Re: Guards and drivers Olympic payment

["Peter Perkins" <peterp@ihug.com.au>]

We collected $10 bucks from all those who were willing to part with their
cash, raising a considerable amount which was used to challenge the "backpay
bullshit" propaganda of the SRA and the RTBU.
The money firstly was used to seek barristers advice which you can view at
our website. A preferable position would have been to mobilise the
disenfranchised, but things being what they are politically, other avenues
had to be explored at this time.
The advice was that we did have  a case against the SRA (CityRail), it will
be a wait now for the SRA to begin legal recovery.
The unions and SRA have initiated their scare campaigns, cajoling and
harrassing people into paying back the money. Lewocki's position has always
been that we should pay the money back. However at this stage less than 50%
have paid any money back and there is a determined core who will not pay it
back. (after all, the rules were changed on the Job & Work Redesign after
the vote.)
Now we are faced by another round of EBA 2000 voting for station operations
staff. This is the same agreement which was named Customer Service Agreement
that was rejected by station staff last year leading to a one day stoppage.
It has been repackaged as the EBA 2000 Agreement. The first most people saw
of the agreement was 3 days before the start of the Olympic timetable.
Voting was sheduled for the 12th September, one day later.
We believe that less than 10% of staff will vote on the agreement even
though it will be used as a sword to cut a swathe through station staff
after the Olympics.
This is trade union democracy in action.
I am a member of the RTBU but do not support this type of organising. Thats
why we are working so hard on building a rank and file movement.
The ASU's position on voting for the latest agreement is better as it
recognises the undemocratic nature of voting in this fashion. Their vote by
postal ballot and presentation will be held after the games.
It may be possible to mount a challenge in the industrial commission over
preceedures for ratification and voting on the agreement. That would take
some support from the ranks to mount such a challenge. We have to at least
propose that as a possibility even if the majority do not see it as such at
this time.

See our website at http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~peterp/index.html

Peter Perkins.


"Tezza" <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
39c73292$0$26533$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au">news:39c73292$0$26533$7f31c96c@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> "Peter Perkins" <peterp@ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> > Who's responsible for that?
>
> For which?
>
>
> >Maybe it would be different if we had a Union?
>
> Other than the Railworkers Traitors Bosses Union? Formerly known as
Plainy's
> Trustaccount Union.
>
>
> > Some of us have refused to part with the "backpay" which is rightfully
> ours.
>
> How have you refused to "part" with it?
>
>
> > Now we have been told that we will not be entitled to the next round of
> pay
> > rises.
>
> By who? And what round is that?
>
>
> > (Funny how 5% of voters for the latest agreement can decide to except it
> on
> > behalf of the other 95%!)
> > I guess the final outcome will be decided in the courts if we can get
> enough
> > rank and file support for a challenge.
>
> What challenge?
>
> >
> >
> > "Tezza" <tezza2000@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
> > > "David Johnson" <trainman@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> > > > Tezza wrote:
> > > > > "magilla gorilla" <choochoo72@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > Guards and drivers will not be getting the extra $5.50 for the
> > > Olympics untill Late October. This is because the railway has to send
a
> bill
> > to SOCOG who will then pay the workers
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason is because it's based on attendance. You need 95%(no
days
> > > off) or more to get 100% payment. It varies down to no payment at all
> for 75%
> > > > > attendance.
> > > >
> > > > And it will then turn into another back-pay fiasco.  They will stuff
> it
> > > up, and we will get shafted, as usual.
> > >
> > > Of course, you wouldn't expect anything else would you? You watch them
> > only pay the pay-rise back pay on 76 hours instead of actual hours
worked.
>
>