From the IWW Website.

IWW Fellow Worker · Post by **IWW Fellow Worker** » 20 Jul 2007, 16:43

http://www.iww.org.uk/about/updates/070 ... index.html

A view from the frontline

So, the second CWU day of action came and went. The CWU claim 95% of people refused to work and looking around the figures from different Royal Mail units from Regional Distribution Centres to the smallest Delivery Offices it's difficult to argue with that. Needless to say, Royal Mail does argue with the figures and have instructed Line Managers to provide information on employees who are on sick leave, annual holiday leave or who are on their weekly day off. One sixth of all staff in delivery offices will have had their day off on Friday and anything up to 15% will have been on holiday. The percentage of sick will be anyone's guess, but a combination of the draconian Attendance Procedure (agreed with the CWU, it should be added) and Line Managers out to score Brownie points from their Area Managers ensure very few people are off longer than is the very minimum of time. Royal Mail deducts this total from the numbers of staff who go on strike and issue their own figures in the hope of fooling the public that thousands of postal workers are actually working. It's similar to the system the Government use when issuing the unemployment figures to the compliant media. Everyone knows there are many thousands of under -18s, older members of the population, parents of very young children, carers of elderly relatives etc who cannot claim benefit, but who are removed from the total of unemployed.

Of course there exists an active group of strike breakers who Royal Mail knows will be prepared to cross the picket line and break the strike. A hard core of blacklegs with no sense of self-respect, dignity or solidarity. A set of individuals who can always be relied upon to carry out any order without question. These are knows as "managers" although they are little more than office boys, and bullying office boys at that. This is why Leighton and Crozier have given them all several thousand pounds each while telling postmen and postwomen they can have no more than 2.5% just as long as they hit a set of undisclosed targets, carry out work which will lead to one in six postal workers joining (or not joining, depending upon the Government's strange method of mathematics ) the unemployment figures, agree to later starting times and covering work performed by colleagues on holiday or off sick for no extra money and much more. These managers are mostly members of the Communication Managers Association which is part of Amicus. That Amicus and the TUC are happy to have these strike breakers in membership shows the desperate state of the reformist unions. Suffice it to say, there are NO strike breakers in the I.W.W.

It has to be said that many staff have not helped their own cause by performing unpaid overtime at the start of every working day, carrying overweight bags, using their cars on delivery thereby costing van driving jobs and working overtime for less than the standard rate of pay. It's no surprise that Delivery Office Managers have tipped off their Area Managers about who is finishing early and in turn they have compiled a list of deliveries and offices where savings can be made. It must also be added that there are CWU Reps who are more inclined to their own interests than that of the members and who have aided and abetted Royal Mail in implementing sections of their Business Plan. It is hoped the CWU will deal with those Reps who have signed up to later start times, agreed to allowing managers to make full-time deliveries part-time and other local agreements which the CWU has expressly forbidden in its Letters To Branches.

The CWU should be linking this dispute to those of other public sector workers in Unison and the teachers unions. Is Billy Hayes capable of seeing the big picture and forming a united front with other workers? There hasn't been much sign of it so far. There seems a great unwillingness on the part of the CWU leadership to rock the Labour Party boat. It is an attitude which is at odds with their members who know that for all the money Billy throws in the direction of Gordon Brown, things will not improve for them or their families. Billy is so out of touch with the membership that he thought the election of former postman Alan Johnson to Deputy Leader of the Labour Party would be a good thing. With commendable wisdom, Conference decided against Johnson, much to the annoyance of his old chum Billy. Former CWU General Secretary Johnson is the man who pushed through the policy of student loans which ensures young people are burdened by a mountain of debt before they even have a job. He has not spoken one word about the Thatcher-Tebbitt anti-union laws. He has gone along unquestioningly with the bombing of Belgrade, the war in Iraq and British Government support for fascist militias in Columbia. In such men, Billy Hayes places great trust. For such a Government Billy is prepared to sacrifice the interests of his members. The Industrial Workers of the World have no such allegiance to party political fraudsters. No cash handouts to the brigands in SW1 to enable them to continue ripping off the working class and no cosy deals with employers. A union with a history of fighting capitalism is better than one whose leaders are there to oil its wheels.

Spartacus · Post by **Spartacus** » 20 Jul 2007, 19:05

Good stuff

DirtyHarry · Post by **DirtyHarry** » 20 Jul 2007, 21:18

Good piece , IWW.

IWW Fellow Worker · Post by **IWW Fellow Worker** » 20 Jul 2007, 21:46

DirtyHarry wrote:Good piece , IWW.

I can only take credit for the last paragraph really. Me and Billy have crossed swords in the past about funding someone to kick you in the nuts. Probably one of the reasons no one can reply to his blog anymore.

DirtyHarry · Post by **DirtyHarry** » 20 Jul 2007, 22:07

Billy's a bit of a berk , I used to find his mis-placed loyalty to NEW Labour rather touching , now it constantly annoys
the f**k out of me.

IWW Fellow Worker · Post by **IWW Fellow Worker** » 20 Jul 2007, 22:18

DirtyHarry wrote:Billy's a bit of a berk , I used to find his mis-placed loyalty to NEW Labour rather touching , now it constantly annoys
the f**k out of me.

I know exactly what you mean. I'm hoping to get to that rally tomorrow in Liverpool and I'll be very interested in hearing what Billy has to say about Leighton and Crozier seeing as Billy's party put them there and bankrolled them to do so with our dosh.

DirtyHarry · Post by **DirtyHarry** » 20 Jul 2007, 22:24

If you do attend the rally IWW, let us know what Billy has to say , cheers mate.

IWW Fellow Worker · Post by **IWW Fellow Worker** » 20 Jul 2007, 22:34

DirtyHarry wrote:If you do attend the rally IWW, let us know what Billy has to say , cheers mate.

I will do mate. If I hear him above the booing!

Big Daz · Post by **Big Daz** » 21 Jul 2007, 04:28

Why the CWU havent split the political levy into two is a mystery to me, unless there are vested intrests!

Post by **baldrick** » 21 Jul 2007, 11:20

I think you mean splitting the bit that goes to the Labour Party off. I think this is due to vested interests. Some people on the postal side, notably Billy Hayes apparently want to continue giving money to Labour, despite the apparent opposition of increasing numbers of postal members.

The Engineering (BT + Romec) section of the CWU seem to be more into supporting the Labour Party and would oppose stopping money to the Labour Party.

I think that we should be able to opt out of paying the part of the Political Levy that goes to the Labour Party, but that would mean a Rule Change at Conference, and I believe that requires a two thirds majority, which would probably not be achieved as the BT side would probably not support it.

I understand that this year's CWU Conference voted to ballot members next June as to whether we continue to fund Labour. But I don't know if this is definitely going to happen or whether the 2008 Conference will have to vote on it again. Perhaps someone who was at this year's conference can tell us.

strangler · Post by **strangler** » 21 Jul 2007, 12:11

I thought you could opt out of paying the political levy part of your subs?

IWW Fellow Worker · Post by **IWW Fellow Worker** » 21 Jul 2007, 15:24

strangler wrote:I thought you could opt out of paying the political levy part of your subs?

You can, but it would as it is it's all or nothing. I think it would be better if we could just opt out of that part of the levy which goes towards that shower in parliament.

Post by **baldrick** » 21 Jul 2007, 19:38

strangler wrote:I thought you could opt out of paying the political levy part of your subs?

Yes as IWW Fellow Worker (Can I call you Wobbly - it's easier to type) says you can get an opt out form from your CWU Branch Political Officer or Branch Secretary. But only 2p out of the 10p goes directly to the Labour Party. 2p goes back to your Branch's Political Fund,and the rest is used by the Union nationally for political campaigning.

IWW Fellow Worker · Post by **IWW Fellow Worker** » 21 Jul 2007, 19:47

Seniorman wrote:
strangler wrote:I thought you could opt out of paying the political levy part of your subs?
Yes as IWW Fellow Worker (Can I call you Wobbly - it's easier to type) says you can get an opt out form from your CWU Branch Political Officer or Branch Secretary. But only 2p out of the 10p goes directly to the Labour Party. 2p goes back to your Branch's Political Fund,and the rest is used by the Union nationally for political campaigning.

You certainly can, just as long as you're referring to my union and not my figure!