[Majestic]

I take it they should shut up too

I dont remember telling anyone to shut up.

[windows_chepstow]

John,

I thought when you posted:

If its FWC business then FWC members  should coment on it .

that it sounded like a euphamism for:

Shut up, it's got nowt to do with you!

Sorry, mate; I'm a Geordie with piles.   

I'm going to delete some of my comments; definately this one in about ten minutes; because this thread's getting cluttered with 'off topic' and bitchy comments.

You are obviously entitled to your opinion; the same as the rest of us are; remember though, you don't have to be a member of an organisation to comment or have an opinion of it.

[Majestic]

When the APWC was in the process of being formed, the few people that were at that meeting were the chosen few with regards to what went on.
If you was not at the meeting you could not find out what was discussed ,they even had a secret section on the professional window cleaner forum, just for people who were at the meeting. I think that what has gone on should of been put to the members to decide.I did not know anything about it until Andrew mentioned it .
If the FWC is so bad why does Andrew want to be a member of both

[matt]

John,

I thought when you posted:

If its FWC business then FWC members  should coment on it .

that it sounded like a euphamism for:

Shut up, it's got nowt to do with you!

Sorry, mate; I'm a Geordie with piles.   

I'm going to delete some of my comments; definately this one in about ten minutes; because this thread's getting cluttered with 'off topic' and bitchy comments.

You are obviously entitled to your opinion; the same as the rest of us are; remember though, you don't have to be a member of an organisation to comment or have an opinion of it.

i took it the same way to be honest, if i aint a member i cannot comment, hows that work ?? ?? ?? if this was on a FED forum then fair enough, but its not, its on a open forum

[Majestic]

Thats where it should be on the fed forum, why should it concern people who are not paid up members.

[windows_chepstow]

If you was not at the meeting you could not find out what was discussed ,they even had a secret section on the professional window cleaner forum, just for people who were at the meeting.

I was not at the meeting you're referring to, but was privy to the 'secret' section on the PWC Forum; so you are incorrect.

There was nothing secret about it either; it was just a meeting place to discuss tasks that required doing; and it would've been counter productive to open it up to everyone.  It was mostly pretty mundane stuff anyway and common knowledge.

I'm sure if you ask Andrew 24-7 any question on funding or accounts, or anything at all; he'll openly answer it.

But, remember the FWC recently dragged their heels when Philip Hanson (PWC Mag editor and from an accountancy background) asked to see their accounts; a legitimate request under thier rules.

In fact they dragged their heels so much that Philip Hanson's membership ran out and again the FWC refused to renew it.

This post refers:

http://www.cleanitup.co.uk/smf/index.php?topic=12328.0

It seems the FWC are happy to take your membership money from you; but if you start asking THEM questions about money; then the barriers are put up.

Why?

[windows_chepstow]

why should it concern people who are not paid up members.

I suppose, and call me old fashioned, because it concerns fellow window cleaners.

Andrew 24-7 wants to be a paid up member; but they won't allow him.

Again: why?

[rosskesava]

Again: why?

Must be a coincidence.

First Philip Hanson and then Andrew 24-7.

Thats where it should be on the fed forum, why should it concern people who are not paid up members.

Being interested in what's going on is not dependant on being a paid up member. A person can be interested for no other reason than they are interested.

Take for instance any political party, they don't just canvas paid up members when there is an issue.

Cheers

[matt]

Again: why?

Must be a coincidence.

First Philip Hanson and then Andrew 24-7.

Thats where it should be on the fed forum, why should it concern people who are not paid up members.

Being interested in what's going on is not dependant on being a paid up member. A person can be interested for no other reason than they are interested.

Take for instance any political party, they don't just canvas paid up members when there is an issue.

Cheers

once again, agree'd

I guess some may say "just interested in how to NOT run a federation  :

[Philip Hanson]

But, remember the FWC recently dragged their heels when Philip Hanson (PWC Mag editor and from an accountancy background) asked to see their accounts; a legitimate request under thier rules.

In fact they dragged their heels so much that Philip Hanson's membership ran out and again the FWC refused to renew it.

It was worse than that I'm afraid, they didnt just drag their heels, they all but refused to let me see the accounts even though the rules clearly state that I had the right (as did any other member)

They put my appointment off 6 (yes six)  times, eventually they scheduled my appointment for after a committee meeting.  At that meeting it was voted that my membership should be revoked.

I got a letter the next day saying that I had broken the federation's "code of conduct" and my membership was revoked.  Was I provided with any evidence of that?  Was it even pointed out to me what part of the code I had broken.  Of course not, they just wanted me out.

The irony is, Andrew Lee had actually broken the code of conduct by failing to abide by H&S law, evidence was provided and he openly admitted the offense in a public statement that is still on the fed's website.  He could have been prosecuted by the HSE for that breach.  Was he chucked out?

The Fed's rule book is simply not worth the paper its written on.  When the federation blatantly breaks its own rules (as it did in my case), what can you do?  Nothing really, and they know that.

Window cleaners themselves have got better things to worry about than a disgruntled ex-fed member, and no amount of shame will make Andrew Lee, Bryan Dolby or Beryl Murray resign.  It is these three that "run" the federation, all of the other committee members, well intentioned as they are, as sidelined in any serious vote.  You have to remember that Andrew Lee, who as far as I have been able to tell pretty much runs the show, holds two committee positions.  He is both the vice chairman and the H&S officer, so even if the fed did follow its own rules (which is a joke) he could not be removed from the committee by a single vote.  It would take at least two years.

Heck, an employee of the fed's H&S officer was shown on Newsnight working illegally and breaking the WAH regulations!! If that wasn't enough to make him resign, you have to wonder what would be.

Beryl Murray libeled a manufacturer in 2004, and the resulting legal action cost the federation £40,000 in damages plus a similar amount in costs.  Was she disciplined?  Was she forced to resign?  Ha, no chance.

Bryan, Andrew and Beryl are welded to the fed, and the only way it will ever change is if they retire, or the fed eventually dwindles away to nothing.  Probably both will happen at the same time.

-Philip

[24-7 S C Services]

Hi John

I agree, due to one influencing individual in the early days of the PWCA, that everything was kept top secret. But after certain people left the original committee, things changed and the APWC was born. Since its formation in February, allot of information has been kept from the public eye, because if all the information was released, other associations would have put into action the APWC ideas, before the APWC even open its doors. For example the plastic ID card the fed now does.

Why do I want to be a member of both? Well two things really, both the associations offer different things at present, so overall I am getting slightly more benefits from being a member of both than just one. However, the main factor is, two months ago I spent £500 on new leaflets which have the FWC logo on, if I am not a member, I cannot use them. So I would prefer to spend £85 on being a member for another year, than throwing £500 down the toilet. Plus, there are other costs involved! Re-designing letterheads, comp slips, business cards, flyers.

If there was a forum just for the FWC, the posts would be on there however, they do not have their own forum. Due to this, the only real way of informing their members is to announce publicly on the forums to get the FWC members attention.

It is also like you have said John, no member of the FWC was aware of what is going on and if I did not post on the forums, they would not know until it had happened and then all the true details would not have come to light.

Also, I will stress this point and I am sure one of their committee members will confirm this. Prior to announcing this whole episode on the forums, the FWC refused to answer my questions on this matter and I was also informed, by a committee member that my membership would not be renewed. I then showed the committee the website etc, 24 hours prior to going public, in a hope to get my membership renewed and questions answered. But they failed to respond, hence why all this has started.


Philip, I take my hat off to you, you have said what I have failed to say and I am in total agreement with the comments you have made. However, if the membership was to stand together, I know that the committee can be removed regardless off how many seats they sit on and it can be done prior to an AGM. There are several people on the committee, that have tried so hard to change things, but they are blocked each time. Oh, this is only hearsay, but from the information I received, it was not a committee decision that revoked your membership, rather one or two individuals decided it themselves. Just like what has happened to me. One or two individuals have made the decision. Two committee members have already come forward on the other forum stating they where not asked to vote.

Andrew

[Majestic]

Andrew
Like you said no member of the FWC were aware of what was going on . But most of the posts are from non members. If they were that concerned they should join and have there say at the AGM

[rosskesava]

What's happening the the Fed happens in time to many organisations. A while back the Labour party was often refered to as the 'Labour movement'. The trade unions were the 'trade union movement'. Terms that refer to a bygone age that spurned both.

I was a member, when I worked on the railways, of an institutionalised ASLEF where top union members (the ones not employed by ASLEF) did no actual work in their jobs as originally employed for by the railways but were instead on first name terms which high up management and agreed on things behind closed doors beforehand. They were in each others pockets and the principles of both became compromised by familiarity.

As with the Fed, their day is done, their time has come and it's change or die.

The Labour party and the Union 'movement' have both dropped that term (and I am just making a point, I am not political in any way) and have adjusted to the now. ASLEF are trying to. As are a lot of organisations. As for the Fed?

From what I read, not only from this forum but from other places also, the Fed will not change. They are determined that time will stand still. What was a honour and for the good of the whole, in terms of position and intention, has become 'how it is' generated by years of regiment and tired habits from yester year. The top dogs have got stale and it all has become an institution in the worst sense of the word. 'This is how it is, and that is it.' Don't rock the boat, as we're all comfortable with things the way they are.

I think it's like a fan when when the current is turned off, it takes a while for the blades to stop turning. I cannot see the FED lasting very long in it's present format. Even their website hasn't changed much for years.

The above is just my opinion and I may be wrong.

Cheers

[Paul Coleman]

Thats where it should be on the fed forum, why should it concern people who are not paid up members.

I'm not a member but have thought about joining at times.  Things that are posted on here can help me in that decision - though I doubt they'd have me even if I wanted to join.

[craig jwc]

I agree with Shiner.

I thought about joining before, but if it wasn't for the info posted on here people would never know what was going on until it was too late.

Good on you Andrew, it's nice to see people who have an interest in what we do and are willing to warn/advise people.

I'm glad i never joined if this is how they treat their members

Craig

[rosskesava]

I've never posted this before because I never thought it appropriate.

I tried to become a member 3 years ago (before I found this forum) and sent off a letter with my application form asking quite a few serious questions. Afterall, I was paying hard cash and I expect a return for my money and an answer to what I was asking which was about how members money was spent as I did not want to subscribe to an organisation that lined the pockets of some at the expense of many.

My cheque was cashed but I heard nothing back from them.

After quite a few further letters I got one back saying my membership had been declined.

After a threat of the small claims court over them cashing my cheque, I got my money back.

To me that says it all and I have records that can be produced if legally required that back up what I am writing.

Not quite in the same league as Mr Hanson or Andrew 24-7 but in a small way, an indicator non the less.

Hence my interest in the Federation of Master Window Cleaners.

[windows_chepstow]

I'd like to hear the views of any long-serving Fed Members about this.

Are there any here?

[matt]

Summerfieldgate rumbles on

Andrew, have any of the board members been in touch with you since this started  ?? ?? ? ??

[24-7 S C Services]

Hi Matt,

I have spoken to a couple of the committee members (the ones I would class as genuine guys) and they have tried to help me, but as usual, the top people will not budge.

I have sent two letters in response to their letter received at the weekend, but again as usual, no reply. These top people are praying I will stop and let it drop, but I am not going to. I have also stated that the committee or I should say several of their committee members are in breach of the FWC rules. But again, it is one rule for the committee and another rule for the members (that’s how it appears to be).

The really annoying thing is. The committee representatives that want to get everything sorted cannot do anything, because the top guys control the majority of the votes. So even though these top people are in breach of the their own rules, if any of the other committee members brought it up, they would probably end up being booted out, because the majority voters would see to it.

As people have already commented. If these old fossils are not removed, the FWC will die a slow death. This is why their members need to stand up now and change things before it is to late.

Andrew