edwardo wrote:how can anyone on this website defend the cwu ( blue terrier inc and the rest )
Me defend the CWU
Have you actually read some of my posts. I try to be honest I will berate the CWU and RM when they deserve it and I will praise them when I think they have earned it. Unlike some I don't think its always them and us, or black and white, or good and bad. Like most things they both fail at some things and succeed at others. 2010BT was a low point for the CWU but how they backed the guys at Burslem shows they have the right instincts sometimes. Locally the CWU are one of the most effective organisations for workers, at National level there are some serious questions.
edwardo wrote:we all know RM are rotten and dishonest to the core
Yes they are - or more worryingly the Senior Execs at RM are perhaps easily influenced by career managers who are protecting their turf. Whatever the cause since I joined RM no agreement has been kept by managers, all agreements have been undermined by local managers with the backing of their managers and worst of all despite all agreements promising to change the culture for the better, the exact opposite has always happened. The thing that worries me is that CWU HQ always seem to believe that the agreements were the best they could do in the circumstances and most disturbing of all that vagueness and wiggle room in agreements is a good idea.
edwardo wrote: , but our own union could they not see a tory election win ,
Technically the Tories did not win as we operate under a First Past the Post system and they did not get enough seats, it was the Lib Dems stabbing us in the back for a brief period in power that let the tories in. The thing is it will have 2 effects in my opinion the Lib Dems will be consigned to the political wilderness for a generation (deservedly) and the chance we have of changing the political system in this country will be lost because the Lib Dems back the AV system. I support the AV system but people will vote against it because they see it as a vote against the Lib Dems.
edwardo wrote:of course that would effect the deal they had just agreed .
It would have been affected anyway by a new Government even under a Lib/Lab pact anyway and if the Lib Dems had gone with Labour Brown would have been forced to retire and we would still have a Labour Leader who supported part privatisation anyway. I would have hoped that HQ would have strategised various outcomes of the GE, but from the slow start to the campaign I don't think they did.
edwardo wrote: RM management are to cute and clever for dave and billy no CS shares willbe the final straw for me £ 3 .11 a week for what i will phone wages on tues and stop my union subs
I agree with the cute and clever bit, they always seem to buy into the words of various agreements, but can't seem to read the intent behind it.
edwardo wrote: is that constructive enough blue terrier ha ha
Yes - Apart from the "sounds like manager" comment
you posted after this quoted post. Jim is not a manager, but why use that as a debating point, it has about as much relevance as saying he "sounds like a Martian" - I don't care what position anyone holds their HONEST views are as valid as the rest and to dismiss someone's post as a "Managers" comment is lazy and discriminative. If we accept people dismissing posts based on the posters job where do we draw the line, with religion?, with ethnicity?, with sexual orientation?, with gender? or with political views?
Oh and thanks to the members who jumped to my defence - much appreciated.
