why didnt the members get asked about the pay deal?

[She Raa]

?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

?

?

They did and are.

Did - The consultative ballot

Are - The strike ballot.

[She Raa]

But that was on the back of. Why wasn't the actual deal put to members to vote on?

[Andy51]

Yeah that's what our office want to know

[TrueBlueTerrier]

But that was on the back of. Why wasn't the actual deal put to members to vote on?

It is now - the strike ballot is basically a Yes or No vote

If you agree with the Unions position on the Pay offer you vote Yes

If you think the offer is acceptable you vote No.

[Martin Walsh]

It is simple , the deal was rejected by the PEC and the members rejected the deal on the basis of the consultation ballot.

The other reasons why it was rejected was the following.

1. Years 2 & 3 are not guaranteed and have reopener clauses.

2. The pay deal meant you had to accept the pension changes.

3. The pay deal meant you had to agree a no strike deal.

4. The pay deal meant you also agreed to changes to work practices including more flexibility under the Agenda for Change without you knowing what those changes are up front.

It was a no brainer !!

[TrueBlueTerrier]

But that was on the back of. Why wasn't the actual deal put to members to vote on?

Yeah that's what our office want to know

In essence it was - the consultative ballot asked if you agreed that the Pay offer should be above inflation and with no strings - 99% said yes.

The current offer is below inflation and with strings - why would the Union ask the same question again when the offer does not meet with the members aspirations as shown in a democratic ballot.

[She Raa]

On the basis of the consultation ballot. But not actually put direct to the members. Why not?

[clashcityrocker]

On the basis of the consultation ballot. But not actually put direct to the members. Why not?

We, the members, told our negotiators we wanted a no strings deal.
Why would they ask us if we want to accept a deal with strings?

And we have to have trust in our negotiators.
If they believe they can achieve a better deal, why accept second best?

[She Raa]

Only asking.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

On the basis of the consultation ballot. But not actually put direct to the members. Why not?

Sorry you've confused me I can't follow your position.

The consultation was put direct to the members, the offer was known at the time IIRC. The members voted 99% on the CWUs position of a no strings deal. So the way I see it the offer was put direct to members and it was rejected.

[cloherty1976]

Obviously the union thinks inflation will be low next April as if it was high above 3.3% surely they would improve the pay offer. Even the best economists get this wrong all the time.. It will be interesting to see what it is next April and the year after to see what we could have got. Hope it's not like the strikes of 1971 when they went back for less than they were offered?

[fishtank]

Why wasn't the actual deal put to members to vote on?

Because it was crap.
With the employer killing entire forests on a daily basis to produce mountains of lies and propaganda do I want to take the risk of the membership voting in a crap deal and then spend the next 3 years listening to those same members moaning about the union selling us out?

We made it clear what we wanted,until that's on the table I don't want to see any deal put to the membership and neither should you because if you do it means the union has failed.

[She Raa]

Thankyou.

[She Raa]

Already voted yes. Just asking.