So where is dave ward...

[postslippete]

The union had a huge mandate but decided to capitulate instead of forcing Royal Mails hand.

This.

Regardless of what anyone thought further strikes would achieve, over 80,000 employees explicitly authorised further action and a mandate only really has any real bargaining power if you are willing to use it. The leadership never even tested it. RM had financial problems but IDS had substantial reserves and special administration was considered to be a nuclear option. Ironically, if this happened the government would have been involved because somebody still has to deliver the universal service. Thousands of letters and parcels don't get delivered on their own do they?

Whatever. There is no doubt that accepting major concessions without deploying that mandate ultimately surrendered the union's strongest bargaining weapon. It suggests that the membership are more willing to fight harder than its leadership is willing to fight. And that is the problem.

[TopperGas]

Deleted

[qwerty2]

[DGH]

This.

Regardless of what anyone thought further strikes would achieve, over 80,000 employees explicitly authorised further action and a mandate only really has any real bargaining power if you are willing to use it. The leadership never even tested it. RM had financial problems but IDS had substantial reserves and special administration was considered to be a nuclear option. Ironically, if this happened the government would have been involved because somebody still has to deliver the universal service. Thousands of letters and parcels don't get delivered on their own do they?

Whatever. There is no doubt that accepting major concessions without deploying that mandate ultimately surrendered the union's strongest bargaining weapon. It suggests that the membership are more willing to fight harder than its leadership is willing to fight. And that is the problem.

The threat to derecognise the union broke them.

[postslippete]

The threat to derecognise the union broke them.

Wouldn't surprise me. If they did threaten check-off the CWU would have taken it very seriously because CWU membership had been in decline.

[clashcityrocker]

It suggests that the membership are more willing to fight harder than its leadership is willing to fight. And that is the problem.

It suggested that the membership were willing to put a cross in a box.
It doesn't suggest they were willing to lose more money with no significant chance of anything that might resemble a "victory".

[clashcityrocker]

The threat to derecognise the union broke them.

Wouldn't surprise me. If they did threaten check-off the CWU would have taken it very seriously because CWU membership had been in decline.

Threatening check off and threatening to derecognise the union are completely different things.
Royal Mail has always threatened check off.
It simply means people would have to set up standing orders like most people do for their utility bills and their council tax.
It isn't really a threat at all.

[Mr Rush]

Ironically, if this happened the government would have been involved because somebody still has to deliver the universal service. Thousands of letters and parcels don't get delivered on their own do they?

The CWU has consistently stated that nationalisation would result in all the parcel contracts halting on competition grounds which would lay waste to employee numbers (oh, and members' subs) because there aren't enough letters to keep half the people in the job. I dimly recall we had major contracts before privatisation - Tracked® was created in the first place for that exact market segment.

[Thommo44]

Anyone think it’s time for the likes of Dave Ward and Martin Walsh to share their terms and conditions with us? How can they be expected to fight for ours when theirs is far superior?

Salary, holiday, sick pay, start and finish times

[postslippete]

Threatening check off and threatening to derecognise the union are completely different things.
Royal Mail has always threatened check off.
It simply means people would have to set up standing orders like most people do for their utility bills and their council tax.
It isn't really a threat at all.

I'm aware that they are different things clash but suggesting that it isn't a threat doesn't follow. Removing subs from wages potentially forces tens of thousands of members to then change their payment arrangements individually. And you know as well as I do that many won't bother. It would also be easier for members to cancel their subs this way as well.

[reddevils]

*

[postslippete]

There's a lot of whataboutism here. We don't voluntarily pay the CEO's salary through a subscription in return for representation, but as union members we directly fund the CWU's organisation so that gives us a reason to ask whether top union salaries represents value for money for what we receive in return. Fair point?

You say that there are 180,000 members and people's jobs that the General Secretary is responsible for protecting and improving but forget that the organisation also has officers and branch reps who do a lot of work on the shop floor. If anything the CWU probably needs more reps on the shop floor and need to be less heavy at the top, but like you said, the same could be true of most organisations as well. Given the CWU's financial position does the total remuneration package represent reasonable value? If the CWU was delivering outstanding results with increased membership, winning disputes and improving its members overall pay and working conditions then the huge salaries would never be in question would it? Fair point?

And as for this divide and conquer thing. Personally, I think the CWU have got too close to RM management. Criticising their motives behind designing a new delivery model isn't attacking trade unionism in itself. It's got to the point where some reps are acting more like RM shop floor managers and I don't know if that is a good or bad thing for the union. But when ordinary members have experienced changes with increased workloads, later starts and deterioration of existing terms, then it's perfectly legitimate to question them so that we don't end up digging up our own graves.

[Mr Rush]

If the CWU was delivering outstanding results with increased membership, winning disputes and improving its members overall pay and working conditions then the huge salaries would never be in question would it? Fair point?

Exactly. Whenever Martin Walsh posts on here it all comes across as a case of the lady doth protest too much. It would be self-evidently worth it if this were 1926 or something and our terms and conditions were improving before our very eyes. It feels a little more like 1826 and if you don't like it down the mine you can feel free to leave so the leadership doesn't have to listen to you complain. Not the management. The union leadership.

I'm not sure which will find itself on the ash heap first: Royal Mail (in a form we recognise) or the CWU. I would question the financial viability of the CWU without its largest component of membership. Whether or not the threat to axe payslip deductions is true, they haven't done anything in the three years since to put some armour on that soft underbelly. That's one hell of a trustfall.

[funkflex55]

But the union fought hard against ODM and even created DM26 and made RM accept it so now we're all having it easier on delivery.

Stop complaining and eat your gruel!

[Chelseablue]

But the union fought hard against ODM and even created DM26 and made RM accept it so now we're all having it easier on delivery.

Stop complaining and eat your gruel!

The drugs do work