Appointed or Elected?

[fishtank]

At the moment we elect our Area Reps,this is supposed to provide accountability from below but given the rather dubious democratic process at some branches and the woefully pathetic turnout for elections this accountability is very poor.
It also results in political games being played at branch level where an Area Rep may obviously fight harder to protect his/her voting base at an MC rather than fight for a far flung D.O. with a dozen members.

Unison appoint their area/regional reps on the basis that they are promoting the best reps for the job,not the most popular in a particular area,the downside is the lack of accountability at local level but they are far more accountable for their actions to HQ and there is no added pressure to sell your principles for some easy votes.

What do you think?

[sad]

At the moment we elect our Area Reps,this is supposed to provide accountability from below but given the rather dubious democratic process at some branches and the woefully pathetic turnout for elections this accountability is very poor.
It also results in political games being played at branch level where an Area Rep may obviously fight harder to protect his/her voting base at an MC rather than fight for a far flung D.O. with a dozen members.

Unison appoint their area/regional reps on the basis that they are promoting the best reps for the job,not the most popular in a particular area,the downside is the lack of accountability at local level but they are far more accountable for their actions to HQ and there is no added pressure to sell your principles for some easy votes.

What do you think?

i would be worried it would become job for the boys and the best rep would not get a look in

[TrueBlueTerrier]

The drawback I can see is that it could be a bit more cliquey, but apart from that I tend towards actually giving it a go. It would mean more accountability, and less resting on your laurels. It might also stop the constant back biting where units are blamed for poor application of agreements, or conversely HQ being blamed for agreeing to poor agreements. You never know, but selection instead of election may make the organisation in the middle take more responsibility for ensuring neither happens.

However, it would need thinking about carefully as it undoubtedly would be less democratic, it also would need to be reviewed after a period of time to see what, if any, effect good and bad it has on all facets of the Union such as its aims, values, etc. Even though it is less democratic, I think we should at least trial it and if it works adopt it. Democracy is fine, but can we really call ourselves a democratic union when turn out in elections is so low, and even strike ballots tend to be less than 50% turnout.

No I don't think the UK electoral system is Democratic either, but that's another argument for another time.

[fishtank]

I'm not saying this is necessarily the answer but there is no doubt that the present system is failing both the membership and the union in general.
Popularity and competence are not always the same thing and although there is no guarantee that selection would produce the best candidate,if the selection was done by a panel of say...5 with the candidates producing a proper CV and a set minimum unit level experience and union courses attained it would at least be possible to ensure that no-one was promoted beyond their capabilities.
The panel of 5 could consist of a National Officer,Divisional Rep,Branch Official and two random unit reps from the affected area.
It would be in the panel's interest to pick the best person for the job as they would obviously be held accountable for picking him/her.
The cost in this system is negligible compared to organising an election.

Yes it is on paper at least slightly less democratic but i think there is very little true democracy in the present system anyway.

The main problem with the present system is that the union at national level is reluctant to hold to account a locally elected official...this makes them virtually bulletproof...and some of them play on this....not all of them by any means but enough to significantly weaken the union in some areas.

[dvbuk55]

I would pretty much vote for anything that removed the gentlemans club scenario that presently exists. I believe we should adopt a system whereby an incumbent only holds that position for a limited time and I would further like to see that in the officers at HQ, who are elected unopposed time after time - as is the case in local union affairs in some instances. As for the negotiations I would like to see employed personnel whose livlihood depended on their performance and whose allegiance is to the members who employ them NOT who elect them.

[clashcityrocker]

The role of the Area Rep has changed as well.
It isn't just attendance procedures and conduct cases, the whole revision process with model weeks and IWT etc need competent people not just popular people. Professional people.
I fear the charge that we so often lay at the feet of our managers - that they are simply failed postmen - may also be appropriate in our case.
Appoint them.

[Straight4ward]

Personally, I would prefer to see Area reps elected.

However, it might be an idea for the candidates to undergo some form of competency testing before being allowed to stand.

I agree that the numbers bothering to vote is dismal but to some extent that reflects the Union’s failure to engage with the members.

In my time with RM I have never seen an area rep, let alone had the opportunity to speak to one, they’re a mythical beast in part of the country (a bit like the unicorn).

[Martin Walsh]

I remain opposed to appointed reps.

Until we merged with the NCU to become the CWU , the UCW only had elected officers.

Now we an unelected officer in charge of Negotations on the conduct code , attendance procedure , all HR procedures , pensions and ROMEC issues. In addition we have appointed officers in charge of Education and Training , Communcations and Internatonal ssiues. The BT side have a few more.

All of the above cannot be voted off by the members and will never have to win or stand for election.

Now in terms of area reps and field officials being appointed by CWU HQs , it's never going to happen. Equally what right has CWU Headquarters got to tell an area of a divison or a Branch who will represent them. it should be the members who decide and who can vote off Indivduals. Sure CWU HQs should ensure whoever is the area rep does the job they are elected to do but to appoint a rep would betray the members right to vote for who they think will do the job best.

If you appoint an area rep from outside industry equally this indivdual does not have to stand for election and has a contract of employment.

In any case there is hardly a queue of members wishing to become an area rep or even a divisional rep. Why cause it is not the easy life some think it is and it is certainly not popular. An area rep who does the job the right way will spend most days traveling to different offices , assisting unti reps , dealing with members who are facing dismissal or have been dismissed and are subject to appeal , delaying with revisons , I'll Heath retirement , impacts from mail centre closures , fixed term contracts , world class mails , meetings at headquarters , meetings with Divisonal reps and meetings with their local reps as well as sitting on the Branch Committee , dealing with the use it or lose it campaign.


Equally the role of the Divisional Rep has never been busier, dealing with mail centre closures , collection best praticise revisons , delivery revisons , RDC VOC closures , CIT changes , Mail Centre BT payments , Use it or Loss it campaign , Fixed term contracts , part time variation of hours review , delivery office closures/ amalgamation , sitting on working groups such as conduct code / attendance procedure new agreements , Area Dsitrubtuion drivers review , Delivery reference group , New Technlogy group , Motion 60 meeting the challenge , Motion 61 , plus meeting area reps , stage3s , appeals , campaigns and meetings with Headquarters on issues.

Equally Unsion is a very centralised union and the members have nowhere near the influence we have over changes to working conditions.

[dvbuk55]

Yes I'm sure you are all bowed out with work but lets get back to reality - is anyone ever going to break the little cartel that is the CWU full time reps?

[fishtank]

Equally what right has CWU Headquarters got to tell an area of a divison or a Branch who will represent them.

The most important right that underpins every single union...that the collective is more important than the individual.Be that individual branches,individual units or individual Area Reps no-one should be allowed to undermine the representation of the entire membership....and they are...and it's getting worse...and if we continue to stick our heads in the sand we are as guilty as they are.

Sure CWU HQs should ensure whoever is the area rep does the job they are elected to do

They aren't though...it's there for all to see...if you want to see it.
So what measures can CWU HQ take against an Area Rep who doesn't break the union rules but is just piss poor?
Absolutely nothing because that would...in your words...betray the members right to vote for who they think will do the job best....but what if the turnout is 10%...or even less...maybe the rep gets 150 votes...in a Branch of 3000 members...is that acceptable?

The bottom line is we need a radical overhaul in our representative structure,it's failing members and it's failing the union,we are a union bloated by,and there is no other word for this...parasites who use the union branch structure as a cosy pre-retirement home,of course when a divisional rep comes around they will be full of war stories and busy schedules but the members know better and it is the effect on the members that should worry you the most.
If you can find a way to surgically remove the parasites,improve the professionalism and accountability of area reps,branch officials..and sadly some divisional reps and keep the election system going i will support that 100% but if your idea is just to ignore or deny the problems...then we're all screwed and the end of the CWU just becomes a question of when not if.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Freudian slip

delaying with revisons

[dvbuk55]

Equally Unsion is a very centralised union and the members have nowhere near the influence we have over changes to working conditions.

I'll bet Unison members are eternally grateful for that judging from the influence exerted by the CWU.