is the £8 on top of the 2%? and how can it be made permanent

[Big Daz]

it is not about the money - wasnt this mentioned when we went on strike? it was and is about recognising the union , no compulsory redundancies and job security - all in the deal
i urge everyone to vote YES!!

You right, it wasnt about pay rises, but nobody expected that what is given with one hand would be taken with the other. For delivery staff the 6.9% plummets when you take in account the supplement replacing shift allowance and DTD money. In fact it plummets so much that the 2% this year is not enough to counter act the supplement, so many OPG's will be taking a pay cut for the next 12 months after implementation. Depending on how may you sets of DTD and the payment amount some OPG's may not see the counteraction until 2012

[dvbuk55]

it is not about the money - wasnt this mentioned when we went on strike? it was and is about recognising the union , no compulsory redundancies and job security - all in the deal
i urge everyone to vote YES!!

All you need to do now smudger is explain HOW they have secured job security, prior to this agreement there was NO compulsory redundancies and job security is a myth and if recognising the union means capitulation and compromise at every turn - then lets keep what we have which is:

Disagreement procedures, which largely disappear under this agreement
Local negotiation which as flawed as it is, is all we DO have.
3 lots of D2D - which even if they refuse to pay is voluntary and so they either won't go or book overtime - but remember without a new deal the old deal applies
Work to time or book overtime
Ballot for industrial action if necessary
Get rid of the creeps who support this deal.

[wingmanchillian]

honestly if you look past the carrot there are so many things wrong with this agreement that its laughable. anybody that votes yes and still plans to be with the company in 2/3 years time is gonna be in for the shock of their lives.

really i urge people to seek proper advice before agreeing to this because the two professional's i've had take a look at it think its a scam. looks good for some in the immediate future but is very bad for all in the long run.

but meh, its ur vote aye.

[smudger83]

vote yes !!!

[TrueBlueTerrier]

it is not about the money - wasnt this mentioned when we went on strike? it was and is about recognising the union , no compulsory redundancies and job security - all in the deal
i urge everyone to vote YES!!

All you need to do now smudger is explain HOW they have secured job security, prior to this agreement there was NO compulsory redundancies and job security is a myth and if recognising the union means capitulation and compromise at every turn - then lets keep what we have which is:

Disagreement procedures, which largely disappear under this agreement
Local negotiation which as flawed as it is, is all we DO have.
3 lots of D2D - which even if they refuse to pay is voluntary and so they either won't go or book overtime - but remember without a new deal the old deal applies
Work to time or book overtime
Ballot for industrial action if necessary
Get rid of the creeps who support this deal.

Just because someone has a different viewpoint or political position to you, it does not mean that they are a 'Manager' or a 'Union fanatic', any posts making such assumptions or generalisations will be pulled or amended and the poster warned. This also applies to posts that are not aimed at individuals but at groups.(forum rules)
manners manners dvbuk i am not a creep - could you please refrain from this - i dont appreciate childish remarks from child like people who do not like the sweets mammy has got for them- i thought this forum was for structured debate not bullying
job security is there because the company can carry out modernisation - without it we will be ******ed
i can not remember any d.o staff thinking about the mail centre people when they got a massive pay rise and we got a massive pay cut in the way forward agreement
i urge you dvbuck to vote YES!!!!!

1. In response to your report I do not believe DVBUCK aimed the creeps comment at you as he cannot get rid of you. My reading is that this is aimed at the CWU Hierarchy as we can as members get rid of them.

2. Thanks for the report, but even if I agreed with you what is the difference between DVBUCK calling someone a creep and your statement of "child like people who do not like the sweets mammy has got for them-" hardly structured debate you ask for later in your post.

3. If I thought DVBUCK had overstepped the line I would be hard pressed to do anything about it after your response.


Now please carry on with the debate and move on from this misunderstanding. Perhaps though if people reread their posts, to make sure they are saying what they want to say, or before reporting a post reread it to make sure they are not reading something into it that isn't there I could have a quiet life.