Working Together
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AntiDistinctlyMinty
To my mind, there is absolutely no point in refusing to do AAVA's or any other extraneous duty until such a time as it becomes a notified part of industrial action.
Any type of industrial action needs to be notified for it to have any impact. If people just start refusing to do AAVA's the management will not know that it is in protest over pensions (they might guess it is, but it does not have the same impact as a concerted policy). It's a small thing, but someone i.e. the Union, needs to stand up first and say "If you refuse to change your stance, we will ballot for industrial action - the first stage of which will be withdrawal of the AVA agreement".
It is only by going through this process and giving notice, that maagement will truly understand why things are happening and the impact it can have.
People keep talking about the powder being kept dry etc - if something is going to be done, don't do it half baked, do it properly!!
(Which reminds me, why do I have to listen to my colleagues who come in an AAVAs whinging on and on about the pension situation - they're obviously not that upset as to refuse to do AAVAs in protest!)
Any type of industrial action needs to be notified for it to have any impact. If people just start refusing to do AAVA's the management will not know that it is in protest over pensions (they might guess it is, but it does not have the same impact as a concerted policy). It's a small thing, but someone i.e. the Union, needs to stand up first and say "If you refuse to change your stance, we will ballot for industrial action - the first stage of which will be withdrawal of the AVA agreement".
It is only by going through this process and giving notice, that maagement will truly understand why things are happening and the impact it can have.
People keep talking about the powder being kept dry etc - if something is going to be done, don't do it half baked, do it properly!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Box Hill or Bust
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AntiDistinctlyMinty wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?)
