Unite union

[daveyeff]

Today they've told the "go north east" bus company who employs the bus drivers that after next weeks strike, they will return for 1 week and then if there is no movement by the company on pay talks and conditions, they will escalate all out strike action for 12 weeks. Sharon Graham unite's leader says they will NOT back down. They are being paid 70 pounds a day strike money. Unite seems to be a totally better union than our lot. Royal Mail backed off straight away when they threatened to take the gaffers out. Yet ours got into bed with them. In hindsight, I think we've got the wrong union. What a difference.

[hans solo]

Your not wrong

[TopperGas]

Not sure I'd be too impressed if the CWU had done a similar U turn having originally proposed a deal?


https://newsroom.gonortheast.co.uk/news ... ike-473700

[enskied]

Unite screwed us over. Gave the Gaffers money to break our strike. It's a scab union

[tramssirhc]

Unite supports the strikes it can win. Plenty of Unite disputes have been sold out. Sharon Graham is not the saviour of the working class. The postal industry is a lost cause anyway so it wouldn't matter who organised postal workers. If you want to make a difference change the Union your in.

[Tman]

I never thought I'd see the day when CWU members envied the performance of Unite.
Unite has been little more than a holiday and discount club for many years, and nothing like a serious union.

[Weetrogg2]

I never thought I'd see the day when CWU members envied the performance of Unite.
Unite has been little more than a holiday and discount club for many years, and nothing like a serious union.

To be fair Tman I no longer think the CWU is a serious trade union, the only thing that was removed from the original demands by RM was the threat of automatic check off for union subs and the removal of full release for senior union officials

[daveyeff]

well, management yet again told us they were removing our 9 day fortnights, (second time). union came in for meeting, then said we could have a vote. but, if we voted to keep our 9 day fortnights, then 11 jobs would be ''at risk''. at the meeting it was said ''well the way the job is now, they would easily get 11 people who would take redundancy. their answer was...no, it wont be redundancies, it will be 11 people moved to other offices, but it wont be part-timers, it will be full timers with up to 20years of service. this seems to be an ''engineered'' and planned agenda to get us to relinquish our sacred shift pattens of 9 day fortnights. they've got us off them now because people were simply not prepared to take the risk of being sent to other offices. the union just seems to be giving in on everything these bastards want. the opinion in the office is our union has just caved on just about everything they want. there doesn't seem to be any fight left....what the f**k has happened to our union?? talk about being demoralised. we are just totally f***ing sick of it all now.

[daveyeff]

so if i seem to be ''envious'' of unite, maybe its because of the way our union seems to be accepting everything RM want.

[aiden01]

so if i seem to be ''envious'' of unite, maybe its because of the way our union seems to be accepting everything RM want.

Has your office asked for a rule 13 ballot?

[daveyeff]

no, it was mentioned by a few of the lads but some thought there isn't any point. simply because the union seemed to sanction the loss of the 9 day fortnight with the threat of people being moved. morale in our office is at an all time low.....i'm gone in January, but its me mates/colleagues i feel for.

[postslippete]

no, it was mentioned by a few of the lads but some thought there isn't any point. simply because the union seemed to sanction the loss of the 9 day fortnight with the threat of people being moved. morale in our office is at an all time low.....i'm gone in January, but its me mates/colleagues i feel for.

Maybe worth looking beyond the CWU for legal advice? I'm no legal expert but I was talking to my neighbour today who works for the council and is looking for redundancy and they tried sending him to another site unless he accepted certain things. However, they couldn't do it because it wasn't in his contract. So possibly worth checking up?

It would be nice to hear Woody's thoughts on this.... What can these guys do to get the best they can from this situation?? How can they fight it when it's clearly obvious a tactic that RM management are using in collaboration with the Union. But as he says - we are the Union!!

Could they all put individual grievances in, for example?

[SpacePhoenix]

no, it was mentioned by a few of the lads but some thought there isn't any point. simply because the union seemed to sanction the loss of the 9 day fortnight with the threat of people being moved. morale in our office is at an all time low.....i'm gone in January, but its me mates/colleagues i feel for.

Maybe worth looking beyond the CWU for legal advice? I'm no legal expert but I was talking to my neighbour today who works for the council and is looking for redundancy and they tried sending him to another site unless he accepted certain things. However, they couldn't do it because it wasn't in his contract. So possibly worth checking up?

I'm fairly sure that being moved to any RM site is in everyone's contracts including mine and I started in the early 2000s. I'd have to dig my contract out to be sure

[Deadly]

My wife had the misfortune to need Unite help in her job, they were utterly useless.

[postslippete]

I'm fairly sure that being moved to any RM site is in everyone's contracts including mine and I started in the early 2000s. I'd have to dig my contract out to be sure

Just had a quick look and you're right it specifically states that the needs of Royal Mail require mobility.

But It does seem like blackmail. Why is it that the full-timers with 20 years service have to move and not any of the part-timers. Is that not discrimination?? What if they removed these 9 day fortnights and the company still got rid of jobs in the office? Have the Union got this in writing that this won't be the case?