new postal union

[mailsort6]

I voted No! However, if this agreement gets in this will be the testing time for the union reps, they would have to do good by their members or else they could find themselves being voted out in the next election. It is also going to be interesting when it comes to the next election for senior CWU reps (e.g. NEC, PEC) and I think some of them are already on the way out for agreeing to this rubbish deal, this is one deal that the CWU members are not going to forget, we have been 'sold down the river'.

[andy2007]

i think some people are missing the point i am making. nobody is talking of leaving the union. what i said was, there are 250,000 members of cwu, but only 130,000 postal members. the union is bigger than just a postal workers union. we should be a seperate union. read my opening comments on this subject again please, or start your own topic on actually leaving the union.

I don't understand how you can end up with a dedicated Postal Union, without setting a new one up, or kicking out the remaining 120,000 members.

[yorkie]

LEAVING THE CWU WOULD NOT AFFECT THEM AT HQ. THE RECRUITING OF AGENCY WORKERS AND OTHER COMMUNICATION WORKERS IS THE WAY FOWARD FOR THE UNION HQ AS THEY KNOW THEY ARE LOOSING R/M MEMBERS THROUGH JOB LOSSES ETC.AT CONFRENCE WARD AND HEYS SAID WE SHOULD LOOK AT RECRUITING
TNT.DHL AND OTHERS AS MEMBERS. WHAT A PILE OF BOLLOCKS . I HAD AN ARGUMENT WITH ONE OF THE RECRUITMENT OFFICERS FROM H.Q FEW YEARS AGO OVER THIS ISSUE AND SHE DID NOT LIKE WHT I HAD TO SAY .ALL THEY WANT IS SOMEONE ELSE TO REPLACE THE REVENUE TO HQ.
YES A ALTENATIVE MAY BE A POSSABILITY.

[L Tommo]

LEAVING THE CWU WOULD NOT AFFECT THEM AT HQ. THE RECRUITING OF AGENCY WORKERS AND OTHER COMMUNICATION WORKERS IS THE WAY FOWARD FOR THE UNION HQ AS THEY KNOW THEY ARE LOOSING R/M MEMBERS THROUGH JOB LOSSES ETC.AT CONFRENCE WARD AND HEYS SAID WE SHOULD LOOK AT RECRUITING
TNT.DHL AND OTHERS AS MEMBERS. WHAT A PILE OF BOLLOCKS . I HAD AN ARGUMENT WITH ONE OF THE RECRUITMENT OFFICERS FROM H.Q FEW YEARS AGO OVER THIS ISSUE AND SHE DID NOT LIKE WHT I HAD TO SAY .ALL THEY WANT IS SOMEONE ELSE TO REPLACE THE REVENUE TO HQ.
YES A ALTENATIVE MAY BE A POSSABILITY.

YORKIE... FAIR CALL MATE...... NICE ONE


OUT

[goinpostal]

A new union or leaving the CWU completely misses the problem, the problem was not the telecomms side of the union, the problem was Dave Ward, Billy Hayes, and the PEC majority. The problem is a bureaucracy in the CWU that delays struggles, demobilises them, suspends strikes for secret negotiations, cuts deals behind our back and uses the levers it controls - Voice, letters to members, etc - to try and twist members' arms into agreeing.

The CWU bureaucracy have accepted the open postal market, the dictates of competition, and Royal Mail's need to make a profit so we have to change the way we work to fit into its business plan. Everytime they suspend the strike, cut a s**t deal, every week of delay, they are trying to confuse and demoralise more and more members so that people throw in the towel and vote yes because they are sick of effective strikes being made ineffective by the sabotage at the top, or dont vote, or leave the union, or leave the job etc.

The answer is not a new union, that just leaves the same old bureaucrats intact. It is a RANK AND FILE MOVEMENT that campaigns against such sell outs and to create an alternative leadership of the union and democratises it, along with adopting a more militant policy that consistently defends members interests.

[rathbonepostie]

Reminder - meeting to organise the opposition:

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/forum/vi ... ght=#87115

[IWW Fellow Worker]

The answer is not a new union, that just leaves the same old bureaucrats intact.

That would all depend on how it's run. If it was run along the same lines as the TUC or AFL-CIO unions, you would be quite right, but not all unions are run like that, and not every union member sees the chance of being elected to an official position as a way of feathering their own nest. The problem we have in this country is that for the last 100 years, far too many of the Johnson/Hayes/Woodley/Morris/Dromey/Barber/Gormley careerist school have risen to the top and infected trade unionism with their "partnership with the bosses" style of sell-out leadership. There are unions about, in Spain and France to name two places, who have industrial, revolutionary unions with real democratic decision making. We have no such tradition in this country and when three large unions are under attack as we, Unison and the PCS have been in recent months, and the General Sectretaries decline to mount a joint campaign to pressurise Labour, it shows how far behind the CNT and CGT we are here. I've always liked the idea of 'One Big Union' as envisaged by Jim Larkin, James Connolly, Bill Haywood, Lucy Parsons and Buenaventura Durruti and many others. In the absence of that, I'm in favour of rank and file organisation to win for the workers control of a union, and to join up with other unions to form a united front against capitalism. For me, a union should be a weapon against capitalism and not something to help the bosses make their system run as smoothly as possible, which is what we have with Billy Hayes and his mates with their heads in the bosses' trough.

[POSTMAN]

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/forum/vi ... php?t=7979