are you against the document?

Would be good to hear an analasis if the deal from you?

Been a long timew gettin around to respondin to this. Now the ballot paper's on it's way it's decision time and I know most here aint goin to like this. My heart says vote no but my head says vote yes. I am going with my head and here's why.

I am an x printer and union activist involved in the wapping dispute in the mid 80s. I was also very involved in the year long miners strike particularly assiting the kent area. These were particularly bitter disputes which had overwhelming backing of the union movement which was pretty strong up until that time. I also recall councils such as Liverpool taking on the tories and lets not forget the poll tax. Clearly there have been notable disputes since including ambulance and fire fighters etc. All this doesnt mean I've given up but coupled with being betrayed by our own party we need to make measured judgements about how we take the fight forward. I have been bitterly disapointed by the real lack of any political analysis from the left wing press. All of them say our leadership has sold out but offer no real understanding of where the movement has come from. No recognition that things aren't what they were in the 70s or even early 80s. I expect more from educated politicos, not narrow blind alley opportunism.

Where I think that leaves us is to a large degree - on our own. Ok there are others perhaps looking to fight, PCS, RMT, NUT etc. but nothing of real substance.

I believe our dispute held up magnificently during the two 48 hours and I dont believe it was crumbling. However, we have to look at where we had got to and we would have had to explain to members wot we were continuing our action to achieve. This is where I think the rub is particularly with the separation of pensions (Ive given my view on this elsewhere, I beleieve it has been seperated before anybody kicks off). The only views Ive seen on wot we should be continuing the fight for is from Chappel and Firmin and this simply stated no change on anything and a big fat pay rise - they even said not one single closure - frankly cloud cookoo stuff - I say this cos the members would not in any way have seen this as credible with a company leeking like a sive, financially speaking. No, this would have been suicide - complete madness. Leighton and Crozier would not have capitulated this far, even if they were inclined Brown would never have allowed it. So collision course with the government is wot we would have been headin for. Great if there was a general movement for this but there isnt and I believe we have a way to go before we can take on the government, particularly a so called labour government.

So there you have it my analysis a bit convaluted but its late and I haven't even touched on the finacial crisis we face which ultimately needs government intervention. My view is as much as it stinks and if things had been different we wouldn't be going there but I do not want to see another great union go down the tubes for the sake of a lack of clear thinking. No, this aint a sell out it is the only way to maintain our ability to continue the fight.

I understand some of this aint gonna be popular but the only option in the general circumstances is consolidate the gains we have made and build for future battles. The alternative is to see this union smashed in an unwinable and futile political battle. So lets all stop the snipping and get on with building for the future. Sorry, the revolution will have to wait a little while longer!

[BELIAL]

What a patronising post. Yet another HQ office boy rears his ugly head.Hands up all who didn't see that one coming,ho ho

Course you ain't really CWU are you , but yo is gettin to grips wid der words wot we speak brother,you man of the people you.

The Deal stinks, we lose ,save your political diatribe and paradoxical appeal for unity for those dumb enough to fall for it or far enough removed to be unaffected by this stitch up.

What is the point of preserving a union as a nice little nostalgic momento.

The union is the membership, it has one purpose,to protect and improve the conditions of that membership, that is why it grew and that is why we support it.

If we can't use it cos we might break it, it is simply no longer fit for purpose and must be remade

[lovejoy]

Kill Joy.............. nice name

These revelations have been floating on here for ages now.

Do you support or are you against the document?

Would be good to hear an analasis if the deal from you?

Been a long timew gettin around to respondin to this. Now the ballot paper's on it's way it's decision time and I know most here aint goin to like this. My heart says vote no but my head says vote yes. I am going with my head and here's why.

I am an x printer and union activist involved in the wapping dispute in the mid 80s. I was also very involved in the year long miners strike particularly assiting the kent area. These were particularly bitter disputes which had overwhelming backing of the union movement which was pretty strong up until that time. I also recall councils such as Liverpool taking on the tories and lets not forget the poll tax. Clearly there have been notable disputes since including ambulance and fire fighters etc. All this doesnt mean I've given up but coupled with being betrayed by our own party we need to make measured judgements about how we take the fight forward. I have been bitterly disapointed by the real lack of any political analysis from the left wing press. All of them say our leadership has sold out but offer no real understanding of where the movement has come from. No recognition that things aren't what they were in the 70s or even early 80s. I expect more from educated politicos, not narrow blind alley opportunism.

Where I think that leaves us is to a large degree - on our own. Ok there are others perhaps looking to fight, PCS, RMT, NUT etc. but nothing of real substance.

I believe our dispute held up magnificently during the two 48 hours and I dont believe it was crumbling. However, we have to look at where we had got to and we would have had to explain to members wot we were continuing our action to achieve. This is where I think the rub is particularly with the separation of pensions (Ive given my view on this elsewhere, I beleieve it has been seperated before anybody kicks off). The only views Ive seen on wot we should be continuing the fight for is from Chappel and Firmin and this simply stated no change on anything and a big fat pay rise - they even said not one single closure - frankly cloud cookoo stuff - I say this cos the members would not in any way have seen this as credible with a company leeking like a sive, financially speaking. No, this would have been suicide - complete madness. Leighton and Crozier would not have capitulated this far, even if they were inclined Brown would never have allowed it. So collision course with the government is wot we would have been headin for. Great if there was a general movement for this but there isnt and I believe we have a way to go before we can take on the government, particularly a so called labour government.

So there you have it my analysis a bit convaluted but its late and I haven't even touched on the finacial crisis we face which ultimately needs government intervention. My view is as much as it stinks and if things had been different we wouldn't be going there but I do not want to see another great union go down the tubes for the sake of a lack of clear thinking. No, this aint a sell out it is the only way to maintain our ability to continue the fight.

I understand some of this aint gonna be popular but the only option in the general circumstances is consolidate the gains we have made and build for future battles. The alternative is to see this union smashed in an unwinable and futile political battle. So lets all stop the snipping and get on with building for the future. Sorry, the revolution will have to wait a little while longer!

Thanks Kill joy and get your own name!!!

[andy2007]

One of the problems with the deal, is the choice of words. They are far too ambiguous. The "decoupling" of the Pensions is a prime example. If you listen to the leaked Conference Call from Wales, you will find that as far as RM are concerned. The consultation period, is exactly that. NOT negotiation. There is also a leaked letter from ACAS, which confirms that interpritation of the deal.

They also state that neither the deal, nor the Pensions reform can stand without the other. Make of that, what you will.

I am perfectly aware of the fact that neither side can get everything they want, and that change is inevitable, but we need PROPER safeguards. Not just for us (with Grandfather Rights), but for future generations.

No change is not an option. But neither is selling out.

I believe that it is possible to renegotiate the deal, with PROPER SAFEGUARDS FOR ALL STAFF, CURRENT AND FUTURE in the event of a NO vote.

There has been too much emphasis on short term financial gain, and not enough on protecting us, now and in the future. The fact that they have been able to offer us more money, dispite telling us at the start that there wasn't any, proves that they can be convinced to change. Why can't we sacrifice some of the (pitiful) pay increase, for better terms and conditions?

[andy2007]

[smudger54]

Wether its true or not who voted yes or no on the PEC the only thing i hope they didn't do is what was rumored many years ago after the last major dispute was the PEC at the time pushed for a yes vote and in return suddenly had their mortgages all paid for by RM. This was rife at the time when a Branch officer let it slip, but as i say that was many moons ago.
Now the PEC are saying yes but most branch's are saying no i hope the PEC listen to them they are closer to members than HQ.

[marky]

my god im in shock at s54s post. did this really happen. lost for words.

[kill Joy]

One of the problems with the deal, is the choice of words. They are far too ambiguous. The "decoupling" of the Pensions is a prime example. If you listen to the leaked Conference Call from Wales, you will find that as far as RM are concerned. The consultation period, is exactly that. NOT negotiation. There is also a leaked letter from ACAS, which confirms that interpritation of the deal.

They also state that neither the deal, nor the Pensions reform can stand without the other. Make of that, what you will.

I am perfectly aware of the fact that neither side can get everything they want, and that change is inevitable, but we need PROPER safeguards. Not just for us (with Grandfather Rights), but for future generations.

No change is not an option. But neither is selling out.

I believe that it is possible to renegotiate the deal, with PROPER SAFEGUARDS FOR ALL STAFF, CURRENT AND FUTURE in the event of a NO vote.

There has been too much emphasis on short term financial gain, and not enough on protecting us, now and in the future. The fact that they have been able to offer us more money, dispite telling us at the start that there wasn't any, proves that they can be convinced to change. Why can't we sacrifice some of the (pitiful) pay increase, for better terms and conditions?

Andy I welcome your reasoned and balanced response.

I think your argements fall into 2 camps -

1. Pensions. I have said before i do not believe RMs version on the so called pensions linkage. If the ballots were running in tandem then maybe but I rekon it'll be february or march before we get a response from members on the Pensions ballot. If its a big no then CWU HQ and we will have to consider 'what next'. Frankly I dont care whos said what about the deals being inseperable, i am going by my own logic which cant see any conection apart from interpretation. I just dont get why we would believe Crazier and Lowlife on this but on nothing else, it just dont add up.

2. You say we could negotiate a better deal. However, I stand by my views as I have not heard one realistic alternative that would lead the members into further battle. I think the gains and safeguards we have made allow us to continue the fight.

I would welcome your views on what a renegotiated deal would look like in comparison to what we've got baring in mind you take the sensible position that no change is not an option. I seriously think this is what the debate is lacking. Perhaps you would consider a new topic.

Thanks again for your views.

[kill Joy]

THanks for your post ,but what is your point / objective.

You've got" official papers" let,s see them.

You were told this and you were told that, and you are another one with "reliable sources", name them for verification.

Sorry if I seem a little sceptical, but there are so many people out there with a vested interest in achieving acceptance of this agreement. Truth seems to be an alien concept to them.

The Truth is simple this is a bad deal for the membership ,we lose all ways, muddy the waters sow doubt it's still a bad deal

My objective - The truth, no "alien concept" to me Belial. I chose not to give too much of a person view as I've seen others slated for it. However, like many people here my aim was to provide people with FACTs so they could draw there own conclusions.



Wot inspired me to post the info was people hailing Warren and Pullinger as some kind of working class heroes who should become the next General/deputy Secretarys. I have no problem anyone telling me what they think but one thing I hate is a hipocrit. I judge people by there actions not there words. For me Warren can only justify slagging the Pay element of the agreement if he had voted against a recomendation from ALL the officers that it was enough or at the very least placed an amendment. As for Pullinger telling the PEC to vote for the acgreemnet but removing his name just because others did, well I just dont get that - I dont think Fury took his name off. Wot the feck is that all about! Smacks of opportunism to me.

As far as where I got the info from I dont think it would not be right to expose sources, I have not seen it done elsewhere on this site. I expect you and others have similar contacts and can easily verify wot Iam saying. I supose I could forward the papers I've got but not sure it would serve any purpose. If I did this I would want to ensure it went to a CWU member eg, through a union office - over to you.

WHat about me ,I'm as offensive as the next man.

Pink, blue ,order no. 9digit subsection whatever.
Don,t care if I,m slated for my personal view, it's an honest view and all are free to disagree
You however claim your assertions to be FACT but refuse to provide proof/verification. FACT is different to opinion, it carries more weight and requires evidence for acceptance.
Sorry to be terse but in short ,put up or shut up.

Course if it's just opinion carry on but don't dress it up as FACT

BELIAL....


(QUOTE) : "PUT UP OR SHUT UP." (END QUOTE) [/quote]

Not sure how clear I can be, I suggest you guys read my posts. PM me a secure Union address and I'll post the papers. One other has done so already and its on its way.

[kill Joy]

kill joy. you sound like a pec member who voted yes for the sell -out deal.

Sticks and stones.......... Really there's no need for name calling!. I've been called a lot of things in my time but PEC.......that's low I really don't mind what conclusions people draw but I would hate for people to abstain from entering debate cos someone chooses to

[marky]

not a probs kill joy.