Is the Double Ballot a Cynical & Desperate move by Union

[gb93]

Now i bet this thread makes me unpopular with some or accused of cheap shots.

But i am just interested in peoples opinions on the matter, whether they agree or disagree.

And maybe thoughts on why it was necessary.

I am not saying it definately is, just asking if people think it may be and why it was needed.

[snoddy]

Now i bet this thread makes me unpopular with some or accused of cheap shots.

But i am just interested in peoples opinions on the matter, whether they agree or disagree.

And maybe thoughts on why it was necessary.

I am not saying it definately is, just asking if people think it may be and why it was needed.

Its a cynical and desperate move.

[headscrewedon]

Its a cynical and desperate move.

No it isn't.





















It's a desperate and cynical move.

Sorry, I forgot that it's not Panto season

[snoddy]

Its a cynical and desperate move.

No it isn't.





















It's a desperate and cynical move.

Sorry, I forgot that it's not Panto season

Ohhh Noooo you didnt

[headscrewedon]

Just wait til you watch the dvd that comes with your ballot paper.

It's a desperate and cynical movie

[wacko74]

I must be missing something.... whats a Double Ballot?

[gb93]

There will be 2 questions and 2 votes on the ballot paper as far as i believe.

[mcboing boing]

I must be missing something.... whats a Double Ballot?

Its a cynical and desperate move by the union.

[Martin Walsh]

It was explained at the Bounemouth national briefing and every other meeting that there would be two ballots one on the agreement and one on the MTSF , that why ROMEC Reps , ADMIN reps , Post office counters reps , cash handling reps , parcel force reps and quadrant reps were invited to the national briefing.

The changes to MTSF does effect them , for example the number of post offices including crown offices have declined over the year and the changes to excess fares is important, there is a quadrant review being untaken nationally and other changes. The changes from October in terms of the criteria for VR will effect everyone too as the Post Office new retirement age will be 65. In the past it has been 60 with the possibility of being retained after this period on a rolling basis.

If as some have argued on here that those who vote on the agreement will also be voting on the MTSF is wrong as the numbers in Royal Mail letters outnumber those in the minority grades who number appoxmately 20 000 in total whereas Royal Mail letters have 135 000 staff .

I dont think anyone should read to much into this if you believe people in deliveries will vote this agreement out then they outnumber those in mail centres , RDCs , Network and all the other miniority grades put together.

The ballot will decide whether the agreement is accepted and the MTSF ballot will decide whether the MTSF part of agreement is accepted.

Equally I have heard some on here saying the changes to mtsf effect only mail centre staff that is simply not true as there will be lots of vrs in delvery offices as part of this plan and of course the new criteria for VR from October purely on seniority is a big change to MTSF as the current criteria is ages 55 -65 first in seniority order and then seniority order from Age 54 down but with a cap on those who were 50 -54 . The new inland revenue rules mean that some aged 50 to 55 can no longer opt to take their pension when they leave on VR terms.

So it is only fair that all Royal Mail members vote on these changes as MTSF was endorse by the whole of Royal Mail Group employees in 2001.

[gb93]

Well thanks dingo for going to the trouble to write that last post at least you havent spit your dummy out.

I think we have understood that if 2010 & Beyond is rejected it doesnt matter how MTSF vote goes as it wont be implemented.

But if 2010 & Beyond is accepted and for some strange reason MTSF ballot is a no vote, will that meen MTSF wont be implemented even though it is part of 2010 & Beyond.

Could you clear that one up dingo, just curious on how it will work.

[Martin Walsh]

GB I have not spoken to anyone who has had a bad word to say about the new mtsf terms. Lots of questions as it does need explaining but no problems.

I have done something in the region of 25 different meetings on the new agreement with members and I have to say that most understand the reasons for the agreement of course some are concerned about issues like saturdays and door to door but overall I think that the ballot will be a 70 / 30 yes vote on the agreement and 85 % yes vote on MTSF.

[gb93]

Thanks again dingo for bothering to respond, I am not saying the MTSF terms are bad and of course it will be a big yes on ballot.

But my point was, just say for some strange reason it is a no (unlikely but possible) and the 2010 Beyond is a yes will the MTSF (new) be scrapped.

Even though it is part of 2010 that got a yes.

If the answer is if 2010 is voted in you you get it in its intirety why the need for separate vote as only the 2010 vote has any bearing.

[Lounge Lizard]

There will be 2 questions and 2 votes on the ballot paper as far as i believe.

1. Do you accept the agreement ?
2. Do you not accept the agreement ?

That way the CWU is sure to get a YES vote.

[LJR]

If they can do a double ballot why were deliveries not balloted separately on the major changes that only affect them, MC RDC ect on their issues and a group ballot on MTSF terms and conditions?

[pickaname]

Its a scam to get a yes vote...if you think otherwise youre stupid.