Civil service bosses attempt to supress trade union rights

by TFC - NIPSA Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:15

First reports from PCS pickets indicate 80 -90% support for the strike across Northern Ireland.

The strikers will be joined at a rally in Transport House at 12.30pm by NIPSA and FBU members.

by pat c Fri Nov 05, 2004 13:01

20,000 join strike in Wales
Around 20,000 civil servants are on strike in Wales to protest against proposed job losses.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3984281.stm


Civil servants take strike action

Unions say that more than 90% of Scotland's civil servants took part in strike action over job cut plans

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3982865.stm

Civil servants stage strike

Civil servants across Northern Ireland are due to hold a one-day strike in protest at proposed job cuts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/3983563.stm

Civil servants strike over jobs

Hundreds of thousands of civil servants across England go on strike in protest at looming job cuts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3984457.stm

by joseph Fri Nov 05, 2004 14:45

Is this sympathy I see, for people who work for the big bad "government"? This cause of all our ills.

by pat c Fri Nov 05, 2004 14:48

good man joe! now i see it! the low paid clerk in the dole office is the real enemy. thanks for clearing that up for me.

by annmarie Fri Nov 05, 2004 15:20 annmarie_oconnor at hotmail dot com

Have there been any expressions of solidarity from the Civil Service Unions here? Only a matter of time before we go down the same route. Its already starting with outsourcing of work, use of consultants and 'market testing'.

by Amused Labour Man Fri Nov 05, 2004 16:21

Aren't you in a Civil Service union? You tell us.

by madge Fri Nov 05, 2004 17:55

Well it was good to see a mix of public sector unions represented at the rally - just a shame that one union decided to throw a bit of a strop not because they didn't support the PCS but because they weren't formally invited to the platform (causing unnecassary embarassment to the PCS reps there) - hardly the time nor place and added a somewhat sour note to the otherwise unanimous message of solidarity that came through loud and clear.

by stroppy Sat Nov 06, 2004 00:01

not too sure about embarrassment I understand the PCS rep apologised for the oversight and at least the contribution from the strop was mercifully short.
unfortunately I further understand what also came across loud and clear was a serious strop outside the hall by two uncivil servants from another large public sector union.
whatever the reason for the fallout it seems it is time for a change, time to shut the f^%k up and not indulge in petty bickering when others are serious about solidarity with fellow workers.

by madge Sat Nov 06, 2004 09:41

Couldn't agree more - I heard that it was one uncivil servant and a TFCer having a go outside the hall - obviously they are still needling each other over who is the more "fighting left" grouping (I didn't think fighting actually meant actual fisticuffs but I didn't see the altercation so maybe that's unfair) - yesterday's rally was not the place to bring up such issues and undermined the message of solidarity which was unfortunate.

by Jim Mon Nov 08, 2004 01:11

I have been an active member in my nipsa branch for over 20 years .I have never identified myself with any of the traditional causes or pet projects of the political left,although I have always supported industrial action to defend public services and to obtain a decent living wage for my members.
I wouldn't normally even consider contributing to a site such as this where I would imagine most people are "preaching to the converted" but I just want to point out to
anyone with a modicum of intelligence that these left-wing groups pose a serious threat to the whole future of the trade union movement.
It is necessary that the unions are properly representative of the membership in order to campaign actively on their behalf.These ultra leftist groups claim to be "fighting for a democratic union" ,the obvious implication being that the union isn't democratic at present,and that the current leadership are "right wing".
Well.It doesnt take a degree in rocket science to conclude that it isnt the union which is undemocratic as its constitution encourages ALL members to become activists REGARDLESS OF THEIR POLITICAL OPINION.
The attitude of groups like tfc and uncivil servants is both undemocratic and insulting to anyone not of a left-wing persuasion who aspires to any office within nipsa as it is based on the ridiculous( and incorrect) assumption that only socialists can be democrats.
I expect that some of these people will claim that their respective pressure groups are meant to be inclusive but the truth is that they are nothing but mouthpieces for two tiny extremist political factions who could hardly win a council seat between them if they tried.
Civil Servants,like people in all walks of life,have many and varied political opinions ranging from ultra-left to ultra-right and it is vital in a democratic society that this is reflected in a representative body such as a trade union.
I really hope that the rank and file wake up and see how they have been used by these insignificant groups obsessed with the politics of a bygone age and stop voting for them in elections .Of course anyone aspiring to any position in the union should be able to share their political opinion on a range of issues with the membership.However they should NEVER assume that everyone else thinks,or ought to think the same way as they do.

by . Mon Nov 08, 2004 01:35

Jim

When will we be allowed to elect our officials in democratic NIPSA?

When will we be allowed to elect our seconded officers in democratic NIPSA?

Do you support the motion that went through conference this year that allows us to elect the editor of NIPSA News for the first tme ever in democratic NIPSA?

by Trotwatch Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:11

Why are you setting up a man of straw? Jim hasnt opposed any of the things you have mentioned. Everything in his posting suggests that he supports a democratic fighting union. His only crime is that he has dared to criticise the Trots. Policy in the Civil Service Unions in NI should be decided by the members, not by Peter Hadden.

by madge Mon Nov 08, 2004 20:02

Dear "dot". I do oppose the idea of the election of officials - I could never quite get my head around this notion purported to be in the interests of so called democracy by so called socialists who argue that they want decent terms and conditions for workers and yet want to force their own employees onto fixed term contracts with no guarantee of job security - and presumably since there always accusations of officials being highly paid bureaucrats we should keep them on minimum wage too? (but is that the mere £7 an hour demanded by the SP or the European decency threshold which must be up to over a tenner per hour by now?)
The only reason for the election of General Secretary posts is due to legislation brought in by Thatcher - surely the left wing can't be in bed with thatcherite ideaology?? Not to mention the cost to the union to run ballots of the membership nor the fact that it goes completely against established employment law to select people entirely on the basis of their political opinions !!! (which is what would happen.)
Anyway I didn't start this thread merely to have a bit of trot bashing (since they seem perfectly capable of doing that themselves for real) - I'm more interested in the response to the call for solidarity over the major threat to civil and public service jobs here in NI and Uk.

by Bureaucratwatch Mon Nov 08, 2004 23:11

Union officials are supposed to represent members as members want. They are not supposed to be carving out comfortable careers for themselves. Anyone who represents or negotiates on behalf of rank and file trade unionists should be considered an elected representative not an "employee".

The quickest way to solve most of the problems of the trade union movement would be to subject every official to election and put every official on the average wage of the members they represent. Instead of having more in common with the bosses they negotiate with the likes of the General Secretaries should have a vested interest in bettering the pay and conditions of members.

I'm not surprised that NIPSA right wingers like Madge consider this a shocking idea however. Bureaucrats are bureaucrats after all.

by madge Tue Nov 09, 2004 00:15

"Nipsa right winger" am I - you presume to know a lot about me - but then silly me I forgot that you are not allowed to have alternative left / socialist opinions in NIPSA unless you declare yourself heart and soul to the Party / TFC. Just because I don't agree with some bizzare logic thats been consistently rejected by the rank and file membership for years! How can "officials" be anything other than employees who can be directed through the democratically elected commitees charged with running the union on behalf of the members when they are given a specific job to do and are paid for doing it - unless you have a union structure that relies entirely on lay "officials" not paid by the union? Who votes who in and when - every year, three years, five years? - what happens if you decide you don't like them - who gets rid of them - members, branches, Conference? What do we do with all the current staff - sack them? When unions have fought to ensure job security and better treatment by employers for the people who work for them and you try and dress this up as not being an employment issue for the union - get a grip! Unions have a bad enough reputation already for their lax employment practices without this sort of nonsense.

by Jim Tue Nov 09, 2004 00:55

You're 100% correct Madge.The left's position re election of all trade union officials is indeed absurd and would result in poorly paid headquarters staff-it's actually rather amusing to see socialists calling for pay cuts-our neoconservative new labour overlords would love to see that I'm sure.
The rank and file must not be taken in by the calls from the ultra -left to "democratise" a trade union structure which is about as democratic as you can get.Their alternative would be both an adminstrative nightmare and a betrayal of those full time officials who do a sterling job negotiating on our behalf and who themselves deserve decent rates of pay every bit as much as other public servants.
Those who preach the loudest about wanting full time officials to have their pay cut seem to be happy enough with middle-management rates of pay themselves when they get promoted, but then again I suppose they make a point of donating the unwanted surplus dosh to "the trade union movement" lol.

by . Tue Nov 09, 2004 08:30

Jim thanks for the answer.
You dont support the election of officials.

Now what about the election of seconded officers and the election of the editor of NIPSA News, do you support that extension of democracy?

Btw the left calls for officials to be on the same wage as the members they represent.

by . Tue Nov 09, 2004 08:30

Jim thanks for the answer.
You dont support the election of officials.

Now what about the election of seconded officers and the election of the editor of NIPSA News, do you support that extension of democracy?

Btw the left calls for officials to be on the same wage as the members they represent.

by madge Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:30

"Btw the left calls for officials to be on the average wages of the members they represent".

Btw NIPSA staff (all staff) are already on civil service terms and conditions and pay rates - which we all know are being suppressed by New Labour and especially at the lower grades amount to some of the lowest wages around - so we as a union want to perpetrate that low wage system even further onto our staff who work for us (whether elected or appointed)??? Anyway what is the average wage of the members given we represent everyone from AA to Permanent Secretary? Do we not aspire to have "careers" (most of the "left" seem to do as well as the "right" when it comes to grade - and no I don't buy this "giving the surplus to labour causes bit") yet its a bad thing for officials - we constantly challenge management over the reduction of posts and loss of promotion prospects because our members want to move up through the grades and they want to be paid decent wages while they do it. I can never get over the gap between trot ideaology and the reality of what our members aspire to themselves. Or is it the case that you actually need wages and prospects to be kept so low that someday everyone will get so pissed off the great revolution will suddenly manifest itself??

The issue of seconded officials is really no different to officals in terms of the employment relationship - at least they have a job to go back to after a few years - and the editorial committee is a red herring because it is really no different to any other committee structure of lay reps and I don't have a particular difficulty with it but its hardly an pioneering democratic breakthrough is it?

by The Members Tue Nov 09, 2004 11:00

Would JIm and Madge condone the undemocratic activities of certain members of the Civil Service Executive Committee during the recent pay ballot?

Yes it seems that when our Executive take a decision to ballot members for all out strike to secure a decent pay rise some of those on the same executive can simply ignore democracy or undermine it by doing nothing to win the vote. The truth is they didn't think we could win and worse still they have utter contempt for union members and don't trust us to make the right choices. The obvious extension of this is that they are afraid of a more democratic union. On top of that many of our Executive, like Madge and Jim, are of grades much higher than many of the union's members, winning a pay dispute is not about keeping your head above the poverty line for them.

How did the vote go in your department 'comrades'?

by Jim Tue Nov 09, 2004 13:06

For starters,I am not on the executive.I am a mere Branch Rep and of lowly rank (AO).
However,I do know that the executive members tried their best to persuade members that the only way to secure a n improved offer would be through all out action,but the simple fact is that the members voted to suspend the action
That's democracy.Like it or Lump it.Are you trying to say the members are stupid and can't make up their own minds without having to endure some tiresome leftie windbag bleating on about "building a fighting democratic union blah blah blah".
The vote in my branch was actually about 90% against all out action and guess what?We had a tfc speaker at the meeting.

by madge Tue Nov 09, 2004 20:14

dear Members, apart from the fact you've turned this thread into yet another discussion about why the NIPSA membership in the civil service didn't vote for all out action when it was about solidarity between trade unions in the public service you seem to (think you ) know all the answers.

Firstly you say
1. the Executive doesn't trust the membership (presumably because they might think for themselves)
then you imply
2. that the membership can't make a decision without someone from the Executive to tell them what to do -
which is it - are our members rational intelligent beings who can make up their own minds or stupid sheep who have to be led everywhere? You then accuse members of the executive of deliberately failing to make the case to the members to take all out action (obviously it had to be that because they rejected the Executive's call for all out action see 2.) - I voted in favour of all out action in my branch and the majority voted against not because they didn't agree with taking strike action per se but because they couldn't afford all out action for more than few days and despite what some were told they didn't believe that they would get any benefits or money from the social while on strike.

And then you bring up the old hierarchy thing - people of higher grades can't represent people at lower grades - even though the reality is that the elected members of the committees come from all grades and there are as many senior management grades on the left as there are on the so called right - theres at a least a couple of DPs, SOs etc - but I suppose because they align themselves with SP/TFC that's all right -getting promoted is a sin on the left unless you are in the caucas. There is no consistency in the application of the "left's" supposed ideology to themselves against what they demand of others.

by The Members Wed Nov 10, 2004 11:37

The facts are enough to prove that where the effort was put in the vote was delivered. Although I am not involved with TfC/SP I do have to recognise that TfC speakers fought for and in many places delivered a strike vote, hence most of the votes for action came from DSD. However regardless of the speaker if the ground hasn't been prepared then it is that much harder. Evidence points to the position that from the outset of the ballot there were a number of Execuive Committee members deliberatley intent on scuppering any notion that we would be out on all-out strike. That is anti-democratic.

Ps. I know how to show solidarity with other public sector workers. Thats why I, along with a couple of hundred of my colleagues in the CSA, walked out at 11.30am on Friday. We had to do this unoffically of course because if we waited for those concerned about job cuts among the Executive we would be balloted when there are 20 civil servants left.

by madge Wed Nov 10, 2004 18:08

So one department out of eleven delivering a strike vote means that members in the other 10 didn''t understand the issues because they had to have the ground "prepared" for them?
And since I know that TFC/SP claim to operate in other departments (and presumably had the opportunity to speak to branches other than just their own) apart from just DSD as well how come they didn't swing a vote there too?

Congratulations on your branches decision to show solidarity through walking out - however it wasn't apparent to me that there were a couple of hundred staff from the CSA at the rally which was the public opportunity to demonstrate solidarity.

by stroppy Thu Nov 11, 2004 01:01

this thread seems to strayed off the original point. I am confused, could it be the strop outside the hall in Transport House was down to a difference of opinion on whether or not officials and seconded officers should be elected in a Union which is not PCS.
Is it possible the two loudmouths who apparently disrupted a solidarity meeting have stood for elected office, and if so, would democracy be served by either of these oafs holding office. Does anybody know if these people have sought to be elected to posts that could give them control over the resources of their union ?

by interested Sun Nov 21, 2004 00:47

why is it that civil servants seem to be fixated with elections and being elected?one even went to the High Court recently asking to be allowed to stand as an MLA. when refused the applicant complained about thousands of job cuts how many of these people are there?

by madge Mon Nov 22, 2004 01:09

Its a conundrum - when we like the result of elections or votes then its democracy in action - when we don't then its usually because the process was knobbled by somebody (usually right wing bureaucrats).

I'm not sure its so much a fixation as a deliberate attempt to divert the focus from the real issues because most trade unionists in the public service would tend to agree on the broad prinicples of opposing job cuts / privatisation etc etc - so you have to have something to argue about don't you if you wish to establish yourselves as an "alternative" so you pick on a very narrow issue of disagreement to do with internal organisation and attempt to divide the membership into factions.

by patrick Mcginley - uncivil servant Sun Nov 28, 2004 02:59

As one of the loudmouths involved in an open debate at Transport House, perhaps I got carried away when I realised that this was not the democratic NIPSA conference and people were actually allowed to talk. At the democratic NIPSA conference the all powerful President decides who, if anyone, is allowed to talk. That's what our leaders tell me anyway.

The debate was about solidarity. PCS were on strike, so to show solidarity, we in the CSA went on strike. This was frowned upon by a number of people in camel hair coats, shirts and ties, who had obviously left their bowlers in the office, as they were not on strike. The uniform gave the game away, it was the CSGE.

Perhaps we should have considered waiting until the following Monday, the 7th, to see what action NIPSA thought we should take on the 5th, because I believe that is when they met to discuss action. Or perhaps we should have considered selective action.

We decided to show management that some civil servants are not beaten or running scared. The only true weapon a union has is the strike. PCS went on strike, we showed solidarity by doing the same. Attending meetings never won any pay dispute.

Incidently as Ryan Wilson and Davy Carlin were the only witnesses to the open debate outside the hall, Stroppy must be one or the other. So, do the readers think it is Davy or Ryan? Answers on a postcard, and a prize of a camel hair coat to the lucky winner.

by madge Sun Nov 28, 2004 11:34

Hardly an "open" debate outside in the corridor - although since everyone in the hall could hear it I suppose they could have joined in - might have disrupted the purpose of the rally though don't you think? And don't worry about the camel hair coat - I'd rather see the camel wear it personally.

by patrick mcginley - uncivil servant Mon Nov 29, 2004 19:48

I doubt if a nuclear holocaust would have disturbed those slumbering in the hall. The debate outside was about going on strike, I was for it, the others were not. Matter closed.

Incidentally this oaf has stood for general council and CSGE last year. I will be standing for general council again this year.

I am trying to restore freedom of speech to the union, the right for 1,400 members, at least, to be heard in a debate at conference, having mandated their reps. Many of you in NIPSA no doubt will not have heard about mandating meetings, but I will explain about them at a later date. The idea that the President can pass any motion without listening to any speakers is frightening, and needs to be challenged.

This is currently been done through the Certification Office for N.Ireland, another Thatcher innovation. Maybe Mrs T knew something after all.

Until we have a union where people, members, are allowed to speak, well we are in trouble. At least I can now understand all the fuss about two old friends having a "barney" in the hall. NIPSA members are not supposed to debate things, we are supposed to blindly follow.

In theory that's great for all of those who love dictatorships, but NIPSA don't seem to be doing a lot of leading these days. We look good on paper, but don't seem to get around to any action.

If elected, this oaf will at least allow people representing thousands of members to talk. This oaf will also listen. Infact this oaf might even get Civil Servants a pay rise, and shake off the old saying that NIPSA stands for "No Increase in Pay Since April(2002)

Let's face it, it's not a lot of use having 40,000 members if half of them do not know when the other half are in dispute. NIPSA appears to be one of the few examples of an organisation that uses half of its forces when involved in a fight. No need for management to divide and conquer, we do it for them.

by stroppy Thu Feb 24, 2005 01:09

1400 members to have a voice? I thought election to the General Council was to represent all the members. Pushing the views of a relatively small group, even if most of them don't even know who you are, hardly qualifies you as the Vanguard of the Proletariat.
Whats all this about the President passing motions without debate first I heard of it. Can we assume the President did'nt receive any votes from the 1400 members who follow youir every word. In fact did they all vote for you

by trot spy Fri Feb 25, 2005 00:48

have just checked results not all of 1400 managed to make it out to vote.
Obviously you can fool some of the people blah blah blah

by stroppy Sat Feb 26, 2005 01:45

Yes checked the results myself obviously not all the 'at least 1400 ' are on message.
Still not sure what the crack about the President is all about can the oaf bring enlightenment?

by stroppy Tue Mar 22, 2005 01:46

The recent Belfast conference on pay might explain why Patreek was not able to break the 1400 vote mark. His spirited defence of overtime working during a dispute must surely mark a new low for him and his Branch. Or perhaps that low was marked when his Branch allegedly didnt bother collecting a levy for months and when they did get round to doing so apparently spent the levy money collected on a banner to demonstrate their revolutionary fervour.
Was the oafs new suit purchased in anticipation of a rapid rise into the ranks of management where he could spend his time checking overtime forms?

by james Fri Mar 25, 2005 01:08

that particular banner was carried with pride by members who were willing to take the fight to management. the conference in Belfast has endorsed the view that all out action should be an integral part of future action which vindicates those who marched behind the banner.

by madge Sat Mar 26, 2005 13:33

All out action always was part of the strategy - unfortunately the members decided they didn't want to go there - maybe because those that did abide by the democratic decision of observing the work to rule and overtime ban during the dispute couldn't afford to lose any more money with an indefinite strike - I'm sure the fact that there's a nice new banner to be paraded around behind when the money was supposed to be supporting selective strikers will make everyone feel much better - so I hope that those who feel they need vindicated for their decision to completely ignore the Union's policies as decided by the membership will parade with pride so everyone will know who they are and how proud they are and why.

by james Sat Mar 26, 2005 19:57

if all out action had been fully supported by the right wing members of the Civil Service Executive then other Branches like mine could have delivered .
Madges comments sound suspiciously like a Reclaim your Union leaflet perhaps she wrote their propaganda.
Members of the branch will continue to walk with pride behind the banner and continue to fight for a proper pay rise using all means at our disposal. We will refuse to engage in tokenism like Reclaim your Union and will fight for all members to be given a voice.

by madge Sun Mar 27, 2005 21:53

I don't write propaganda for anyone and if you'd read any of my prevous posts you'd know that the one thing that really pisses me off about this whole subject is people who claim to be speaking for the members but when the members don't follow their particular view then take the easy way out and claim its some sort of right wing conspiracy.
Do you not even question that your branch can apparently decide completely unilaterally and undemocratically to ignore Conference policy - why do you expect people to listen seriously to you?!
And instead of dealing with the issues of why the members vote(d) as they do your response is to harp back to blaming the old enemy "the right wing" as if the members don't have opinions themselves - I find that insulting - I try to understand why the majority of membership wouldn't go on indefinite action and I'm afraid to say that its down to economics - they couldn't afford it - distateful and disappointing as that is to have to stomach. What certainly won't help in trying to build up a campaign for the next time (for there will undoubtedly be a next time)is the fact that some branches seemed to think thay they could opt out of the actions they didn't like - like an overtime ban - while the rest of the members suffered to maintain the line - remember actions can speak louder than words when trying to convince the membership of your point of view.
Carry on, waste your time making empty statements about giving members a voice (not tokenism??)- the members have a voice - its called their vote and they used it - maybe not they way you or I would have liked, but hey, I thought that's what democracy was all about. You say you'll fight for a better pay rise using all means at your disposal - except an overtime ban of course.

by Branch 8 member Sat Apr 09, 2005 17:45

the banner that branch 8 got was paid for by a raffle held during a fundraiser for the nipsa fighting fund. branch 8 made it clear what the raffle was for. so branch 8 did not take money from any levy collection to pay for the banner.

the point patrick was trying to make about beinf denied to speak at annual conference 2004, was the vice-pres, ignored him and did not give him the chance to debate a moition that was on the agenda, thus dening the 1400 (two branches (7 & 8)) members that mandated their reps to go to confernce and oppose the life membership of jim mcclusker.

overall there are other nipsa members that hate branch 8 and will attempt to undermine the committee through such attacks.

(they all seem to be SP members, wonder why that is

by stroppy Sun Apr 10, 2005 23:48

Branch 8 member has clarified how money for the banner was collected which if true is fair enough. He/She did not comment on whether or not the Branch did not collect levy money for a considerable time.
If the Pres or Vice Pres stopped Patrick speaking then they did everyone else a favour because I have never heard him speak any sense.

by patrick mcginley - nipsa Mon Apr 11, 2005 20:46

Does "stroppy" have a name, or is "Stroppy" a snivelling gutless coward?

As a former high ranking manager, or worker if you prefer, remembering that managers are workers, If I want to wear a suit, a sari or a thong, I feel that I enjoy the freedom to do so.

Having said that, Mr Stroppy denies freedom of speech, indeed he has a litmus test, if he does not agree one should not be allowed to speak. Yet Stroppy is a snivelling coward.

Stroppy also has a hearing problem, if he/she/it was in the King's Hall and heard me defending overtime. As a musician, I refuse to even play an encore, as I classify that as overtime, and can joyfully say that I have never worked a minute's overtime in my life. However I am not prepared to shoot people who insist in doing so, which I suppose makes me some kind of wishy washy liberal compared to Stroppy. Yet Stroppy is a snivelling coward.

Perhaps some Branch 8 members were working to try to recoup some of the £200 to £300 many of them lost though strike, suspension and walk-outs. These people you see were on strike as opposeed to paid holiday aka selective strike. I could be wrong because I am fallible, obviously unlike Stoppy. Yet Stroppy is a snivelling coward.

According to the NIPSA leadership, the constitution gives the President the right to deny any debate at conference, and to pass ALL the motions by "acclamation", regardless of ANY branch that wishes to speak. At least that is their defence to my complaint. Doubtless Stroppy will support this, as Stroppy is a snivelling coward.

Indeed until Stroppy removes his/her anonymous balaclava, he/she will always remain beneath contempt, and a snivelling coward.

Any similarity in this post to the play "Julius Caesar" is purely coincidental.

by stroppy Tue Apr 12, 2005 01:02

not sure about any similarity to a play but I do believe I have seen something similar in a film called One flew over the cuckoos nest.
having heard of homicidal tendencies on display in Transport House those of sound mind may understand reticence to expose oneself .
your support for overtime working during a dispute could be put to the test at the next NIPSA Conference where hopefully you will not be clad in a Beckhamesque sari.
dont have a problem with acclamation for people who have actually made a significant contribution to the protection of workers rights over a long number of years . acclamation saved your Branch from the opprobrium which would have been heaped upon them if a rant from a Johnny Come Lately had gone ahead.
now that you have come out of the closet on the overtime issue I now consider correspondence closed.

by patrick mcginley - nipsa Tue Apr 12, 2005 02:31

Perhaps my dear Stroppy you are unaware that your champion of workers rights threatened to have 3 long standing, high ranking, non TFC members made homeless, because a stressed out AO from the CSA complained because he did not get a decent pay rise in 2002. This champion of workers rights has been considering suing NIPSA for the best part of three years. The only other champion of worker's rights to have done this, homeless threats, suing uniion members, was called Margaret Thatcher.

To me your champion of workers rights is worse than the policemen at Orgreave, worse than those who planned such attacks on workers, and worse than Mrs Thatcher. At least she never claimed to be a champion of workers rights.

Consider this Stroppy. Perhaps I could be right. I was right about the Snivelling Coward bit.

I realise that I am wasting my time having a battle of wits with an unarmed man, and a snivelling coward who refuses to identify himself. Is that an example of the open, democratic union you praise?

By the way, as for Johnny come lately, there are other unions you know.

Sleep well, snivelling one.

by patrick mcginley - nipsa Tue Apr 12, 2005 11:03

I also believe that we were the only branch to have overtime pickets on a Saturday, in an attempt to stop overtime working. Mind you to be earning £10k a year, after 25 years of sterling leadership does not leave some people much choice.

I am glad to report that the other "oaf" from the Transport house difference of opinion was elected to General Council, and I offer my congratulations.

Our small group, without any support to quote the sniveller, won two seats and have a possibility of a third. I did not see the name "Snivelling Coward" on the ballet paper, so I presume you did not stand.

by The Phantom Tue Apr 12, 2005 18:39

Poor stroppy. It seems you have been out done yet again by Patrique. What a shame. Any way down to business. Being present at the afore mentioned incident, I think I'm slightly more qualified to shed some light on proceedings. Firstly, unlike the hall inside, there was a genuine debate taking place outside. This was a welcome distraction(unlike civil service conference where debate is not allowed to take place and motions(100) are imposed) as inside the atmosphere reeked of Bureaucratic right wingers-Like Yourself!

Secondly, as Patrique has stated, at least we had overtime pickets, I wonder if your branch had the same, indeed I wonder if your members were even aware there was a strike on, as your lack of clarity on minor issues raises serious questions about your ability to process and relay correct,accurate info. Is this the same way you pass info on to your members?

Thirdly, is reclaiming the union your biggest priority or is it to your members? I put it to you that your time would be better served protecting your members than chasing after your own personal crusade against branches who are prepared to defend members.

Finally, perhaps you might learn from branches such as this particularly when the money for the banner was raised from raffles and sponsored nights out, and need I remind you that some CSA members were placed in hardship due to the lack of response on NIPSAs behalf in getting payment to those brave colleagues on selective strike action who where prepared to risk everything. Obviously you again might learn from these members, as it appears you are more than happy to stand idly by and let others do all the fighting for YOU! Kindly grow a set of b**ls and become more active rather than passive.

By the way I know who you are!

regards

The Ghost who walks

by stroppy Wed Apr 13, 2005 00:28

glad to see you accept that selective strikers were committed and deserve praise unlike Patreek who sees to think they were freeloaders on some type of jolly.
I did stand also with those committed members who took time to picket overtime working.
You seem to assume that a belief that the last General Secretary did do a lot of sterling work is limited to right wingers and reclaim your union, in this you are badly misled.
your assumption that I am male demonstrates that you may not be as intimate with my innermost thoughts as I am with yours ghostie.
this is my absolute final comment on this thread but feel free to continue the rant with Patrique who is simultaneously with you and against you.

by patrick mcginley Wed Apr 13, 2005 02:06

The Phantom says he knows you and suddenly you are very concilatory, O Snivel One. The comment about homicidal tendancies, and the first post, "shut the f##k up" suggest a male.

Jim McCusker did many good things, and good, bad or indifferent, right wing or left wing, he was a trade unionist. I was going to say that at conference, but was not allowed. His threat to have 3 trade unionists with many years service made homeless, sort of put me off him. I was not going to say that at conference. I was going to ask that the motion be deferred until the suing mess was sorted out.

Indeed I was going to suggest that we prove how great Jim was by proving that we are a vibrant, fighting union. The way to do that would have been to rally behind the NIPSA members being threatened by Jim. Hoist by his own petard.

Instead Nipsa tried to buy him off with life membership.
The attempt failed.

As for "barneys" in Transport house, you should hear us screaming at each other in the union room at work. You see, subject to popular belief, we are not of one mind, and debate is actively encouraged.

I asked a mate to make me a T-shirt with a message for conference and he asked me if I wanted the message on the front or back. I had to tell him that NIPSA are not the type of union you want to turn your back on people, especially with grovelling, snivelling cowards about.

But you will not be contributing again, because the Phantom knows you. Everyone knows me, doesn't put me off debate.

by son of stroppy Wed Apr 13, 2005 23:43

Heard about this site from a friend in work and it is very interesting. I think Patrick is being hard on Mummy or Daddy Stroppy as he or she did say previously correspondence was closed and so might not be afraid of ghosts after all.I am interested in your comments about Jim Mc Cusker but havent a clue what your actual point is. I can also see how you are not of one mind but it is noticeable that you did not answer the point about selective strikers .Do you believe they were all on a free holiday as you said and do you think members in other branches who lost money but still refused to do overtime are fit to walk in your shoes.

by patrick mcginley Thu Apr 14, 2005 01:22

Mr McCusker served a union for years. Life membership, no problem. But then he decided to threaten to sue four people from 3 different branches over an ordinary member criticising the leadership in a branch newsletter. These people were told that they could "lose their houses". Not very "champion of the worker" is it, especially when the bloke who wrote the letter didn't even know who Jim was.

So I was not even going to really oppose the life membership motion, merely ask that it be delayed until the legal aspects were sorted out.

Selective strikers, I do tend to generalise, not all were freeloaders, but as time went by a lot were, even some of my colleagues were trying it on as soon as they discovered that you got paid.

We are the biggest branch, 998 members then, so it was inevitable that SOME would be doing overtime, the VAST majority were not.. But only after members had followed the work to rule to the letter, been suspended without p[ay and then told by NIPSA to get back to work.

This sort of deflated a lot of the initial revolutionary fervour of some ordinary members.

by patrick mcginley Sat Jun 04, 2005 19:29

Nice to see that one of the "oafs" from Transport House is now NIPSA president..

by stroppy Sat Jun 04, 2005 20:05

this would seem to narrow down quite considerably the field of who number one oaf is. if the members were aware that he was outside the hall having a boxing match instead of being inside showing solidarity with members on strike , would he have been so popular? but nonetheless congratulations to him he has a lot to get his teeth sunk into over the next year.
it does also seem to settle the argument over whose position is more popular and you are clearly oaf number 2.
sleep well oafish one.