Revalations on PEC voting

[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.

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.

Never meant to suggest you were a patsy - me neither. I'd be grateful for a copy of the email, perhaps you could sent to my PM. You may just be closer to all the individuals than me but I think I am a fair observer of people and situations. I just cant see Ellis telling Pullinger he aint involved in the talks, from what I have witnessed it aint his style. and I cant see Pullinger as a shrinkin violet. I think he's done some great deals in his field but just think he needs to get his hands dirty on some some stuff that effects us all, then perhaps we could make a judgement on whether he has the necessary skills to take on a diferent role at some point. I think this is a widely held view. So I look forward for the email you have. As for the other officers, like Terry all talented and capable as far as I can see but have my doubts as to why some pulled there names off. I was at briefing in London and Ward explained Martin's reason which I thought were a bit pathetic, not major stuff and he hasn't contradicted Ward as far as I can see.

Can you explain why terry told PEC to vote for deal even though he took his name of?

I will try and get a copy of the email to you. What we must remember Dave Ward is DGS(P) and he runs the postal department and the Officers under tight control and Officers or PEC members can only get involved when Dave gives the say so. My knowledge of Terry from his days as an Area rep in Dartford tells me he totally believes in the rules and processes of the Union and won’t step out of that line.

The really sad thing about all of this is we will all lose out because, Dave sees Terry as a threat to his position and because of this he tries to sideline or down Terry when ever he can, it’s understandable and I don’t really blame him lose the election and your out of your job no fallback position just the sack, we can’t live without elected Officers and democracy but it does lead to so much time and effort being placed on the politics and electioneering rather then looking after the members and fighting the employers.

I believe Dave would have done better and perhaps achieved more had he kept Terry close to him and used his ability to negotiate I have seen and admired a lot of top negotiators but Terry stands head and shoulders above them and given the opportunity I think he would have loved to have been given the opportunity to get his hands dirty on behalf of all of us. Given what I’ve said about the relationship between them is it likely Terry is going jump in feet first for Dave??

I can only try and find out why or if he did tell the PEC to vote for the deal.

Whilst this thread may appear to sing the praises of Terry and not Dave I would like to point out I really like Dave but am totally disappointed by the deal and feel let down and I know that’s how many others feel.

I dont think there is a lot between us. I think you are right about the relationship betrween the 2 which hacks me off cos your right its us that lose out if there is a lot of in fightin. As the sayin goes "keep you friends close and your enemys closer". But it doesn't explain why Terry was on the group in the first place and as the officers including ward don't get a vote then its up to the PEC. Im sure if Terry made it known he wanted to take some responsibility for things outside his department then I reckon the PEC wouldnt say no. Also a lot of people say he should take on more work as he's got the smallest workload which I think is fair comment. So come on Terry let's see wot you can do that's wot I say, others are saying he's hangin back until Ward becomes the GS. Not sure we'll have much of a union left by then if we dont get our sh"t together.

If you can send the email from Ellis that would be great and a reason from terry on why he told the PEC to vote yes and then took his name off would be good. Maybe he was adding to Wards grief due to the strained relationship you discribe.

[Malatesta1954]

Terry took his name off the agreement in solidarity with the other officers but recommended the PEC to vote for it.

[Geordie]

that rather defeats the object either way you look at it

[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.

As far as the Pensions issue is concerned, it is the way that the call and letter were obtained which I believe gives them credibility. Particularly when you take into account the history of Industrial Relations in RM. They have pulled similar stunts in the past, and obviously didn't want us to have this information. It may of course be a clever attempt to mislead us, but I for one am not prepared to take that chance.



The changes that I would like to see in the deal (please bear in mind that these are my personal views) are:
1) The substitution of the word CONSULTATION with the word NEGOTIATION throughout.
2) An alternative to the use of "Grandfather Rights". I'm not sure how to do this without upsetting people, but possibly by incorporating 50% of any allowances into basic pay. If that isn't suitable, then I'm sure some other compromise could be reached at the negotiating table.
3) Although I have no problem with a permanent change in my shift time (currently 14:00 - 22:00), the level of flexibility (Longs and Shorts) simply isn't acceptable for those of us with young families. Children don't cope very well with such a lack of routine (in my experience). However, if it adversly effects the Service, then changes in shift time are unacceptable.
4) I think that once it became apparent that RM were willing to alter the deal at all, that the emphasis should have been on the preservation of the Service, and our working conditions. NOT on our wages.

I am sure that there will be some who dissagree with my views. But as many people have already said: There is no point in criticising the deal, unless we are willing to stick our neck out, and suggest alternatives.

If you don't believe that my suggestions are realistic, then please explain why. After all, the small improvement in the wage rise will be costing them a lot of money. If we sacrifice that, then surely it would pay for the neccessary improvements, wouldn't it?

Thanks a million Andy at least we are startin to talk about wot we'd be goin out for if it's a no. i think the members would need this if we are to take further action otherwise we'll lose em.

1) Good point on consultation but in my experience they can call it what they like but we can negotiate on anything if the members are behind us. The word is limited in the agreement and I dont believe members would strike over it.

2) On grandfather rights I think we lost most of the members to continue the fight on this when it was conceeded especially when RM gave into the no change on Saturday without CWU agreement. I also understnd we can go back on this but it's a difficult one.

3) Longs and shorts / flexibility has to be agreed through CWU not imposed by management.

4) I dont believe we have sacrificed conditions for Pay. The pay aint great but better and CWU still right in there. I believe we've given little away.

So on balance I dont think the members would continue to fight on the basis of what you have outlined, this for me is the most important thing we simply aint got a fight without the members. Some, not you, seem to overlook this and offer no alternative to what is on offer. You have offered an alternative but I dont think is enough to rally the troops and we'd be in danger of loosin it.

[dvbuk55]

Is that the Royal we killjoy or just you and Andy?

Somebody else had a solution - simple and straightforward I thought - 2.5% backdated, no strings, negotiate everything to the last minute and last penny.

[BELIAL]

Sorry Killjoy did'nt notice the members flocking back in droves,
Where were you?

[kill Joy]

Is that the Royal we killjoy or just you and Andy?

Somebody else had a solution - simple and straightforward I thought - 2.5% backdated, no strings, negotiate everything to the last minute and last penny.

Dont get the quip about Royal we - I was respondin to Andy's post! 2.5% backdated, I'd rather have a higher exit amount as it means more next time we get a rise. No brainer really. Wot strings are we not able to negotiate on? Have you got any thoughts of your own? Not sure your solution would got the members going out the door again.

[kill Joy]

Sorry Killjoy did'nt notice the members flocking back in droves,
Where were you?

You are right and I've said before the members werent flockin back in droves or anything else. My estimation was the two 48hrs held up about the same. We lost some but we gained some due to pensions and MTSF. So I aint one of those saying members were crumblin. I believe it would be different with the gains made in the new deal. The more people post on here wot they believe the finishin line would be the more I m convinced we would not have carried the troops with us. Me i would rather live to fight another day than see the union smashed. Wot about you wot would have been your finishin line?

[dvbuk55]

Is that the Royal we killjoy or just you and Andy?

Somebody else had a solution - simple and straightforward I thought - 2.5% backdated, no strings, negotiate everything to the last minute and last penny.

Dont get the quip about Royal we - I was respondin to Andy's post! 2.5% backdated, I'd rather have a higher exit amount as it means more next time we get a rise. No brainer really. Wot strings are we not able to negotiate on? Have you got any thoughts of your own? Not sure your solution would got the members going out the door again.

Well you wouldn't get the quip.

The negotiating should be a national issue and not a local one. The next time we get a rise should be the 1.5% IF all the strings are implemented, shades of the last deal but without the financial incentives. After that 2009 and just what are RM going to foist on us for that?

And I think no brainer probably sums it up really

[kill Joy]

Is that the Royal we killjoy or just you and Andy?

Somebody else had a solution - simple and straightforward I thought - 2.5% backdated, no strings, negotiate everything to the last minute and last penny.

Dont get the quip about Royal we - I was respondin to Andy's post! 2.5% backdated, I'd rather have a higher exit amount as it means more next time we get a rise. No brainer really. Wot strings are we not able to negotiate on? Have you got any thoughts of your own? Not sure your solution would got the members going out the door again.

Well you wouldn't get the quip.

The negotiating should be a national issue and not a local one. The next time we get a rise should be the 1.5% IF all the strings are implemented, shades of the last deal but without the financial incentives. After that 2009 and just what are RM going to foist on us for that?

And I think no brainer probably sums it up really

Resulting to sly little digs does little other than suggest you have no constructive ideas of your own. Also don't get your reference to negotiations at national vs local level, we've always had national frameworks implemented at local level to my memory. Still we cant all be a smart as you now can we.

[BELIAL]

Is that the Royal we killjoy or just you and Andy?

Somebody else had a solution - simple and straightforward I thought - 2.5% backdated, no strings, negotiate everything to the last minute and last penny.

Dont get the quip about Royal we - I was respondin to Andy's post! 2.5% backdated, I'd rather have a higher exit amount as it means more next time we get a rise. No brainer really. Wot strings are we not able to negotiate on? Have you got any thoughts of your own? Not sure your solution would got the members going out the door again.

Well you wouldn't get the quip.

The negotiating should be a national issue and not a local one. The next time we get a rise should be the 1.5% IF all the strings are implemented, shades of the last deal but without the financial incentives. After that 2009 and just what are RM going to foist on us for that?

And I think no brainer probably sums it up really

Resulting to sly little digs does little other than suggest you have no constructive ideas of your own. Also don't get your reference to negotiations at national vs local level, we've always had national frameworks
implemented at local level to my memory. Still we cant all be a smart as you now can we.

Beginning to sound remarkably Primarkesque, uncanny

[dvbuk55]

Resulting to sly little digs does little other than suggest you have no constructive ideas of your own. Also don't get your reference to negotiations at national vs local level, we've always had national frameworks implemented at local level to my memory. Still we cant all be a smart as you now can we.

Well if you would like to point out the National Framework for this deal I would be only too happy to read it. The IRF and the MTSF are both in great jeopardy from this deal but as you say killjoy you aren't as smart as I am nor the other no voters on this forum. If you seriously think that the CWU are going to have an impact in the future workplace you are deluded.

As for constructive ideas - get rid of the present leadership and vote in those who are willing but more importantly able to negotiate for us. The CWU is no place for staged rhetoric. How about a shorter working week, more holidays, the right to retire at 60 with dignity and with a full pension, input on recruitment, - when I joined Killjoy you didn't get in unless you were acceptable to the local union reps. I think you will admit that the level of candidate falls far short of what used to be expected.

As for the "sly" little digs there is nothing sly about something which you clearly invite by your postings.

[johnnyp]

Resulting to sly little digs does little other than suggest you have no constructive ideas of your own. Also don't get your reference to negotiations at national vs local level, we've always had national frameworks implemented at local level to my memory. Still we cant all be a smart as you now can we.

Well if you would like to point out the National Framework for this deal I would be only too happy to read it. The IRF and the MTSF are both in great jeopardy from this deal but as you say killjoy you aren't as smart as I am nor the other no voters on this forum. If you seriously think that the CWU are going to have an impact in the future workplace you are deluded.

As for constructive ideas - get rid of the present leadership and vote in those who are willing but more importantly able to negotiate for us. The CWU is no place for staged rhetoric. How about a shorter working week, more holidays, the right to retire at 60 with dignity and with a full pension, input on recruitment, - when I joined Killjoy you didn't get in unless you were acceptable to the local union reps. I think you will admit that the level of candidate falls far short of what used to be expected.

As for the "sly" little digs there is nothing sly about something which you clearly invite by your postings.

Looks like im deluded as well Some good points though about a shorter working week and more holidays.Thing is these dont come cheap,and with the current financial problems the business has theres more chance of Millwall winning the F.A cup then us getting those benefits at the moment

[BELIAL]

Resulting to sly little digs does little other than suggest you have no constructive ideas of your own. Also don't get your reference to negotiations at national vs local level, we've always had national frameworks implemented at local level to my memory. Still we cant all be a smart as you now can we.

Well if you would like to point out the National Framework for this deal I would be only too happy to read it. The IRF and the MTSF are both in great jeopardy from this deal but as you say killjoy you aren't as smart as I am nor the other no voters on this forum. If you seriously think that the CWU are going to have an impact in the future workplace you are deluded.

As for constructive ideas - get rid of the present leadership and vote in those who are willing but more importantly able to negotiate for us. The CWU is no place for staged rhetoric. How about a shorter working week, more holidays, the right to retire at 60 with dignity and with a full pension, input on recruitment, - when I joined Killjoy you didn't get in unless you were acceptable to the local union reps. I think you will admit that the level of candidate falls far short of what used to be expected.

As for the "sly" little digs there is nothing sly about something which you clearly invite by your postings.

Looks like im deluded as well Some good points though about a shorter working week and more holidays.Thing is these dont come cheap,and with the current financial problems the business has theres more chance of Millwall winning the F.A cup then us getting those benefits at the moment

What current financial problems?

[dvbuk55]

[quote="johnnypick"] Looks like im deluded as well Some good points though about a shorter working week and more holidays.Thing is these dont come cheap,and with the current financial problems the business has theres more chance of Millwall winning the F.A cup then us getting those benefits at the moment [/quote]

JP these things didn't even enter the equation because we didn't ask for them - in fact the CWU didn't ask for anything - they waited for RM to make the play and then reacted poorly to what was an outrageous set of proposals.

The leadership of this union are not interested in the well being of its members. Rather than demand that the Government make good the monies taken from the pension fund they actually collude with RM to rob us. They finance a Government that has stolen from us and the leadership court Gordon Browns acceptance by supporting him and the Labour Party publicly despite the fact that they snubbed the CWU. They didn't, last November, put to RM our members demands:

1. A 35 hour week
2. 6 weeks holiday a year - up to another 2 weeks purchasable
3. 5% pay increase across the board - OT, SA, LLA.
4. No strings
5. New working practices to be negotiated within a new MTSF agreement
6. A review of the current IR Framework with special regard to sickness procedure.
7. Input on recruitment contracts
8. Local agreement on DWP implementation

Do these proposals seem unrealistic? So did RMs but, guess what, they got what they asked for because they dared to ask - we got what we asked for which was sweet FA.