nipsa pay dispute

by Patrique - nipsa Mon May 22, 2006 22:40

Would whoever is using Geoff's name please stop, have the cojones to use your own. Some of the lies are now proposterous.

Why the hell would I want to complain to Indymedia about Geoff? Has he harmed me in some way? On the contrary, he has only helped me.

by Patrique - NIPSA Mon May 22, 2006 19:45

I doubt if the above post is by Geoff, but if it is this is another case of "The looted pedestal". One would have assumed that Geoff would have learnt from that episode, accusing people and then discovering he was wrong, but maybe not.

I Patrique would not have a clue about how to complain to Indymedia, I didn't even have the necessary IT skills to join Indymedia some time back. As stated earlier Websites, politics, sport, and music, are a great source for a wind up, but you do not want to take it seriously.

As for threatening disciplinary action, another lie. I merely pointed out to Geoff the foolhardiness of unjustly accusing me of lying to the members, especially when you put it on e-mail. Just another of the little services I perform, the CSA are notorious for doing people for e-mail abuse. I was just being a good rep. I do not threaten action, I take it.

But as I say, I doubt if the above is Geoff. From the moment someone used my name, 75% of the posts are by imposters. And good luck to you, as Geoff says, or maybe not, it's all a bit of a laugh.

by Geoff Cowden - Branch 8 member Mon May 22, 2006 17:56

Guess what, not content with threatening disciplinary action against me, my good friend “hat trick” has now reported me to indymedia. First disciplinary action and now censorship, democracy seems to be a bad word to some people. Anyway any quotes I attributed to him were actual quotes in E-mails which he, himself circulated around the entire committee, (it was not me that put these comments in the public arena, my communications were all privately put to him as I believed, rather foolishly, that a member is entitled to write with opinions to their committee reps). I could of course as a union member have taken a case against “hat trick” for circulating private correspondence to an entire committee without my consent but I don’t take cases against fellow union members.

Well I will say no more as legal action by hat trick is probably only days away. I remember that this type of legal action is something my branch has some experience in as one of our ex-reps was threatened with legal action by another member simply for having an opinion and speaking their mind. We fought it then so maybe we will fight it again this time.

Anyway it is all a joke, no offence intended to anyone.

Last bus for Stalingrad goes in 5 minutes.

by The Knights Who Say 'Nih'! Sun May 21, 2006 13:52

So,Patreeeek,you have wisely taken the advice of The Men In Grey Suits and stood down....very commendable.There may still be a way for us to intercede on your behalf with the influential GNT 2006 Backbench Committee,however-but first you must deliver the following just and reasonable demands:1)a 500% pay rise backdated to 2001;2)a 3 day week;3)5462 principled stances;and 4)a shrubbery.Nih!Nih!Nih!

by Patrique - nipsa Mon May 15, 2006 19:50

I am now retiring from this enjoyable thread frequented by "sad wasters" because I realise that some chaps are now discussing private and confidential personal cases on the web.

Apart from that, while I do this tongue in cheek because I love arguing and ribbing because I am good at it, some people could begin to believe that others were serious, doubtful I admit, and if that were the case we would be making a laughing stock out of the whole union.

For better or worse, for richer or poorer, NIPSA are my union, and do not deserve to be held to ridicule by the actions of a few.

Toodle pip.

by Patrique - nipsa Mon May 15, 2006 19:13

Just stopped laughing, the wife and child bit was a nice touch. Never mind CSGE, Alastair Campbell has gone, I shall forward your post to Tony Blair, expect a call.

And it was a bit unfair. I may have stood down, having no interest in being actually elected to CSGE, but you see, I am in Branch 8, and, I don't really know how to break this easily, but you didn't submit your name to branch 8 Geoff. All these branches sound the same I know, could confuse anyone.

by Patrique - nipsa Mon May 15, 2006 18:14

Oh dear, all the toys out of the pram at once.

by Margerine Lid - Disorganise Mon May 15, 2006 14:58

How many SWP members does it take to change a lightbulb?

None, they will get one of their AO's to do it.

Having a laugh!

by Geoff Cowden - Branch 8 member Mon May 15, 2006 14:52

Here, Stooge or K-MIB or indeed Dr Ninestein, lost any members their jobs lately or "won" any cases where you have managed to get a fine paid off over 6 months instead of all at once. Why don't you write under your real name, I thought you never (in your words) "ran away from a fight or a debate". Maybe not but you certainly like to hide your identity under a bushel which is a shame as you are a very articulate speaker. Have you spent any more nights in the company of scabs recently, it used to be that a trade unionist would rather die than pass the time with someone who crosses picket lines but times they change don't they. People become more liberal as do attitudes. Only raking mate, your hearts in the right place.

Although having said that, I think you should find out who the secretary of Branch 7 actually is because he has done a lot of good work for his members and indeed those of Branch 8 while he was still on that committee. He doesn't talk to scabs either and was on the overtime picket with me every Saturday morning at 7.15am during the 40 week fiasco, unlike "activists" like yourself, who were obviously off uniting the rank and file somewhere, the rank and file in your dreams no doubt, because your bed is where you no doubt were. Again mate, I am only joking you, don't take it all so seriously, I have nothing against you, I've always liked puppets, Sooty and Sweep, Punch and Judy, the flowerpot men and that. You can’t see the strings you know. Only joking!!

Anyway enough of that nonsense, I am looking a bit of advice on where in the NIPSA constitution it states that a Branch can't nominate someone from another Branch. I have looked high and low but can't find this rule anywhere, it must be there somewhere.
I am also disappointed that B8 themselves appear to have broken this imaginary rule (which I can't find) last year when it offered to nominate an SWP member from Derry who is also on the US, and indeed nominated someone from Branch 200 also for CSGE. My god what a disgrace, no amount of spin and outright idiocy will fool the members of which I am one.
Also, if electioneering is not the way of the US and Branch 8 who are both too busy defending the rights of members Patrique, then why is your name always up for General Council and Civil Service Group Executive. Why don't you withdraw your nomination and let someone who wants to stand go forward, like myself obviously. Whats the point in you going and wasting your time and that of the members on these stupid elected bodies which aren't even elected by the majority of members. Or perhaps someone approached you to stand for the CSGE and you couldn't turn them down. Only having a laugh mate, seriously good luck in the upcoming election.

I am becoming a real fan of ghostbuster as he/she seems to be having a right go at everyone, although I am mystified as to why Patrique has pointed out about ghostbuster threatening the disciplining of fellow union members. I don’t see it that way, it looks more to me that ghostbuster is trying to tip the poor fellow off on what could happen. I mean it is not threatening like this recent extract from an E-mail from Patrique to myself:-

“Be careful. Your use of the word lied is the final straw. You personally know the procedure, no-one else has objected.

calling me a liar could well be a disciplinary offence, both from a union point of view and work.”

I don’t think his second line left me in any doubt that Patrique is quite happy to “report” (for want of a better word) his fellow union members if the idea suits him. I wouldn’t want to call anyone a hypocrite here because I am afraid of disciplinary action being taken against me if I did………… the E-mail was circulated around the whole Branch 8 committee to leave me in no doubt of the seriousness of the situation I was in and to prove what an all round nice guy he is when criticised by members of his Branch.
Of course I apologised straight away as I have a wife and child and can’t afford to be sacked for daring to disagree with a democratically elected official of NIPSA. Only having a laugh although I am not sure I am allowed to as it might be a “disciplinary” offence.

Ah well it has been great talking to you all again, good luck in your election campaigns.

by Dolly - Baa'th Socialist Party Sun May 14, 2006 13:40

Q:What's the difference between a Trot and a cloned sheep? A:There's a difference? Only sleggin'!

by K - M.I.B. Thu May 11, 2006 00:48

oooops! The title's a bit of a giveaway!

Obviously the people involved in this have no interest in ordinary members, as they have tried twice now, to go against the branch 8 members wishes and got hammered twice! It must be all about their careers and egos, indeed one of these people even called all you decent folks out there, who use this site regularly, "...wasters!" (see other link) all because he can't win an argument.

And as for branch 7 nominating them, would it not be better if branch 7 actually introduced themselves to their members, instead of having a figure head secretary who no-one can get hold of?

K

by patrique - nipsa Wed May 10, 2006 23:53

Re the above, by the time they came to us we were already mandated to support 4, and only 4, named candidates from branch 8. Obviously we are distraught at not being able to vote for our colleagues.

by Patrique - nipsa Wed May 10, 2006 23:49

That's were they went to get nominated for CSGE, and then unsuccessfully tried us. Why did they want to be nominated twice?

by Stooge - Nipsa Wed May 10, 2006 22:44

Branch 7 - How come Patreek?

by Patrique - nipsa Wed May 10, 2006 20:47

Now I am totally confused. It turns out that Branch 8's reps on GC and CSGE seem to be in Branch 7.

by Stooge - Nipsa Wed May 10, 2006 15:03

Ghostbuster - you accuse Patreek of lying, but it seems you are a bit economical with the truth yourself. You might want to clarify - When you say 'quite a few' of Patreek's Branch 8 colleagues turned up at Hollywood Arches, what you actually meant was two, now wasn't it? When you say that Branch 8 delegates are nothing but a bunch of piss up artists, does this include those delegates who you ealier referred to as the real actvists within US? When you say that Branch 8 delegates were running around drunk at all hours of the morning, dare I ask what you were doing that you witnessed this alleged debauchery - at a piss up yourself perhaps? I should think not!
As a self professed advocate of honest debate, maybe you should take time to engage Branch 8 a little more, rather than relying on petty half truths and ridiculous exaggurations to score points.

by Chauncey Gardener Tue May 09, 2006 21:46

Why are all these bald men fighting over a comb?

by K - M.I.B Tue May 09, 2006 21:29

Oh dear, oh dear. Ghostbuster(s), what part of this do you not understand. While you were at only one rally, US activists where at rallies all over Norn Iron. The fact that you don’t hear anything about the branch 8 contingent is because the genius’s at NIPSA HQ deem it necessary, not to allow branches to communicate effectively with each other, yet another form of control. Incidentally this is something the US has gone to great lengths to overcome and to build a considerable network of contacts. You see we’re kind of like the MEN/WOMEN IN BLACK (how’s that for pc patrique). We are all around watching and waiting ready for when management mount an assault on our members and members of other branches. It also gets difficult when you are in a government agency that hovers precariously on the verge of a political abyss and is constantly grinding away at staff, so surely you as a fellow trade unionist can understand what that is like.
Also I would like to point out that no delegate who attends conference could do so unless their branch mandates them.
The ‘so called’ activists who left, one of which resigned during the strike ballot, did so due to a vote rigging scandal surrounding an election to our agency trade union side. In that ballots where forged and substituted for one of these people. I hasten to add that this wasn’t even done cleverly.

Anyway I digress, I am going now to read up on the NICS handbook chapter regarding Internet usage, as I have to represent Dr Ninestein tomorrow.

Now that’s real trade unionism.

by Patrique - nipsa Tue May 09, 2006 20:49

All of the above is for Amanda, which I forgot to mention.

x x x x

by Patrique - nipsa Tue May 09, 2006 20:46

Obviously we will be at conference, we have six virgin delegates this year, and three non-virgins. It was just that Mr Ghost sees us at meetings, which he says we were not at.

As for not being allowed to resign, from a voluntary post, someone told me about that and I assumed they had got it wrong. All members of GC and CSGE are volunteers, so you can resign when you like.

Certainly I could advise you, especially as I now have close contacts in appropriate places. And it wasn't just me that felt that I was not allowed to speak, I did win the case after all.

I have now run into difficulties, again, with standing orders, who do not seem to be aware of rule 5.1 in the constitution. That's the one that says that Delegate Conference sets the policies and principles of the union. Between conferences, we delegate this power to GC under rule 6.1.

It shows you what the world is getting to. Two years ago I didn't know we had a constitution, now I can quote all these rules without having to look them up. I'll soon end up like the other constitution geeks.

See you on the strand. I'll be the one with the guitar.

by Patrique - nipsa Tue May 09, 2006 19:21

Ghostbuster, I would never get into a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

As for treating conference as a piss up, practically everyone in NIPSA is aware that according to medical science I am an alcoholic, so therefore I do not drink, since 1990 as you ask.

As for audit trails, threatening members with discipline, especially on a days leave, is akin to joining the Nottinghamshire miners in my book.

I would be more worried about calling Branch 8 delegates, especially if some of them do not drink.

And we have a mandate. And one person is usually all it takes to vote, especially as one knows the result of 90% of the motions before going to conference. The rest of us are probably trying to build a rank and file union, or out supporting fellow workers, such as the postmen. Sitting in the hall all day is not a sign of dedication, rather a sign of a lack of imagination.

by ghostbuster - ghostbusters Tue May 09, 2006 13:31

Great to see you find poeple with reading problems such a laugh Patrique, fine trade union ethics.

In answer again to your addition at 2.27 on May 08, please take time to read my addition just before. It states I was at all the rallies NIPSA organised and the US were not. Is this true, yes it is, I have not stated that you were not there and then said you were. what I said was that some members from B8 were there while the US wasn't, how did these members know about the rallies when you didn't. The US are going to unite the membership, HO! HO!, the membership of what exactly, noone sees your lot from one conference to the next. You turn up and orate your fine speeches leave the hall, come back for your next speech then leave the hall again and then expect us to take you seriously when the next time we hear the Branch 8 contingent is when they are creating a drunken noise about the Hotel at 7 o'clock in the morning and sending a few reps along to cover the next morning session. Your comedy remarks can't get you out of this because it is not a battle to see who is the most witty, I am not interested in that but when I go to conference I go with a mandate from the members who elected me to go while they remain in work. Branch 8 treat this as a glorified piss up in which they can do what they like because "We are the biggest Branch, We are the best Branch, etc, etc" when in actual fact you are now a laughing stock within NIPSA, your 1000 votes don't mean anything now as the US has lost ground on last year when they could have had it all, it strikes me that those who left may have been the real activists because you have all but disappeared.

Oh and Dr Ninestein, how do you get to write at 15.12pm, the rest of us have to work. Beware the dreaded Personnel audit trail.

by amanda Mon May 08, 2006 23:18

Patrique - i presume this is in jest - however I'm pleased to say that you will not see me there too (at least not officially) - you may feel you were not allowed to speak but I apparently am not allowed to resign (and therefore you will not see me at Conference too) - maybe I'll take a case - any advice? I may mount a picket - br 8 welcome (and anyone else).

by stroppy Mon May 08, 2006 23:08

Patrique just heard the news that you are nt going to Conference whats up ?Is it a boycott?

by Patrique - nipsa Mon May 08, 2006 21:41

Incidently, last week the CSA helpline were involved in the PCS strike. Management required our helpline to deal with the overflow of calls from Liverpool, and we answered with a resounding "Never".

On the second day Management carried out the threat to discipline staff but some 95% of staff, including managers, refused to break the strike, and were duly disciplined, some of them for the first time in distinquished Civil Service careers.

That's the type of thing that makes us strong, and that's the type of thing which makes the like of Ghostbuster not want us. There are times when staff from the CSA cannot attend rallies, because we are on the front line. There is barely a day goes by without action of some kind.

As I said, this makes us strong, it does not make us arrogant. When all is said and done, we are simply delivering what all trade unionists should be striving to deliver.

And those who were responsible for obtaining the vote for members, including the main speaker and instigator, are still with us. We have a committee of about 30, and all of them do something. We are not dominated by "prominent" people, we are equals.

Finally, Ghostbuster, we are not going to conference, so you should see all of us there.

by Shadow Mon May 08, 2006 20:09

How boring. It seems to me that ghostbuster has a bit of a chip on his shoulder about branch 8. Tell me, are you Ray, Winston, Peter or Egon? Or maybe your Slimer because of all the dribbling you do?
Could I ask what percentage of the ‘yes’ vote you delivered in your branch for all out strike action?
Oh yes that’s right I forgot! You don’t go to branch meetings, silly me.

by Patrique - nipsa Mon May 08, 2006 15:27

We were not at anything, but you saw us at the things we were not at? I know you can't read, but, do you know what a paradox is?

Three people from Uncivil Servant were elected in 2005, but following their success they left US. That would suggest, as I said at the beginning, that US do not have anyone on CSGE or General Council. I cannot really make this any easier to understand.

I need to get back to work tomorrow, to see if the circular advertising May Day has arrived yet from H.Q. If it has, I will attempt to get a big turnout for last Saturdays march.

As for conference, I am informed by standing orders committee that it has no power whatsoever, so I think I may need the old waterwings and rubber duck this year for the beach.

by ghostbuster - ghostbusters Mon May 08, 2006 13:58

Sorry Patrique, I must answer your assertion that I can't read first of all. I was at all of the NIPSA functions that I mentioned earlier and you and the US were not. To say that they were not advertised and that you only had two hours notice is a blatant lie. How did anyone know about them if they were not advertised. You profess as the US to want to unite NIPSA but don't show any support to other branches on issues which affect them such as Workplace 2010. Perhaps it is you who can't (or won't) read. The documentation was sent to all other branches. Why the hell should I as a NIPSA member unite behind your banner, the answer is I won't because you are not in the slightest bit serious about the members of NIPSA. That is demonstrated every year at conference when we are subjected to the wide open spaces in Branch 8's allocated seats for half the time we are there. Remember that the members have to work while you are lording it up in Newcastle at the expense of the subs payer, some of us attend the conference for speeches other than our own and when we make these speeches we are not doing it to feel self important and show how clever we are by introducing film quotes at the drop of a hat. The arrogance of Branch 8 has been well trumpeted in the past and it used to be a good thing, now you are nothing but a sad parody of the Branch as it was three years ago. This is the Branch that won the members the right to vote but those brave soldiers are all gone now to leave what exactly? There is nothing but lip service paid to the trade union ethos from your Branch. Oh and if you only had 2 hours notice then how come quite a few of your Branch 8 colleagues were spotted there.

I believe it is also incorrect that the US has not been represented at GC and CSGE level as last year there where at least 4 people who stood on a US ticket and were elected to one or the other of these. One of these people also won the all out strike ballot through debate which is something the US has consistently advocated. Or are you now drawing back from that, or is this your second lie.

You are only the strongest Branch because of your numbers not because anyone actually needs you.

Oh and Dr Ninestein, I don't understand at all what you are saying here, did you do a grammar and spell check? Please inform me more of the ballot rigging you are alledging here, this would just be about right for the level of representaion your Branch 8 members have so spill the beans and give us all a laugh. Oh and congratulations on your support of the right as it fits nicely with the US's new ethos of making the mountain come to Mohammed.

by Patrique - nipsa Sun May 07, 2006 16:34

Sorry about that, 5% topped the poll in the general Council election.

As for Branch 8, and disciplining prominent members, we don't have any prominent members, nor do we have Hercule Poirot.

by The Three-Toed Madagascan Sloth - Minotaurs Against Vivisection Sun May 07, 2006 16:03

One hates to be pedantic,Patreekeekeek old sport,but the General Council election turn-out was actually 13.4%(slightly down on last year),not 5% as you have erroneously alleged.This sort of figure is not unique to NIPSA but is in fact par for the course in other unions also.Naturally we would all like to see higher turn-outs,if for no other reason than to pander to our already bloated egos and delude ourselves that we matter,but not at the expense of vote rigging of the sort apparently practised in Branch 8.Is there any truth in the rumour going the rounds at the moment that a crackdown on cheats has started in the CSA,with disciplinary proceedings instigated against at least one prominent member?

by Patrique - nipsa Thu May 04, 2006 22:18

The Kool Chix is/are right, I think they must be plural. And I say it again, they are right. I have been telling people fot years, especially the left, that most people, especially what would have been termed working class, do not give a monkeys about politics, It is totally boring to them.

I also realise that those who control us have used the media, the monster that is TV, to achieve this. By creating a world where we are invited to envy the famous and celebrities, and to crave riches, they have ensured that fewer and fewer people are voting. And the first rule of democracy is to get as few people as possible voting, that way things will never change and the same people will be elected all the time. NIPSA's general council, a 5% turnout, is a case in point.

Incidently the union are currently trying to tell me that these 25 people, elected on a paltry vote, run the union and that conference is merely an expensive gathering, with no power whatsoever, where we can meet people from other branches. At least the Conference agenda tells me that.

But back to Kool Chix. U R right. The only thing I see on TV is the Sopranos and the West Wing, and endless repeats of Morse and Frost. All those programmes where they tell viewers that they will create a successful pop group out of non-musicians, and that the viewers are that daft that they will indeed buy their records, all of those passed me by as did Big Sister/Brother (equal ops case there) and all the celebrity nonsense. I do confess to looking forward to "Celebrity Russian Roulette" starting next year.

Preston? Billy, played piano with the Beatles on LPS, and an historically big football club, fallen on hard times with the collapse of the cotton industry. Chantelle? A wine?

Despite being a musician, I know little, ok I know nothing about popular music. We come third every year in the conference quiz, and score nil points in the music round.

So Kool Chix, I think Chantelle, he or she, will be perfect for Preston, he or she. My real hero of all time is the judge who allegedly said in court in the '60s, "What are the Beatles". Sheer class.

by Brother Thu May 04, 2006 13:35

Which Branch are they in?

by The Kool Chix Thu May 04, 2006 10:07

Hey,guys-all this heavy stuff is like, so last millennium,sooooo not kewl.It's, like,sooo not on.We're,like,typical NIPSA members and we want to hear what you guys have to say about the engagement of Chantelle and Preston out of Celebrity Big Brother.So-y'all entertain us now, boys,why don'tcha,hmmmmmm?

by pat c Tue May 02, 2006 14:57

civil servants in Wales are in dispute as well. read about the action taken by the PCS over staffing levels in the extract below. Full story at the link.

pat

Welsh civil servants join strike

The cuts will have a 'big impact in rural Wales', the union says
Up to 7,000 Jobcentre and benefit office staff in Wales are joining a second two-day strike in protest over job cuts and service levels.
The Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) says the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) must recognise the damage being done by the cuts.

The union said 700 jobs had been lost already in Wales. Across the UK, 90,000 staff are likely to walk out.

ABefore the job cuts began, there were 139 offices in Wales but this number is expected to drop to just 68 by 2008.

by Sun Myung Hadden - Moonatic Tendency Tue May 02, 2006 09:55

Q:what's the difference between a Trot and a Moonie? A:You don't need an ice pick to de-programme a Moonie.Only sleggin`!

by Patrique - NIPSA Mon May 01, 2006 22:35

I have been reading all of these threads, and noticed a few things.

Ghostbuster can't read. That appears to be obvious.

Secondly, why all the attacks on the SWP, does anyone actually know anyone from the SWP in NIPSA. I know one person, perhaps two although I am not certain about the second one. Put it this way, Branch 8 has 1,000 members and none of them are in the SWP. Now if you imagined that was a Gallop poll........

I also noticed that many said that the mark of good trade unionists was organising their own branch, instead of arguing on this site. Admittedly US are not very strong, but guess which is the strongest branch? For years NIPSA have used us as rent a crowd. We were not at Holywood arches, two hours notice when we were otherwise engaged, in our own branch which is where we agree a trade unionists first allegience belongs, well it should at any rate. And we are a small group.

If you refuse to admit how organised Branch 8 is, take a look at the General Council elections. 5% of the vote topped the poll, something like 5,000 voted overall. 1,000 of those were from Branch 8. How do I know, look at my vote. You don't think anyone else voted for me, do you?

I also know that some 95% of our membership voted for an all out strike. But then, we have regular strikes and walk outs, a situation not too familiar in the Civil Service.

The SP, SWP, DUP, SDLP, PUP and all the rest should not have a role in NIPSA, except to encourage people to be active. There is no need for a desire to take over the union.

Finally, someone mentioned someone called Rory Hearne in connection to US. Who is he when he is at home? If, as I suspect, he turns out to be in the SWP, and is praising US, well at leasy he has good judgement. Good luck to him.

by amanda allaway Mon May 01, 2006 18:55

........thanks for the offer - but I won't be needing your vote - I am not running for President and although a branch nominated me I have decided not to run for an officership for the Executive either - despite "topping the poll" I haven't decided yet either whether to take up my seat on the Council - I remain very angry about a number of issues at the moment and the latest missives emanating from the Socialist Party have upped the ante even more - and yes I did resign on principle to make a point on certain issues - issues which TFC are now seeking to spin to their own purposes. Regardless of my own personal situation I will be making sure the members know what a bunch of shameless, hypocritical, opportunists they are - there'll be more on that, believe me.

by Dr Ninestein - one-zero classified ! Mon May 01, 2006 16:12

Here we go again. Unfortunately I feel drawn to comment on some of these issues. Firstly, Brian the real reason you left the uncivil servant was because of your unfortunate choice of friends who at a time of trying to gain support in what could have been the largest strike in Northern Irelands history, saw fit to fill in ballot papers of members who were either off sick or on leave, to increase there vote for general council. Perhaps you have heard the saying "....all those who gain power are afraid to lose it"

Secondly, Amanda, Patrique may have a point there, and hopefully after topping the poll you will be able to deliver the goods to all of your supporters. warmest congratulations.
Oh by the way! You can call me Tiger ;-)

by patrique - nipsa Sat Apr 29, 2006 03:41

Uncivil Servant do not have anyone on the General Council. Branch 8 had a couple of people, but that is not the same thing.

As for US and TFC working closely, nobody told me, but I am only the editor of Uncivil Servant. It can't be true if we have no-one on GC.

As for Amanda, if it was a principled stand, well done. If it was the old Conservative trick of resigning, due to collective responsibility, to mount a leadership challenge, well not so well done, although you may get our vote.

by ghostbuster - ghostbusters Thu Apr 20, 2006 21:14

You may be afraid and it may be close to the time when the new pay deal comes at us but with the two and a half factions of TFC, RTU and the US (US being the half, and that is generous) being at each others throats over Workplace 2010 and the CSGE elections coming up I fear that the real problem is that NIPSA again will not be prepared. Gone are the days when the rank and file would be the most imprtant part of NIPSA. Now we are stuck with political posturing, bland speeches, absolute arseholes pretending to represent members by giving flowery, contentless speeches at conference, motions on the state of play in America, motions on green and orange politics in NI and all the rest. We should all remember that it is the membership of NIPSA (i.e. the working classes to any SWP/US people who are listening) that demand our presence and attebtion - WILL YOU STEP UP TO THE MARK OR WILL WE REVEL IN APATHY FOR THE FOURTH YEAR RUNNING.

by i am scared to speak out Wed Apr 19, 2006 19:12

How about NIPSA getting us a decent living wage, its the likes of the right wing that failed to win the first pay dispute no wonder our members didn't want to go through it all again. "keeping the powder dry for other battles" is a lame excuse, an excuse that only a mental person would come up with. maybe its time for Rank and File to do something more. its about time the money in NIPSA accounts was spent on us the members, every legal avenue should be pursued, but i hear it wasn't can you through any light onto this, manybe the members (or have you forgot about them) should be told. NIPSA have nothing to fear, as long as you keep to the forefront of your mind the interest of the members. You see, united, our members are unbreakable and fearless, however and it was done, members where divided not only by management but by some within NIPSA and fear started to spread like cancer killing off everything that was built.

its now 104 days until we are due a rise in pay. lets start building now, so that if no deal is made by 1/8/06 we can pull our members out with draw their services until a decent payrise is made, and one that makes up for the last 3 years.

Lets do my Friends lets show them who the boss really is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Ghostbuster - Ghostbusters Sat Apr 15, 2006 11:32

Well said "Rank and file", it is a pity that you have not done more than talk about the problems with the split in NIPSA. There is only so much political analysis of the left and right in NIPSA that the members will take. You seem to have captured everything here in your speech and while a lot of it is relevant and well written, it is still only a speech when action and unification is required. You sound as if you would be ideally fitted for the Uncivil servant, they are full of talk also but little action.

When you let me know exactly what you did during the runup to the ballot then you can write all the moderate speechs you like. The fact is that NIPSA got over 6000 members to vote for strike (a truly magnificent achievement) and instead of in fighting we should be working NOW to unite the membership behind a common vision. you are right that this vision is not socialism, that way is full of greedy little ex-students who are subsidised by mummy, remember during the miners strike, it was workers not political parties that almost won. It was in fact the political parties that lost it for them, so for the SWP and the SP a message, keep your politics at home and please get on with what you have been elected for, to represent NIPSA MEMBERS.

by RANK AND FILE - NIPSA Wed Apr 12, 2006 01:35

Anyone who knows me would be well aware that sycophancy is the last thing I could be accused of.I probably wouldn't agree with many of Amanda's political views but I just happen to believe that her account of the dispute is the most accurate and that she has made a most valuable and professional contribution to the union unlike some of her detractors.
My problem with the left in nipsa is not their politics per se,although I do find their glorification of bolshevik tyranny odious to say the least,but rather the way in which they seek to create division in the union so that they can claim to be the saviours of democracy blah blah blah.
The unpalatable (for the left) truth is that there is no "right wing conspiracy"-nobody on the Executive Committee or the General Council wanted anything but a successful outcome for the strike ballot,otherwise what would have been the point of committing so much time to persuading members that only an all-out strike could have achieved an improved pay offer..
The other fact they find hard to digest is that most civil servants are not dyed in the wool communists nor are they ever likely to be .This is hardly surprising considering that most people are only too well aware of what socialism means in practice,i.e. suppression of free speech and thought,economic misery for all,loss of national identity,rule by diktat instead of parliamentary democracy and ultimately the gulags,the police state and mass murder.
The left want to politicise trade unions to advance particular political ends which I feel most of the rank and file in no way support.Of course everyone wants a decent living wage and a secure job,but it is the opinion of many(actually of most) that "socialism" is not some sort of precondition for achieving these goals.
Candidates for election in a Trade Union should be assessed and voted for on the basis of what they have achieved in practical terms for their members and not on their politics,but the ultra left put capital P politics first,and therefore create unnecessary and damaging divisions in the movement.

by timx Tue Apr 11, 2006 23:44

Ur rite. unity dsn't exist. so mch fr al ths philosophy bout unitin in the fce of adversity. thr al 2 bsy plyin n playground.

by Rogue Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:55

In a previous thread I tried to work out where "Rank and File" was coming from and what "Crimes" TFC were being accused of. The Amanda Allaway "love fest" seems to answer that one. As for the other comments namely the Ultra left being incapable of leading a Trade Union in the 21st Century. Question, Is everyone happy by the way NIPSA is being run now? Maybe "Rank and File" is. My experience is the real rank and file most certainly are not. This is where the Union being controlled by the Right has got us. So what does "Rank and File" want? More of the same? Surely now it really is Time for Change.

by amanda allaway Mon Apr 10, 2006 18:44

I didn't say WP2010 was "all" I raised - it just happens to be one of the main issues that I felt needed attention - anyone that knows me will know that I can and do speak (often at length) on a variety of other issues but so do a lot of people - talking about something is one thing - doing something about it is an entirely different matter.

If you would ever like to discuss any of the following topics (aside from NIPSA issues) do give me a call.

trade unionists in colombia and boycott of Coca cola

trade unionists in Iraq and the problems faced particularly by women with the enforcement of Sharia Law, post Bush's illegal war

encouraging participation of women in the trade union movement

by A - NIPSA TFC Mon Apr 10, 2006 18:26 tfc.nipsa at ntlworld dot com

Brian

TFC activists have been involved in a hell of a lot more than that.

by Brian Stewart Mon Apr 10, 2006 17:42

Who voted the "ring wing" in for the GPC from GC, surely if the left had been the majority all members of the GPC would have been from the "left".

Amanda fair play to you for resigning from these bodies over WP2010 but what about eHR i haven't seen much done about that and the contract was signed at the end of March, no protests no rallys no call for a united membership.

grass root members need to be mobilised, and the NIPSA leadership (yourself included Amanda and whoever else hiding behind false names) should be trying to do this. I was apart of the Uncivil Servant, with the aim of building a network of NIPSA activists so that we can stand together to fight for better conditions, terms and pay.

I am no longer apart of the Uncivil Servant, as I did not see them building in the right places, instead forging links with postal workers (as quoted to my when i resigned) a GC election was taking place and we should have been trying out to inform members who was standing and why they would be the best people to lead NIPSA.

I can not see TFC doing this, as Amanda stated before (one issue dog) its about pay and elections with them.

our members need to be more active and thats what we should be aiming to acheive. none of this petty slagging each other off hiding behind the monitor. put your names beside your comments.

by A - NIPSA TFC Mon Apr 10, 2006 15:11 tfc.nipsa at ntlworld dot com

Kintama says “TFC as a group may not have a majority on the Executive Committee however with other groups and individuals they do, and have had, a majority.”

Nosey joins in much the same vein saying “the left had a majority on GC this year”,

This is at least an improvement on the repeated claims that TFC had a majority on these bodies,

The facts of the matter are,

The current break down of the CSGE (Civil Service Group Executive) is, TFC 9, US 2, RYU 12, and Independent 2 giving a total of 25. During the life of this year’s CSGE 3 members of the CSGE have not been able to play a full part due to long term sickness.

The current break down of the GC (General Council) is, TFC 11, US 3, RYU 11giving a total of 25. During the life of this year’s GC 1 member has not been able to play a full part due to long term sickness.

At times the TFC and US people work closely, though this not always the case, the independents do their own thing and the final out come is usually decided by how many people turn up to a meeting. It also has to be said that many issues are discussed with out a great deal of difference between those attending the meetings.

Kintama also says

“If a motion is proposed, seconded and put to a vote it will appear in the minutes and no majority can remove it retrospectively.”

I am afraid that Kintama is not aware of the normal practice in NIPSA. On the bodies of NIPSA minutes of the previous meeting are presented to the following meeting be agreed for accuracy. Then the meeting decides if any items should be removed from the minutes before they are circulated to branches. This usually falls under the agenda heading of Omissions from the minutes.

To confirm that this is the case, simply check the agenda for any meeting of the GC or CSGE.

As I understand it Omissions from the minutes is normal practice in many trade unions. The argument for this is that circulated minutes are public documents which management can access and that unions should not show their hand to the employer.

WORKPLACE 2010

On the issue of Workplace 2010 I fear that we are in danger of getting off track here.

TFC/RYU/US should not be having an unnecessary go at each other about this issue.

As I understand it, the information relating to Workplace 2010 was not been relayed to the CSGE, Amanda was trying to get the information to the CSGE but found that she was been blocked, she then took the step of resigning to bring things to a head, likewise her colleagues in RYU found that they where been blocked and in the last few weeks they kicked up a storm. I would not doubt that Amanda was working hard on this issue for months but genuinely the vast majority of members of the CSGE, GC and membership of NIPSA where unaware of the severity of the issue. When TFC became aware of the situation they straight away joined the fight.
I think it is to the credit of both groups that they have shown determination to fight on this issue and it will do no service to members to ignore the real problems that led to this situation.

The real point for debate is how do we move it forward, on this I have no doubt that TFC and RYU will have differences of opinion!

Finally, reading about these issues on Indy media may give the wrong impression. It has to be said that there is not always conflict between the different groups and personal antagonism/abuse is rare. Arguments on the CSGE and GC are over the tactics and strategy of the union. It is quite right and proper that such debates take place; in fact it is a credit to the democracy of our union.

by Nosey Mon Apr 10, 2006 13:27

TFC are useless, we know they are they have let the ball drop so much in recent years, the left had a majority on GC this year, but what happened, they lost it this year, why because people were fed up with the same old crap, people were fed up with all they spouted on about pay, as rightly state by Ms Allaway their are other issues here not just pay.

I have to put it to ya Ms Allaway what other issues have you raised apart from WP2010, cos as you stated thats all you talked about from last march.

by amanda allaway Sun Apr 09, 2006 23:39

K,

I refer you to my response to your questions posted on the separate thread which raised the issue of WP2010.

I haven't resigned from NIPSA and I have no intention of doing so - I resigned from the CS EC and General Council because I felt NIPSA had focused so completely on the pay issue that other issues had been let slide. At least these issues (including WP2010) are now getting attention - I will support any campaign against WP2010 and I will continue to do whatever I can to support the branches in DFP that I have responsibility for, regardless - what I won't do is allow people who didn't think wp2010 was important enough at the time try and pass the buck.

I would urge every NIPSA member to write to their local councillors, MLA / MP and ask them what they have done / are prepared to do to stop Peter Hain et al selling off "NI PLC" and our jobs with it (think WP2010, Water service, eHR) - once these things happen in the civil service the rest of the public sector will be picked off. At this rate even if the parties get their act together and agree a devolved administration there will be little left to administer.

If you would like some more info on this you can email me at work - amanda.allaway@dfpni.gov.uk

by kintama Sun Apr 09, 2006 21:33

Principled my arse, this individual is deliberately distorting the facts. TFC as a group may not have a majority on the Executive Committee however with other groups and individuals they do, and have had, a majority. If a motion is proposed, seconded and put to a vote it will appear in the minutes and no majority can remove it retrospectively. If TFC were principled then either they as a group or any individual member could record dissent with an ommission from the minutes which all members could read. If this did not happen then there either was concensus or TFC are unprincipled. Members can make their own minds up on this.
If TFC as a group have principles then someone from within their ranks will name the Branches they claim in their bulletin tried to smother support for all out strike action against the disgraceful pay offer.

by A Principled Individual Sun Apr 09, 2006 20:52

So shoot me for mistyping the date. Just answer my comments on your erroneous claim.

by amanda allaway Sun Apr 09, 2006 19:21

The purpose of every meeting is to try and achieve "consensus" through debating the various points of view - that doesn't mean that its always achieved and that's the point of having a voting mechanism to determine policy.

So now we find that TFC "mistakenly in hindsight" put aside their own views in an effort to maintain consensus at the request/behest of the "right wing" - this would be the same "right wing"majority" that they were trying so hard to get rid of?

You state that a motion was put forward on 7th April 2004 - the EC engaged in a consultation exercise with branches in March/April 2004 to consider the campaign and met at a special meeting on 5th April 2004 (not 7th April 2004).

The Bulletin published on 6th April 2004 states:

"This bulletin reports on the key decisions taken at yesterday’s special meeting of the Civil Service Group Executive Committee following
last week’s consultative meetings with Branch representatives.

The consultative meetings confirmed the overwhelming support of all Branches and members for continuing and escalating the industrial action campaign.
In response to this and to the calls for greater direct involvement of members the Executive Committee unanimously agreed to:-

* further escalate the selective strike action" et seq

http://www.nipsa.org.uk/dispute/resources/B1504.pdf

Then the bulletin published on 16 April 2004 titled Membership Circular No 7 states:

"Escalating the Action
Before Easter the Executive Committee consulted with Branches on all options for further industrial action as necessary. There was unanimous resolve to maintain the campaign concentrating on further escalation of selective strike action by key groups of members"

http://www.nipsa.org.uk/dispute/resources/MembersCircul...7.pdf

OOOPS - there's that word "UNANIMOUS" again!

by A Principled Individual Sun Apr 09, 2006 13:18

Oh dear Rank & File you sound like a cross between an Amanda cheerleader and a raving sycophant.

Amanda's 'excellent contribution' would have been so much more 'excellent' if she has stuck to the truth and not distorted the facts.

Amanda said "Bear in mind that all the way through that period TFC had a significant number of members on the EC but there is no record from any meeting of anything other than unanimous decisions being taken by the EC throughout that period of the pay campaign. If as they claim they were working so hard for the members and believed the strategy was so wrong why did they not force a split in the EC which would have, yes possibly been seen as damaging from PR point of view, but would have given the members the opporuntity to decide which way they wanted to go - so called right wing or TFC. There was of course debate during the EC meeetings - if there wasn't there would be something wrong but TFC never had the courage of their convictions to force a vote on it. I wonder why."

Lets go through this bit by bit.
TFC did have a significant number of members on the EC but they never had a majority.
Throughout the 03/04 dispute there was much debate between the two main groups on the EC. When TFC members disagreed with the decisions of the majority they were constantly warned of the damage that anything but concensus would do. Management would know we were split, the members would lose faith in the EC etc etc. So, for the most part,and in hindsight mistakenly, the minority on the EC (TFC) went with the majority for 'PR' reasons as Amanda put it.

However, at a critical point in the dispute, at a time when the EC was driving the dispute into the sand, TFC did put forward a motion to escalate the action to all out strike rather than continue with selective action as the only means to win.
That motion was put forward at a meeting on 7th April 2004. Of course it was defeated by the majority.

Why then is it not in the minutes. Simple really. The majority on the EC used its majority at the next meeting to remove the offending lack of concensus from the minutes. For those who aren't familiar with EC business, the committee discusses the minutes of the previous meeting and decides if there should be any omissions before circulation to members.
The offensive 'non concensus' was, therefore, removed for 'PR' reasons.

So Amanda, lets see you come back onto this site and have the 'courage of your convictions' to tell it like it really happened.

by k Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:37

I know this thread is about pay but as I'm in danger of losing my job to a private company please indulge me. Sorry but pay comes second on my list of priorities at the moment.

Amanda, if what you say is true then I might just do the same as you've done and resign from NIPSA.

We have all known about the WP2010 pilots for some time - Royston and the sinking, stinking Clare House (there's been an article in NIPSA news) - BUT the privatisation of the 80 buildings and the jobs in them in something different. Amanda, you said you have been raising at every meeting of the CS Group and that you've circulated many articles, documents and letters to the CS Group and NIPSA officials.

Before I look for another union, and am considering Unison if they would have me, please answer the following.

1 When did the CS Exec and officials become aware of the intention to proceed with WP2010 of the 80 buildings and staff before the pilots have ended?
2 What meeting was it discussed at?
3 Who took part in the debate and what was decided?
4 I picked up a TFC leaflet at a meeting. It said the NIPSA leadership has let the ball drop on this issue. Who are they talking about if you say the CS Chairperson and President knew about this and if TFC members are on the committee that deals with WP2010? Name and shame them. We should have the truth.

If I do happen to lose my job as a result of the inaction by the 'leadership' of NIPSA, YOU CAN BE DAMN SURE I WON'T GO QUIETLY!!