AntiDistinctlyMinty wrote:
Sorry Hooligan Bill, I disagree. It does matter which union we are with. What I want from my union is that it is offers leadship whilst obeying the directions that we give it via branch policy. Prospect and the BEC has chosen (for dubious reasons?) to disregard the branch policy on negotiating about the pensions which was clearly laid down a couple of years ago. Paraphrasing and not wishing to teach you to suck eggs - any approach from management about the pension would result in an immediate ballot for industrial action and any mention of a seperate pension for new entrants would result in the pulling of the AAVA agreement.
Ok then, do you really think that the outcome would have been any different had we belonged to a different Union? It would have been the same people, with the exception of the full time officials, conducting the negotiations. The bottom line is if you do not like the direction the BEC are taking then exercise your democratic right to vote them out of office and elect people you think will represent you how you want. At the same time it would also help if we stopped coming up with contradictory branch policy. While you quite rightly point out the policy of withdrawl of the AAVA agreement, the same section states that:- "The BEC shall use all possible means to protect the CAA Pension Fund and the pension rights of its members". This can be interpreted any which way and could be used to justify the course of action that they have taken.
It's is our union and it is up to us the members to point it in the right direction.
I fully agree that we have been selling ourselves short over T & Cs but once again that is because we've had poor leadership from the current union. We used to be told that this was the best agreement that could be obtained through negotation and if you wanted more then industrial action would be required (being spineless we never rose to the challenge). Now it appears to be a coupe de grace. Take it or .........., we'll get you to vote again until we get the answer we want.
The "Union" is only as strong as its members. The likes of Bob Crow and the RMT go into negotiations knowing that the membership will be fully behind them and industrial action will follow if necessary. Our negotiators go in knowing that if the bung is big enough most people will settle, and sadly, management know this too. It takes a change of mindset to alter that, not a change of the banner you march under.
How can we support a union which has said during the pension briefings that even if they get a 100% no vote on a 100% turn out then they would probably not support us and so any industrial action would be illegal. So much for democracy. It may also mean that a no vote is worthless.
I do not completely believe that. If we were to vote no and back that vote up with legitimate arguments and reasons, then I think that nationally they would have to give us some backing, however much of a
PR disaster that may seem to them. If however we vote no on the basis we just want a fight with management then we will get no support.
As for getting off my back side and getting involved, good idea, I look forward to meeting you at the next union conference (maybe ASLEF, maybe RMT, anyone for BALPA?)
Would this be the same BALPA that tried to close its Final Salary Pension Scheme to its employees?
http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/eek.gif