Is Dave Ward the worst CWU leader ever?

[k979aaa]

The whole problem is a product of the way forward agreement and it's area by area approach what you have now is a disunited union a bit like the UK after Brexit!

[postslippete]

"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.

Aye, thats exactly what will happen. Its happening now so I can't see the trend being reversed.

There will still be bigger duties than others - but the weaker and/or faster ones will be doing them
There will still be some guys tasked with prepping 2 duties whilst others are prepping just their own
There will still be some guys coming in early doing IPS everyday and leaving 2 hours before their shift time whilst the DOM turns a blind eye

These could be some of the "innovative shift patterns" being created

[Martin Walsh]

K979 I have been in Royal Mail since 1985 and have family who have been in since 1970.

It has always been local agreements based on the outcome of a national agreement

Whether that be :

The Ex IWM bonus scheme which is where the £100 Christmas bonus originates from or

The SFMB agreement which was the first time part timers were bought into and SA was agreed.

You cannot have a national Agreement which is deployed the same everywhere :

Most on here would scream if we all had the same :


Attendance pattern
Same delivery span
Same overtime
Same productivity
Same times of attendance
Same part time hours and opportunities
Same annual leave spread
Same enquiry office opening
The list goes on remember without local agreement you don’t have any local protections !

I think those who argue for national agreements on everything thing that will protect them somehow , it wouldn’t the same bullying management would still exploit the weak , there is no perfect solution other than to try and organise in offices and Branch’s being supported by the National union and the agreement.

I would argue the protections in this agreement and guidelines is the best starting point for ensuring the union in the workplace starts to become collective and gets the best deal for there members

[clashcityrocker]

the same bullying management would still exploit the weak ,

Not if we had a f***ing union that knew what it stood for.

[Martin Walsh]

Listen clash , based on your assumption we don’t need local reps , CWU HQs will represent all 1400 delivery offices , 37 mail centres ,9 RDCs, MDECs, VOCs ,international and collection hubs.

No national union can do that , this is why Branch’s and recognition agreements are made for Divisional , Area and Local Reps.

Branch’s are funded to ensure their offices are represented and must do a great job.

However some could do better and some should do better but to simply blame the CWU is forgetting the role of the Divisional ,Area and Local Rep is of a volunteer who decides to take on a lot of pressure to try and help the members within their office ,Araa or Division and that is not often an easy job.

[clashcityrocker]

Listen clash , based on your assumption we don’t need local reps ,

Listen Martin nowhere have I said that.
We need local reps who are actually interested in trade unionism.
We need a Branch structure that actually can be held to account.
We need leadership from the top.

[Woody Guthrie]

The structure of our union is that the strongest get the best representation.

The mindset of the union is that this is fine because it encourages weaker areas to become stronger. Change from the bottom up etc..

This is an outdated fallacy which to be honest has become nothing more than an excuse to take the easy option and do nothing.

An individual member in a weak office pays the same to be represented as a member in a strong office but an individual member cannot make an office strong, an individual office cannot make a branch strong and an individual branch cannot make a division strong so the idea that strength can be built from the bottom up is complete and utter nonsense. At each level there is an insurmountable wall of cronyism and protectionism that defies any attempt to improve the quality of representation from below.

Yes reps are volunteers but that doesn't mean they are all suddenly saints or even good reps, you can volunteer for something for all the wrong reasons far more easily than you can for the right reasons.

You can also volunteer for something for the right reasons and still be completely useless at it.

Every time this point is put forward Martin you trot out the same tired arguments that HQ cannot be expected to represent every single office.

Proper professional oversight does not mean HQ taking control of everything, it never has. It means proper top down accountability, it means proper auditing of branches, it means direct channels of communication between offices and HQ and an end to the "speak to your branch" mentallity.

With proper communication channels, an end to the mafia style closing of ranks and serious sanctions on failing branches it's perfectly possible to identify and help weak areas in the union but the motivation has to be there.

As for local agreements they only work within a clear national framework in strong offices or with strict oversight. If you don't have either they just weaken the union further.

[Phantom]

Listen clash , based on your assumption we don’t need local reps ,

Listen Martin nowhere have I said that.
We need local reps who are actually interested in trade unionism.
We need a Branch structure that actually can be held to account.
We need leadership from the top.

I told you to hold a meeting with part timers and try to cut all overtime but you won't do it,
so even you are not prepared to do anything because some rep has SA????? and that's your reason not to fight???
The time for crap excuses is over, RM rely 101% on overtime so hit them at their weakest.
Do or die!

[Phantom]

The structure of our union is that the strongest get the best representation.

The mindset of the union is that this is fine because it encourages weaker areas to become stronger. Change from the bottom up etc..

This is an outdated fallacy which to be honest has become nothing more than an excuse to take the easy option and do nothing.

An individual member in a weak office pays the same to be represented as a member in a strong office but an individual member cannot make an office strong, an individual office cannot make a branch strong and an individual branch cannot make a division strong so the idea that strength can be built from the bottom up is complete and utter nonsense. At each level there is an insurmountable wall of cronyism and protectionism that defies any attempt to improve the quality of representation from below.

Yes reps are volunteers but that doesn't mean they are all suddenly saints or even good reps, you can volunteer for something for all the wrong reasons far more easily than you can for the right reasons.

You can also volunteer for something for the right reasons and still be completely useless at it.

Every time this point is put forward Martin you trot out the same tired arguments that HQ cannot be expected to represent every single office.

Proper professional oversight does not mean HQ taking control of everything, it never has. It means proper top down accountability, it means proper auditing of branches, it means direct channels of communication between offices and HQ and an end to the "speak to your branch" mentallity.

With proper communication channels, an end to the mafia style closing of ranks and serious sanctions on failing branches it's perfectly possible to identify and help weak areas in the union but the motivation has to be there.

As for local agreements they only work within a clear national framework in strong offices or with strict oversight. If you don't have either they just weaken the union further.

So if computer says No, you don't do it???? What a load of shite!

[Woody Guthrie]

So if computer says No, you don't do it???? What a load of shite!

Have you been at the sherry this morning?
What have computers got to do with any of my post?

[clashcityrocker]

I told you to hold a meeting with part timers

So I somehow manage to get enough part timers together in a room on their own time.
I explain to some of the poorest paid people in the office who rely on overtime to pay their rent and feed their kids that a woman on the internet in New York says the only way to improve their lot is to give up all overtime for 2 weeks, (4weeks 6 months who knows?)
Apparently this worked somewhere else ....
I can see that working.

I don't wish to be rude but I am going to ignore everything you say.

[postslippete]

I would argue the protections in this agreement and guidelines is the best starting point for ensuring the union in the workplace starts to become collective and gets the best deal for there members

I understand that no 2 offices operate the same and I agree it could be the best starting point, but isn't it massively reliant on how good each Unit rep is at their job??

The main reason why I'm still in the CWU is because we have got a cracking Area Rep thats been there as long as you and knows his stuff. RM want rid of Area Reps because they know they can make big changes by leaning on a local rep. That's the biggest danger with local agreements and members will want to know if RM are able to get away with things like banking of hours or be able to crap on regular duty holders by moving them around the office, for example.

[Phantom]

I told you to hold a meeting with part timers

So I somehow manage to get enough part timers together in a room on their own time.
I explain to some of the poorest paid people in the office who rely on overtime to pay their rent and feed their kids that a woman on the internet in New York says the only way to improve their lot is to give up all overtime for 2 weeks, (4weeks 6 months who knows?)
Apparently this worked somewhere else ....
I can see that working.

I don't wish to be rude but I am going to ignore everything you say.

You pick the status quo, no problem because you talk absolute crap!
End of.

[aiden01]

I told you to hold a meeting with part timers

So I somehow manage to get enough part timers together in a room on their own time.
I explain to some of the poorest paid people in the office who rely on overtime to pay their rent and feed their kids that a woman on the internet in New York says the only way to improve their lot is to give up all overtime for 2 weeks, (4weeks 6 months who knows?)
Apparently this worked somewhere else ....
I can see that working.

I don't wish to be rude but I am going to ignore everything you say.

You pick the status quo, no problem because you talk absolute crap!
End of.

Are you a rep??

[postslippete]

I feel for our part-time colleagues as I was part time for years. Turning down overtime is not the answer as you know the screws will just ask someone else. We have a lot of temps at our place and I'm convinced that they are on less money as they are often called upon to complete deliveries.

That's bad news for anyone who is part time and wants to make up their hours and other than dragging the job out and claiming a couple of extra hours a day I don't know how else a part timer can increase their hours.

Once again....i guess it depends on how good your rep is at getting extra hours for part timers. Our last rep told me he had to fight tooth and nail to get extra hours put in and they could only do it in a revision when some staff left and they unfortunately made a lot of the duties bigger. With restructuring increasing part timers hours should be on the agenda?