Danelectro wrote:So that will be 2 days IA then? Look dont get me wrong i know thats a lot of money for single income families with children,Just_My_Opinion wrote:Danelectro wrote:Just for the record and to get a clearer picture of where your coming from,how many days IA did your office take in 2009?Just_My_Opinion wrote:
Please do not ask me to strike. My days of that are well and truly over. I've done it each and every time I've been asked but enough is enough.
I don't see what relevance how many days IA my office took. Whenever I was asked to strike I did. So whether I striked for 2 days or 22 days, I done what the CWU asked of me.
which in my office is the minority but 22 days IA takes a hell of a lot more solidarity and commitment than 2 days which
is what im getting at and if like my Da who in the 70's post office strike was out for 8 weeks,with no money or social payments and 4 kids to feed and to add insult to injury the local branch were handing out the hardship fund to their mates and favorites and after all that go back for less money then its maybe time to start getting really angry at the injustice of it all.
I agree with you that the present leadership of the CWU have led us down a one way street and striking while they are running the show seems futile,but i would never say my days of striking are over and if a yes vote for IA ever comes round
again i wont be crossing no picket lines and certainly not because i lost £160.
Im sure none of my points apply to you, they are more aimed at some of the members in my office who after the 2007 strikes
where complaining that the strikes broke them financially,some where genuine but most where of the type who wouldnt bat an eye at sticking £150 quid on a horse or spending £200 on a golf club they certainly were not suffering, I said to some of them why dont you stick some money on yourself and your workmates coming in first rather giving it to Willie Hill.Unfortunately in 2007 and 2009 we backed a donkey.
If the end result of striking is the 'deal of the century' which I am now expected to abide by and embrace I will happily take my chances of not striking. The 'deal of the century' was pathetic and the CWU knew it was a pathetic option but there was no alternative (The CWU earning their cash as per usual). So when it received the yes vote I had no choice but to accept it. I wasn't happy but there was nothing I could do. The 'deal of the century' in my own personal opinion should never of been accepted but it was. The minute this deal was accepted, Royal Mail must of been rubbing their hands with glee. They give the CWU a few false promises and the CWU thought they'd hit the jackpot. As you say, ask the man who lost 22 days pay if he feels he hit the jackpot? Ask the man who lost 22 days pay if he feels delivering unlimited households for basically nothing has hit the jackpot? Ask the man who has lost 22 days pay if he's on his 39 hour week? Ask the man who's lost 22 days pay if he has received his Colleague Share payment? Ask the man who has lost 22 days pay why mangers are still bullying? Ask the man who lost 22 days pay why Mail Centres are closing and jobs are being lost?
So why did the man who lost 22 days pay strike?
And what exactly did the man that lost 22 days pay 'exactly' gain from striking?
So what did the man who lost 22 days pay 'really' achieve?
Striking to me is not about the loss of money but about what you want your striking to achieve. You set out your demands and stand on the picket line in the hope your demands are met. Was the CWU's demands met in 2007? No. 2009? No. Can you see the trend?
