It is not really a question of self satisfaction, more of a desire to not to be made to feel like a second class citizen every day by our colleagues, our managers and our union representatives.
I do understand that and I recognise the feeling because I was also a part-timer.
There is a strange false hierarchical system within Royal Mail that I think is the result of a lack of a genuine differentiation between skill levels and the overemphasis of the power or importance of seniority.
It is pathetic but we've both been in this job a very long time and know there is no appetite for change by any of those with the power to do so.
That power would need to be taken from them by (democratic?) (hopefully not literal) force.
Probably office by office.
A corduroy revolution....
It is pathetic but we've both been in this job a very long time and know there is no appetite for change by any of those with the power to do so.
I think there is a moral vacuum at the heart of the CWU and it has been there since the introduction of the shorter working week.
What percentage of the workforce is part time? What percentage of the union reps at local level are part time?
If those 2 figures aren't roughly the same then there is an imbalance that should concern the union and an imbalance it should address.
But I can't see Pullfinger or Wad pulling their finger out.
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.
What percentage of the workforce is part time? What percentage of the union reps at local level are part time?
If those 2 figures aren't roughly the same then there is an imbalance that should concern the union and an imbalance it should address.
Those in post will argue that a full-time rep is perfectly capable of representing part-time members, afterall if they can argue that senior national officers who haven't delivered a letter in the 21st century should represent us I doubt they will lose any sleep over contract length.
The vast majority at the top of the union are middle-aged white men, mostly from the London area. If they can't even address that lack of diversity I doubt there's much hope for a part-time union rep.
Those in post will argue that a full-time rep is perfectly capable of representing part-time members,
A full time rep is perfectly capable of representing part time members but the reality is ...they don't.
Partly because they don't understand the pressures on part time staff, and partly because some of them don't care (because the minority don't elect them)
The unfortunate fact is that a lot of our trade union representatives aren't actually trade unionists.
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.
The unfortunate fact is that a lot of our trade union representatives aren't actually trade unionists
I know.
It's SHITE being part-time ! We're the lowest of the low. The scum of the f***ing Earth! The most wretched, miserable, servile, pathetic trash that was ever shat into civilization. Some hate the full-timers . I don't. They're just w*****s. We, on the other hand, are controlled by w*****s. Can't even find a decent group to be controlled by. We're ruled by selfish arseholes. It's a SHITE state of affairs to be in, Tommy, and ALL the fresh air in the world won't make any f***ing difference..
Part timers need to get together for a meeting to stop doing overtime. This is the sole reason there is a part time workforce.
The union can't tell you to do this because it would be seen as unofficial industrial action and the rep/union would be in serious trouble.
Question: So what's stopping all part timers in a unit meeting up and standing together to stop all overtime???
Answer: We need the money, very true but you have to make a stand, it's your choice, if you don't organise then stop moaning because you're not
willing to do anything about it. (YOU ARE THE UNION) but if you do organise then the CWU will back you.
Last edited by Phantom on 12 Feb 2021, 09:51, edited 1 time in total.
.... but if you do organise then the CWU will back you.
We have a revision ready to go.
It creates 11 full time positions by removing SA and putting those hours into contracted hours.
The union is in disagreement.
The rep holds 11 hours SA/week.
The branch secretary holds 7h 30/week.
The former area rep holds 15 hours/week.
Of the 300 hours SA each week over 95% is in the hands of full time staff,
The CWU will back us? Ha Ha bonk.
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.
.... but if you do organise then the CWU will back you.
We have a revision ready to go.
It creates 11 full time positions by removing SA and putting those hours into contracted hours.
The union is in disagreement.
The rep holds 11 hours SA/week.
The branch secretary holds 7h 30/week.
The former area rep holds 15 hours/week.
Of the 300 hours SA each week over 95% is in the hands of full time staff,
The CWU will back us? Ha Ha bonk.
It's the same story up and down the country, with SA like that and local agreements that permit 12 o'clock Saturday finishes for the top 10% of the office. Once all of that gets accounted for out of the revision budget you get left with too few hours and too much work, meaning hugely unbalanced workloads and an even more divided workforce.
Strange that both the table top revision process and the structural revision guidelines were sent out yesterday to Management and Reps.
An office will either have a structural revision and there will be 400 offices doing this which means a potential indoor improvement performance as well as a geo route revision, the impact of which there will be a 3 year flight path.
The remaining circa 850 offices will do a table top revision based on improving their WIPWH productivity and each office has been put into one of 6 categories with a sliding scale of improvement.
So I am not sure where your revision fits in even if it is at disagreement level . Both of these revisions will trigger the SWW .
It's neither here nor there where it fits in Martin, the point is that old chestnut of putting full-time earning opportunities over increasing contracts is an issue in practically every office in the country and because the vast majority of union reps are full-time it's only going to end one way.
SA is anti-union at its core.
It makes a joke of policies like doing the job properly.
Its jobs for the boys at the top and the CWU is no different. They like to blow each other's trumpets. The failed ballots have been very embarrassing though.
On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world.
10 part time staff at the next office to us completely stopped all overtime, it took 6 weeks for RM to up their contracts to full time, it caused that
many completion issues within the office it was unbelievable.
The excuse "full timers" will do it, no they won't but you keep telling yourself this and you'll get nowhere.
.... but if you do organise then the CWU will back you.
We have a revision ready to go.
It creates 11 full time positions by removing SA and putting those hours into contracted hours.
The union is in disagreement.
The rep holds 11 hours SA/week.
The branch secretary holds 7h 30/week.
The former area rep holds 15 hours/week.
Of the 300 hours SA each week over 95% is in the hands of full time staff,
The CWU will back us? Ha Ha bonk.
and that's the excuse to not do anything? pathetic.
And a breach of the 4 Pillars agreement that said we should "focus" on improving part time contracts.
So local agreements can't decide the level of SA in an office until all avenues of improving part time contracts have been explored.
"Local agreements" will simply favour the strong over the weak, the haves over the have nots, the powerful over the disenfranchised.
That isn't why I joined a trade union.
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.