Anyone Got Their Ballot Papers?

[MinisterofCucumber]

I can't understand why the ballot paper has two questions.

If there is a 'no' to the proposed agreement but a 'yes' to the MtSF changes, would RM agree to implementing only this part of the proposal?

Will they insist it has to be part of a package in the same way that Mandelson is insisting that the government will only take on the pension liability as part of a package?

If RM won't split the proposal, why are there two questions on the ballot paper?

There should be one question on the ballot paper that is sent to members who work in RM letters and one, MtSF related, question on the ballot paper that is sent out to non RML members.

How did this situation come about?

Did the CWU originally intend to send out a one question ballot paper to all members?

Did they have to insert the second question at the last minute because they were afraid that a complaint would be upheld if someone protested that non RML members were being allowed to vote on changes to RML's terms and conditions?

Have any two question ballot papers been sent out to non RML members?

If they have, there is the possibility that these members could tick 'yes' to both questions.

Any complaints should be sent to Tony Kearns.

[oggie]

I take it that the 2 votes on the ballot paper are because there are some fuctions within royal mail that are not part of the main deal but will be affected under the mtsf, so they will be getting to vote just on the mtsf part.
My point is, as i have stated before why are non delivery functions voting on the delivery issues d2d etc, surely if the cwu can have a separate ballot over the mtsf then why am i voting on delivery issues which do not affect me, and vice viser

[proper postie]

Have to agree here,I was surprised to see two boxes on my ballot paper as well.Voted no to both as I didn't know what mtsf was,and I can hardly vote yes to something if I don't know what it means can I?

It's probably in a thread or two on here,but as it didn't really concern me,and it's never actually been mentioned at work I was at a loss to what it was about.

[BELIAL]

Well at the risk of stating the bleeding obvious ,and i guess anyone with two brain cells is fully aware,if you want to sell a dodgy deal then you kick up as much chaff as possible.
Pedestrian ,but will it work

[nowt on the wireless]

anyone watch the dvd, its good for sending you to sleep

[BELIAL]

anyone watch the dvd, its good for sending you to sleep

To be honest, no . Unlike some, I have no problem sleeping at night

[mucker]

anyone watch the dvd, its good for sending you to sleep

even better for a beer matt

[fishtank]

anyone watch the dvd, its good for sending you to sleep

even better for a beer matt

Or a pizza cutter.

49344_1.jpg

[chewi]

On other threads Dingo kept saying that the agreement was whole and indivisible. Yet the ballot has two questions. HMMM! If you vote no to the agreement and yes to MTSF and MTSF is part and undivided from the agreement then surely a vote for the MTSF is a vote for the agreement? (or have I been watching too many episodes of X-Files?)

[andy2007]

On other threads Dingo kept saying that the agreement was whole and indivisible. Yet the ballot has two questions. HMMM! If you vote no to the agreement and yes to MTSF and MTSF is part and undivided from the agreement then surely a vote for the MTSF is a vote for the agreement? (or have I been watching too many episodes of X-Files?)

You're both right (crazy, but true!). Basically, what's happening is: Those of us who're eligable to vote on the 2010 deal get both questions, and everyone else, just gets to vote on the MTSF changes. Because it still effects them, even if the deal doesn't. So there will be 2 seperate results. One for the whole deal, and another for the MTSF. But if the deal is voted out, then the MTSF changes will also fail to come in, even if there's a yes vote for it.

Presumably, if the MTSF changes are voted out, then the 2010 deal will also be blocked, even if there's a yes vote. Although that's just my interpretation of the situation. Hopefully Lovejoy, Dingo, etc., will be able to clarify this.