FULL AGREEMENT

[dinho1]

its a BIG NO FOR ME dont like the local bit , and the exclusion of d2d . this time if we strike we strike while they arer fighting it out!!! fancy cwu stopping IA while they were in talks. we could have had a much better deal if we continued the IA
:cfo :lfo

[DirtyHarry]

I'm gutted with Ward & Hayes, this deal is totally shite with a capital S. NO, will be my vote.

[mailjock]

I usually agree with a lot of what IWW Fellow Worker says but we should always be wary out citing an isolated statement to back an argument without fully investigating the matter.

In general the definition of scab is taken to refer to people who continue to work when trade unionists go on strike action or even without a strike accept lower pay and/or conditions whether they be union or non-union members as far as I am concerned.

The reference cited by IWW FW refers to 'labor' not 'labour' unions which seems to point to an American definition and if you actually fully read the link provided it appears to go back to a trial in Philadelphia in 1800 when a journeyman shoemaker testified that: 'when he came to America from England in 1794, the local shoemakers' union notified him that he must either join them or be considered a "scab" and be forbidden to work with union men'.

I have no wish to spend too much time researching this as we all have more important things to do in the near future but it is worth considering whether the 'union' referred to is actually more of a trestrictive rade guild and I have never believed that the trade union movement which blossomed in the 1800s and formed the foundation of modern trade-unionism springs from this form of craft protectionism which guilds were all about so I would reject the definition advanced by IWW FW.

I might not agree with someone's decision not to be a trade unionist and I really don't care whether there is legal protection of that stance. Quite simply people have the right not to join a union and indeed some have moral reasons for not doing so. I would defend anyone in that position to retain that right but then I have never agreed with the closed-shop mentality which I believe to be a hangover from mediaeval trades guilds. However, if a non union member crosses a picket line or accepts poorer pay/conditions, then they become a scab and they have to live with the consequences of that action.

However, I know of non-union members who have not crossed CWU picket lines during this dispute so how can we possibly accept a definition that brands them as strike breakers?

I am always interested in where we came from as trade unionists but I am more interested in where we are going and that should be to campaign for as strong a NO Vote as possible because this is only the beginning and anyone - strike breakers or union members or even our Union leaders who thinks this is all over - is living in cloud-cuckoo land.

[yorkie]

union jack go and kiss a strike breakers arse then join the bnp union

[deadbox]

SCANNING through this agreement ....its a BIG NO from me

[IWW Fellow Worker]

I usually agree with a lot of what IWW Fellow Worker says but we should always be wary out citing an isolated statement to back an argument without fully investigating the matter.

In general the definition of scab is taken to refer to people who continue to work when trade unionists go on strike action or even without a strike accept lower pay and/or conditions whether they be union or non-union members as far as I am concerned.

The reference cited by IWW FW refers to 'labor' not 'labour' unions which seems to point to an American definition and if you actually fully read the link provided it appears to go back to a trial in Philadelphia in 1800 when a journeyman shoemaker testified that: 'when he came to America from England in 1794, the local shoemakers' union notified him that he must either join them or be considered a "scab" and be forbidden to work with union men'.

I have no wish to spend too much time researching this as we all have more important things to do in the near future but it is worth considering whether the 'union' referred to is actually more of a trestrictive rade guild and I have never believed that the trade union movement which blossomed in the 1800s and formed the foundation of modern trade-unionism springs from this form of craft protectionism which guilds were all about so I would reject the definition advanced by IWW FW.

I might not agree with someone's decision not to be a trade unionist and I really don't care whether there is legal protection of that stance. Quite simply people have the right not to join a union and indeed some have moral reasons for not doing so. I would defend anyone in that position to retain that right but then I have never agreed with the closed-shop mentality which I believe to be a hangover from mediaeval trades guilds. However, if a non union member crosses a picket line or accepts poorer pay/conditions, then they become a scab and they have to live with the consequences of that action.

However, I know of non-union members who have not crossed CWU picket lines during this dispute so how can we possibly accept a definition that brands them as strike breakers?

I am always interested in where we came from as trade unionists but I am more interested in where we are going and that should be to campaign for as strong a NO Vote as possible because this is only the beginning and anyone - strike breakers or union members or even our Union leaders who thinks this is all over - is living in cloud-cuckoo land.

For a non-guild definition of the term, you could always read 'The Making of the English Working Class' by EP Thompson or 'Conditions of the Working Class in England' by Engels. Whatever the term came to mean under Thatcher or Blair, I think I'll stick with the original. Non-union = scab.

[IWW Fellow Worker]

IM OUT AND GOING TO JOIN THE BNP UNION A UNION WITH REAL BALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You'll be with plenty of dicks anyway.

[mailjock]

Union Jack and Solidarity deserve each other although I'm not sure if he is joining Solidarity (original) or Solidarity (Breakaway) as the BNP-front union has already splintered within weeks of its public launch. Oh yea - this lot will do a lot for the working class struggle - still I see they've learned from main stream unions and are setting up a political levy - wonder what party that money will go to ? lmfao.

[IWW Fellow Worker]

Union Jack and Solidarity deserve each other although I'm not sure if he is joining Solidarity (original) or Solidarity (Breakaway) as the BNP-front union has already splintered within weeks of its public launch. Oh yea - this lot will do a lot for the working class struggle - still I see they've learned from main stream unions and are setting up a political levy - wonder what party that money will go to ? lmfao.

I wonder if any will make its way to a one eyed land owner in North Wales.

[L Tommo]

Now what have we been out for??? What have we all stood on picket lines for??? So Billy n Dave can sit in a nice hotel and discuss our future when in real terms The negotiators have given back all the advantages we the workers the strikers gave ourselves and the bartering tools to put RM on the back foot....

They gave back the impetus we had. The force we brought to the table for them to push home the advantage,Then get the deal WE need to work and survive in this job in the future and the services future as well... Rolling strikes worked so well... Then the Blanket ban of News from the talks.... BAD MOVE FOR THE WORKERS and RM knew this... They still knew the score and the top bods in HQ still knew... The only ones but the most IMPORTANT PEOPLE WHO KNEW FECK ALL WAS US.... US the CWU The UNION.... US the people they now ask us to vote on with there recomendation!!!!

FECK OFF!!! KEEP US IN THE DARK.. MAKE A DEAL... THEN PUSH IT THRU.. TELLING US "ITS THE BEST WE COULD GET..." BOLLOX!!!!!!


We had them on the ropes.. We all hoped that the CWU had the brains and the knowhow to get the deal.... I feel we are wrong... Now its US AGAIN doing the donkey work.. While Billy and Dave and the BODS on the exct prance about.... Yes they might be good people yes they might be great unionist.. But are they good negotiators and will they push the deal without strings?????

IF NOT... WE SHOULD ALL THREATEN TO CHUCK OUR CARDS IN UNLESS THEY GO BACK AND NEGOTIATE WITHOUT STRINGS AND AN OPEN DEBATE THAT WE KNOW ABOUT WITH INFO COMING OUT DAILY FROM HQ.... NOT 1s A WEEK.... DISGRACE!!!!!


Give us a ballot that is straight and not put to us like its the best that billy and dave can do.... Just give us the facts....


for once!!!


out :cfo :lfo

[mailjock]

I depair for this union and Royal Mail - as a service - if we are going to label non-union workers who made a conscious choice not to cross the CWU picket lines as strike breakers.

[IWW Fellow Worker]

I depair for this union and Royal Mail - as a service - if we are going to label non-union workers who made a conscious choice not to cross the CWU picket lines as strike breakers.

But that is the definition of non-union people. There's no point in anyone falling out over it. That's what they are, always have been and always will be.

[yogibear]

A scab is anyone who crosses a picketline. end of

[Macca]

Why the f**k have we been striking? Everything we have fought for and lost pay over is in this agreement! I understand we have to make some compromises, but what compromises have :cfo & :lfo made, NONE, they've got exactly what they wanted and Hayes, Ward and the PEC have handed it to them on a plate

Time to start campiagning for a NO vote!!!


:cfo :lfo

[IWW Fellow Worker]

A scab is anyone who crosses a picketline. end of

Not quite "end off", but I agree with you.