back pay

[aiden01]

But the real question that is neatly glossed over is why you have only two choices; or more importantly the content of the choices presented to you. Who decides what you will be offered to choose between ?
IF you pick the game and make the rules ,then, succeed in fooling the majority into accepting these terms , well you just can't lose.

Its called agenda setting and it works like a charm. Everybody gets involved in the minutiae of the deal and fails to see the outcome was rigged from the start.
Its an old but effective sales technique "It's a nice car sir. Would you like it in red or blue?"

How many choices do you want its a simple yes or no not a maybe are or.

[BELIAL]

I can see why you might struggle a bit , wrong end of the stick my friend.

[aiden01]

I can see why you might struggle a bit , wrong end of the stick my friend.

Your right maybe im thick

[BELIAL]

That is one possibility

[aiden01]

That is one possibility

Less said the better

[mark.cup]

Personally it was a no vote for me mainly down to the pension and the PDA stalking which we all know will only be a matter of time before its used to push more work on each individual and question why we aren't all as quick as a twenty year old who sprints round....

But to be fair it's been voted in so of course people are going to ask about the back pay what else can they take from this agreement?

[borgpicard]

I think it’s absolitely pathetic of the people who didn’t vote

agreed, seeing as it was important that we should vote, why did 45% NOT vote.

[tommyrep]

To have NO opinion....

You're conflating not voting with having no opinion.
If you don't like either option that's a valid opinion. It was also my opinion. I only voted No because I knew in this case it would have no consequences.

On this vote the 3rd option, re abstaining, has no relevance. If you were not happy with the proposed offer a no vote would send out the message of non acceptance, so go back CWU and renegotiate a deal that is acceptable. A yes vote declares your happiness of the offer. A non vote is exactly that, you are happy with whatever the rest decide. I will say again, a cop out for future moaners about the outcome, without the balls to even declare an interest! I think everyone should use their democratic vote, regardless if it differs from any others view. You voted NO in the knowledge it was a futile jesture, we do not know what the other 45% non voters opinions were and their action causes more unsavoury consequences on the rest who went to the trouble and thought in making a vote decision. Amen, I will vote to disagree with you on the 3rd option.

[fishtank]

But the real question that is neatly glossed over is why you have only two choices; or more importantly the content of the choices presented to you. Who decides what you will be offered to choose between ?
IF you pick the game and make the rules ,then, succeed in fooling the majority into accepting these terms , well you just can't lose.

Its called agenda setting and it works like a charm. Everybody gets involved in the minutiae of the deal and fails to see the outcome was rigged from the start.
Its an old but effective sales technique "It's a nice car sir. Would you like it in red or blue?"

Thank f**k somebody gets it.

[fishtank]

If you were not happy with the proposed offer a no vote would send out the message of non acceptance, so go back CWU and renegotiate a deal that is acceptable.

It would also have sent out the message that I believed the union was capable of securing a better deal despite the fact that they didn't, despite the fact that we had lost the initiative and despite the fact that any chance of a strike to force concessions had gone.

That is not a message I believed in therefore had there been any serious chance of rejection I don't think in all honesty I could have supported it. As Belial points out we were left in a position we should never have been with a union supporting a poor deal and making it clear they weren't up for fighting for more. That's why members abstained and rather than castigating them for coming to a perfectly reasonable conclusion you should be asking the real question, why were we left in such a s**t position by a union that is supposed to be representing us not the employer.

[banner]

The only possible third option is 'I have lost confidence in the leadership and want a complete change'. Well voting no a few times would achieve this outcome.
The car colour analogy is useless because we are talking about a collective agreement, not an individual decision like choosing a car.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

The car colour analogy is useless because we are talking about a collective agreement, not an individual decision like choosing a car.

If you focus on the car it is useless, if you focus on the message its perfect.

As in this is the only choice you have whether to accept it or not, but you feel like you have had input because you chose the colour.
As in this is the only agreement and it is better than where we started.

(Perhaps they added a free Sat Nav to the Car )

[tommyrep]

If you were not happy with the proposed offer a no vote would send out the message of non acceptance, so go back CWU and renegotiate a deal that is acceptable.

It would also have sent out the message that I believed the union was capable of securing a better deal despite the fact that they didn't, despite the fact that we had lost the initiative and despite the fact that any chance of a strike to force concessions had gone.

That is not a message I believed in therefore had there been any serious chance of rejection I don't think in all honesty I could have supported it. As Belial points out we were left in a position we should never have been with a union supporting a poor deal and making it clear they weren't up for fighting for more. That's why members abstained and rather than castigating them for coming to a perfectly reasonable conclusion you should be asking the real question, why were we left in such a s**t position by a union that is supposed to be representing us not the employer.

You make relevant points and despite my protestations Strangely enough I agree with your view ! Castigating non voters still has relevance in my opinion. I think we sing from a similar hymn sheet in all honesty. I understand the reasoning in people not voting but only wish they had and voted no rather than abstain. The %ages look massively in favour when in fact it is not the case, it will prove to be a misconception by many disgruntled people in the DOs and some may even vent their feelings on this forum. We will see ! It is normally the case once back pay is spent and the real s..t hits the fan. Reality kicks in.
The apathy adopted by the membership is understandable, as well. We seem to have accepted a watered down deal on the pretence that it is some massive victory, I believe it is not. The clever word speak still lies in the detail of a deal that favours RM much more than CWU members. It is not the great deal our leadership portray, but only offer a yes or no choice
The time taken in negotiations is now one full year behinds schedule. Our union got a massive vote in favour of the 4 pillars strategy, and a strike option. The pay deal does not extend back to April to cover the ending period of the last, why ?
The members are lost in the detail of the pension proposals. RM still have an upper hand on the pretence of a shorter working week while still driving for a further efficiency program that’s expected within duty time, pda recordings, etc.
I bow to your superior knowledge, I am a pessimist at heart and predict B&H will continue to soar on the back of a deal that only provides more scope for unscrupulous managers to exploit. So on delivery nothing changes, a constant argument every day, “ you have time to absorb, everyone else can do it, will need to check attendance calll, bla bla bla “ grrrrrrr.

[maisymoo04]

Gimmeh mah moneh!!!!

sad. is that all your bothered about ?

Calm done, he was using humour to agree with you.

To be honest its not the No voters that are disappointing me on this thread. Its the people who think its okay to make personal attacks on people with opposing views, and those making stupid uniformed comments such as

When do we receive our back pay any date been agreed

how surprising mail centre staff asking about back pay wont a affect them one bit

When if they had read the agreement they would see that the changes are going to impact MCs just as much.

Royal Mail said they are changing the culture within Management, looks like OPGs need to do the same.

stupid comments ???

[Alexei]

The mass resentment and pessimism endured in my office led to members feeling voting no is pointless, as RM will roll the changes through anyway - this was as good a deal we could get. The focus is purely on the pay deal, and members are satisfied with it, also seeming to think we are heading for the SWW October '18. And that's not 38 hours, that's the proposed 35 hours! ... Furthermore, the CWU rep was championing a yes vote, but how many of my office voted, I cannot say, I can only speculate less than 10%, and judging from my conversations with more 'knowledgeable' colleagues ( in respect to the negotiations ) the consensus was to vote yes.