ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (Updated 2021)... HERE

ANNOUNCEMENT : PLEASE BE AWARE WE ARE NOT ON FACEBOOK AT ALL!

A question for the yes voters

Postal workers discussion forum. Discuss the day to day life in a Blue Shirt.
numan
Posts: 208
Joined: 27 Sep 2007, 23:34
Gender: Male

A question for the yes voters

Post by numan »

If after all the talks this offer had been rejected by the PEC. Would you have still thought it was a good deal and been angry that it wasn't accepted? Or did you only vote for it because HQ recommended it and were telling you there's no plan B?
The truth!
Posts: 114
Joined: 16 Oct 2009, 17:34
Gender: Male

Re: A question for the yes voters

Post by The truth! »

numan wrote:If after all the talks this offer had been rejected by the PEC. Would you have still thought it was a good deal and been angry that it wasn't accepted? Or did you only vote for it because HQ recommended it and were telling you there's no plan B?
Personally I know the negotators been through a lot of differcults disputes with them and when they say to me that there is no more money to be had then yes I do believe them.

If you really look at the situration do you accept that the Government has loaned Royal Mail over a billion pounds to by walk sequencing machines ? If you do accept that there is only two workplan models for walk sequencing the DUTCH model which is to walk sequence 100% of the mail at once and then that work will be available from 11 in the morning mean mainly a part time job. Or the UK model which is 60% sequenced during the night and 40% from 0600 in the morning mean a 75/25 model.

Now whether you accept this agreement or not that was always going to be the case . You either accept this agreement as the a good way to tackle automation or you face automation without an agreement.
numan
Posts: 208
Joined: 27 Sep 2007, 23:34
Gender: Male

Re: A question for the yes voters

Post by numan »

The truth! wrote:
numan wrote:If after all the talks this offer had been rejected by the PEC. Would you have still thought it was a good deal and been angry that it wasn't accepted? Or did you only vote for it because HQ recommended it and were telling you there's no plan B?
Personally I know the negotators been through a lot of differcults disputes with them and when they say to me that there is no more money to be had then yes I do believe them.

If you really look at the situration do you accept that the Government has loaned Royal Mail over a billion pounds to by walk sequencing machines ? If you do accept that there is only two workplan models for walk sequencing the DUTCH model which is to walk sequence 100% of the mail at once and then that work will be available from 11 in the morning mean mainly a part time job. Or the UK model which is 60% sequenced during the night and 40% from 0600 in the morning mean a 75/25 model.

Now whether you accept this agreement or not that was always going to be the case . You either accept this agreement as the a good way to tackle automation or you face automation without an agreement.
Speaking for myself, more money would've obviously been nice but that wasn't what last year's dispute was about. I wanted an agreement that would protect and improve members conditions. As far as providing safeguards, some of the wording in the deal is quite frankly pathetic and not worth a light. I'm sick of hearing "well we were there, you weren't, we know what these words mean", this is quite an idiotic statement to make and all very amateurish.
Mercian
MAIL CENTRES/PROCESSING
Posts: 52
Joined: 28 Oct 2009, 02:05
Gender: Male

Re: A question for the yes voters

Post by Mercian »

The truth! wrote:
Personally I know the negotators been through a lot of differcults disputes with them and when they say to me that there is no more money to be had then yes I do believe them.


:arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh :arrrghhh


I did add more but :arrrghhh sums up the mentality of that whole reply