CWU London Division calls for national strike action
From Solidarity Magazine
Postal Workers’ Dispute - London Update 20.11.09
At this afternoon’s meeting of the London Divisional Committee it was reported that after some six meetings with London Royal Mail they are still refusing to honour the full terms of the interim agreement.
All they want to do is make more cuts and introduce “absorption” without re-engaging about the changes they have already imposed with regard to job cuts, revisions, part-timers, belated hours, rest day hours, 4-day weeks etc in line with the agreement.
It is clear that London Management want to continue to punish, bully, intimidate and harass our members for daring to stand up to them and defend our terms and conditions.
The London Division has therefore unanimously agreed to demand that the national union, when it meets on Tuesday, announce national strike action. This is a national agreement they’re breaking, it’s a national union, therefore it requires national action.
From the National Shop Stewards Network
well that puts the cat among the pidgeons.
I assume that as this comes from the London Divisional Committe then it is not a million miles away from the thinking of dave ward either.
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 November, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
Well, they are dominated by supporters of Dave Ward, but I would not assume that….
Comment by Martin Wicks — 20 November, 2009 @ 7:15 pm
“unanimously agreed ” though martin
Comment by Andy Newman — 20 November, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
So Posties have given it a go, tried to meet management half way and this is the response they get.
I’d love to see Royal Mail management and The Sun spin this one as another strike by greedy intransigent union militants.
Now we really know who is spoiling Christmas.
Comment by Neil — 20 November, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
So, about Jane Loftus..
Comment by swp member — 20 November, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
Excellent response from the London Division.
Comment by KrisS — 20 November, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
Whoops ! Eh Andy ?
Is this the true face of ‘Rank and Filism’ ?
Comment by Halshall — 20 November, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
#5 In defence of Jane Loftus sometimes for tactical reasons you need to test an agreement. Then, when strikes are back on, the union has the moral high ground.
Comment by Anonymous — 20 November, 2009 @ 9:08 pm
“Moral high ground”? That wins a lot of strikes, yeah.
Simple really, isn’t it? The Postal Exec was wrong to imagine this “agreement” would be anything other than the sham it has turned out to be.
Comment by KrisS — 20 November, 2009 @ 9:12 pm
Anyway, never mind pointing the finger, or saying I told you so. Taking it from here, let’s hope the CWU can get the national strike back on.
Comment by KrisS — 20 November, 2009 @ 9:18 pm
It is a lesson though. Sometimes even good trade union leaders get it wrong and the key remains the ability of rank and file activists to keep the pressure up. Same as it ever was.
Comment by johng — 20 November, 2009 @ 9:25 pm
Hey you lot!!
It’s all very well discussing some national postal dispute, but did you know there’s a “popular revolt” going on in one of the London boroughs?
Apparently, because of a semi-revolutionary situation caused by the mounting threat of insurrection led by the fearless leadership of comrade George Galloway, one of the committees of the local council is currently considering launching a public consultation over whether or not residents want to hold elections for a mayor!!!
I tell you, it’s a popular revolt - it really is - and Respect is right in the thick of it!!!
Comment by Karl Stewart — 20 November, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
#8 That’s a new tactic - call the strike off every now and again to maintain the moral high ground. What about the original ballot for the strike doesn’t that count as confirmation of a commitment to strike?
This is a great decision. I hate sending cards anyway so bring it on.
Comment by Ray — 20 November, 2009 @ 10:00 pm
#13 Ray, that was a bit of an unfair caricature of what I was trying to say.
Like it or not, the CWU initiated the ballot to seek to force the employers to negotiate on changes to the workplace. The employers then offered to negotiate on changes. The CWU leaders agreed to postpone planned strikes to test what the employers had in mind.
The ballots are still active, so the CWU is now able to step up the pressure once again since this test has clearly failed. Large parts of the UK society are watching this dispute due to the time of the year. Therefore, the CWU can rightly say they tried to magnanimous and reasonable but the employers are being intransigent and unreasonable.
Some of you on this website remind me of the WW1 generals who wanted to throw troops over the top to pointless slaughter with no idea of tactics.
Comment by Anonymous — 20 November, 2009 @ 10:21 pm
Indeed. Anyone who disagrees with calling off a strike must be effectively General Haig.
Idiot.
Comment by KrisS — 20 November, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
“Some of you on this website remind me of the WW1 generals who wanted to throw troops over the top to pointless slaughter with no idea of tactics.”
You think the Postal Exec is using tactics? lol
Comment by Boromir — 20 November, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
Well, as Andy said - the voice of ordinary postal workers was united! Heh.
Comment by Rev9 — 20 November, 2009 @ 11:08 pm
#12 Whoever this Karl Stewart is, he seems to have become just a little obsessed.
Comment by klar stewpot — 20 November, 2009 @ 11:33 pm
This is fantastic news.
Comment by ECOLEFTY — 21 November, 2009 @ 12:24 am
this is one area
I think we should see results from across CWU areas country
maybe more reflective
The strike may have been solid in London but eleswhere their were increasing problems and issues which threatend to undermine the strike itself
Has this been addressed
I have no doubt this is the view of CWU in London and will be replecated in a few Northern Cities,,,however…..
But we need leadership and a true reflections of members views not jingoism and Earl Haig,
Its vital if the CWU do strike they have confirmed the base and addressed the sucess and failings of the last strikes
Comment by Sean — 21 November, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
#18 Obsessed? That seems an odd claim in response to a pretty gentle piece of mickey-taking. Take all sorts, I suppose.
Comment by KrisS — 21 November, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
I only hope that this time, we’re talking ’strike’ in the singular (as in all out indefinite) and that there is a concerted attempt, using the full power of the union and the labour movement, to defeat Crozier/Mandelson. Occupying sorting offices, blockading scab centres, disrupting companies doing ‘outsourced’ work and conducting recruitment campaigns at scab companies are the kind of tactics that would really redefine the terms of this dispute.
The fact that militant tactics will almost certainly not be used in any official dispute does not mean they should not be flagged up as the best path to victory.
I wonder what those shedding crocodile tears for poor Jane Lofthouse make of this development.
Comment by Jonathan — 21 November, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
They don’t seem to be making much of it at all, as yet. I’m sure they’ll get round to it, once they’ve worked out a way to make the SWP the bad guy in this.
Comment by KrisS — 21 November, 2009 @ 7:52 pm
the SWP view appears to be vindicated.. that will upset Andy and his Respect comrades. Time for an apology Andy?
Comment by sunbob — 22 November, 2009 @ 12:24 am
I don’t think you can reasonably tar the whole of Respect with Andy’s line.
Comment by KrisS — 22 November, 2009 @ 8:35 am
How does this vindicate the SWP. If anything it makes the decision to condemn a temporary tactical position and break with one of your leading militants seem even more foolhardy and premature.
Comment by Neil — 22 November, 2009 @ 2:46 pm
Neil - a really daft and demoralizing ‘temporary tactical position’. What, exactly, were the tactics in question?
Comment by Jonathan — 22 November, 2009 @ 2:48 pm
Neil u should be a comedian. ‘temporary tactical position’ LOL
Comment by swp member — 22 November, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
There you go, you see, a valiant attempt, at no. 26.
Doesn’t quite manage it, but worth a shot, definitely.
Comment by KrisS — 22 November, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
Actually I’m sure Jane is regretting the position she took now. It was clearly a mistake. It’s a shame.
Comment by johng — 22 November, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
#30 I wouldn’t jump to conclusions.
Comment by ferrier — 22 November, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
No one has actually owned up to some of the serious failings of the strike
I dont expect that to be done in public but
anyone can see there were serious flaws and increasing polarisation between militant Cities and the rest of the country
Comment by Sean — 22 November, 2009 @ 11:47 pm