CWU Wins New Deal for Hard-Working Post Office Members

[MinisterofCucumber]

Counters are being massacred.

CWU, where are you?

[velocity]

BFO,
You're spot on, we need to look at different ways of communicating. The world has moved on in the past 20 years, and there's things like facebook and twitter that I don't think we take full advantage of. As it is, there are always going to be things we want to tell members without the manager being there. I don't think any IR agreement will help on that score, but it's a question that the Union has got to look at more seriously

[velocity]

Agreement endorsed.

4049 votes for (93.8%)
266 against (6.2%)
87.5% turnout - 6 Branches didn't vote.

[MinisterofCucumber]

Are we allowed to know what branches didn't vote?

In January last year, a long standing Territorial Counters Representative told me there was nothing I could do about losing my NDA. In May, I raised a grievance and got pay protection. I had to involve local MPs to get my workmates their pay protection.

I want to stand in an election against this useless Territorial Counters rep. I have written to my branch and to HQ but have received no reply. Am I allowed to stand?

[The BFO]

Agreement endorsed.

4049 votes for (93.8%)
266 against (6.2%)
87.5% turnout - 6 Branches didn't vote.

As a CWU member this has somewhat passed me by. If it wasn’t for this forum, the fact that my Section Secretary sent me an e-mail to say goodbye, and the condescending note about ‘new arrangements’ on the ridiculous TV thing in the Rest Room, I would not have known anything about this.

It all seems a bit weak on the communication front.

[The BFO]

BFO,
You're spot on, we need to look at different ways of communicating. The world has moved on in the past 20 years, and there's things like facebook and twitter that I don't think we take full advantage of. As it is, there are always going to be things we want to tell members without the manager being there. I don't think any IR agreement will help on that score, but it's a question that the Union has got to look at more seriously

It sounds like you have some position in the Union. If so, may I suggest that you get it organised then?

[velocity]

Are we allowed to know what branches didn't vote?

In January last year, a long standing Territorial Counters Representative told me there was nothing I could do about losing my NDA. In May, I raised a grievance and got pay protection. I had to involve local MPs to get my workmates their pay protection.

I want to stand in an election against this useless Territorial Counters rep. I have written to my branch and to HQ but have received no reply. Am I allowed to stand?

You can stand, but you'll need your Branch nomination to do so, which needs to go to a Branch meeting. Why didn't your Section Secretary deal with the NDA? Not sure what a TCR is doing dealing with the issue before it's even reached the grievance stage. In my Branch it wouldn't go outside the Branch until Stage 3 of the grievance procedure.

[velocity]

BFO,
You're spot on, we need to look at different ways of communicating. The world has moved on in the past 20 years, and there's things like facebook and twitter that I don't think we take full advantage of. As it is, there are always going to be things we want to tell members without the manager being there. I don't think any IR agreement will help on that score, but it's a question that the Union has got to look at more seriously

It sounds like you have some position in the Union. If so, may I suggest that you get it organised then?

If I've still got a position after the elections then yes, I can organise things in my patch, but it's something that needs to be done at all levels, including Branches, ARs, TRs, the Officer, the PEC and the General Secretary

[MinisterofCucumber]

You can stand, but you'll need your Branch nomination to do so, which needs to go to a Branch meeting. Why didn't your Section Secretary deal with the NDA? Not sure what a TCR is doing dealing with the issue before it's even reached the grievance stage. In my Branch it wouldn't go outside the Branch until Stage 3 of the grievance procedure.

Do you know what branches didn't vote?

Our section secretary said that he didn't know about MTSF2 and he couldn't be expected to know about every agreement. After raising my grievance, I was paid up within two weeks. However, when about 30 of my workmates found out and launched a volley of grievances, they had to wait 3 months to get their money. Our section secretary did nothing to help them, in fact he held a meeting to ask members not to put in Stage 2 grievances. I had to write to the local MP of the workplace and my local MP who, in turn, wrote to the RM board and eventually RM were forced to cough up.

My branch secretary has never answered any of my emails and I work in the evenings when branch meetings are held.

I was led to believe the TCR was an AR at the time although when I recently wrote to a senior manager to complain about the 'AR', I was informed that he is "a long standing Territorial Counters Representative". The union has not been very helpful in the way it has answered my communications.

Velocity, I would appreciate a PM so that I can provide you with some names and you might give me some honest answers.

I also discovered that some of my workmates had been kept on substitition pay for years instead of 13 weeks maximum. So far, about £50,000 in total has been recovered without any help from the union.

[MinisterofCucumber]

Thanks for the info, Velocity.

I still want to know which branches didn't vote. I hope it's not the branches that the cash centres are in.

I am very disappointed that the agreement has been endorsed. In our cash centre we have two union branches, one for the drivers and one for the inside staff. The drivers get better T&Cs and the cash centre staff are some of the worst paid in RM. This is probably because when the drivers go on strike they really hit the business whereas if cash centre staff strike without the drivers then the work is just moved elsewhere.

This new agreement means that cash centres have a different IR framework to the cash in transit drivers. I assume this means that cash centre staff will not be allowed to leave their counters branches and join the more powerful drivers' branches. I don't see how having two union branches in one workplace is good for members. Surely, it is an invitation for management to divide and rule.

[velocity]

Thanks for the info, Velocity.

I still want to know which branches didn't vote. I hope it's not the branches that the cash centres are in.

I am very disappointed that the agreement has been endorsed. In our cash centre we have two union branches, one for the drivers and one for the inside staff. The drivers get better T&Cs and the cash centre staff are some of the worst paid in RM. This is probably because when the drivers go on strike they really hit the business whereas if cash centre staff strike without the drivers then the work is just moved elsewhere.

This new agreement means that cash centres have a different IR framework to the cash in transit drivers. I assume this means that cash centre staff will not be allowed to leave their counters branches and join the more powerful drivers' branches. I don't see how having two union branches in one workplace is good for members. Surely, it is an invitation for management to divide and rule.

You've got some good points there. Outside of London, Cash Centre staff are in the same Branches as the CIT drivers. For some reason, back in the 1990s, London organised its branches along occupational lines, whereas everywhere else amalgamated Branches, regardless of where the members worked. There's pros and cons both ways, but for Cash Centres, I think you're right about divide and rule.

There's a lot of politics about which IR framework the drivers use. They use the Royal Mail one, which is different to the one we've used til now in POL. I think the Area Distribution Reps want to keep hold of their roles representing CIT, because their role is under threat - they think it will be swallowed up by Reps covering Parcelforce.

[MinisterofCucumber]

Last night, I attended my branch meeting for determining candidates for nomination. Unfortunately, my branch did not want to put me forward as a candidate as they felt a rival candidate had more experience. When I asked them if they could put up two candidates for the same position they told me that they couldn't because they could only recommend one candidate.

Do the branch officials hold their positions for life?

If there is one day a year that we can vote them out, I bet we will be given very short notice of the date. I only saw the notice for yesterday's meeting on the union notice board yesterday. I can't find anyone who noticed it before yesterday.

[billyhayes]

Thought I would dig this thread up from the depths. So... How is it going people? Good I hope.

As I posted a few months ago, "the membership have gained from this agreement if they see their rep more often and for more time at each visit."

Each office in this area has seen our rep once, in the time since the new changes.

The DAR has not had any release time and the rep has had 2 weeks leave during that time.

The DAR was not released for 'an incident' that definitely required a rep, so another member of staff from the office was going to go in with them!!

Fortunately, the visiting manager did a sickie and it was put back to when the rep was back.

Turns out that the territorial rep who was informed of this situation helpfully suggested, "Stick in a grievance that the IR Framework is not being adhered to."

That's great. But how does that help the member HERE and NOW!!!?????

They admit themselves that they are "Overstretched with too much to do." and, "Sales meetings and meetings with the CAM MUST be done." Almost weekly it turns out.

Remember folks you work FOR the membership NOT for the company.

Still, it's not all doom and gloom, for as one rep from a neighboring area said to me, "It's better than working on the counter for 35 hours a week..."

As Rodney Trotter once said, "Pull the ladder up Jack and sod the rest."