ALL BALLOT COMMENTS IN THIS THREAD PLEASE

[BELIAL]

Lets face it Ethilfrog ,anyone who can interpret a 3 to 1 majority as an ambiguous result rather than an incredibly powerful show of strength and solidarity with our striking workmates , is never going to listen to the collective voice of their brothers. Having just scanned your previous postings I get the definite feeling that you are at best a consistent doom laden defeatist.
Something tells me that that you'd still be pessimistic if the yes campaign had secured Higson and Croziers vote
General election turnouts 30% ,
CWU turnouts 67%
Massive ,3-1

[Body Beyond Repair]

The mandate is there so lets get on and use it. Ye ha

[Ethilfrog]

Sorry Teebs, your comparison with general elections is a false one as I said in a previous post.

As for your analysis of non-members' support, we must agree to differ. It would be good if you are right but I don't think you are. Anyone who was really prepared to forego current pay in exchange for putative future benefits would have joined already.

I remember having this argument with colleagues in 2007 and the numbers were somewhat similar -- similar enough so that the arguments were the same. We know how that ended.

[Ethilfrog]

Lets face it Ethilfrog ,anyone who can interpret a 3 to 1 majority as an ambiguous result rather than an incredibly powerful show of strength and solidarity with our striking workmates , is never going to listen to the collective voice of their brothers. Having just scanned your previous postings I get the definite feeling that you are at best a consistent doom laden defeatist.
Something tells me that that you'd still be pessimistic if the yes campaign had secured Higson and Croziers vote
General election turnouts 30% ,
CWU turnouts 67%
Massive ,3-1

60K voted in favour. More than 60K didn't.

Says it all really doesn't it.

As for the doom laden defeatist label... let's just say I like to enter battle when I think I can win.

[baldrick]

Or 19k voted No, more than 100k didn't.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Your comparison with general elections is a false one. No-one has to vote in a general election and if you don't vote you just put up with the result, the way things are these days the result is unlikely to change your life.

Not so this vote. When the call comes to strike everyone has to decide what to do, including the apathetic and the non-members. This is where what I call the 'lukewarm at best' come into play. They might put up with one or two days but that won't be enough, and anything longer will mean the union haemorrhages support. This is what happened in 2007.

Sorry Teebs, your comparison with general elections is a false one as I said in a previous post.

As for your analysis of non-members' support, we must agree to differ. It would be good if you are right but I don't think you are. Anyone who was really prepared to forego current pay in exchange for putative future benefits would have joined already.

I remember having this argument with colleagues in 2007 and the numbers were somewhat similar -- similar enough so that the arguments were the same. We know how that ended.

Sorry I dont agree with your position.

No one HAS to vote in either ballot - its a personal choice although it does depend somewhat on whether you join the Union or not, and that again is a personal choice.

The claim about not changing your life when you vote in a GE - Sorry it does, Tax Rise and Cuts, New Laws on surveillance and being held without detention, privatisation of Royal Mail are all changes as a result of whichever party is voted in.

[mcflodders]

As total outsider and not even sure what you hope to gain by going on strike, please answer me this! Do postal workers who do strike get any form of strike pay these days?. I used to when I was an active member of NUPE.

[baldrick]

As total outsider and not even sure what you hope to gain by going on strike, please answer me this! Do postal workers who do strike get any form of strike pay these days?. I used to when I was an active member of NUPE.

No. We are prepared to lose pay to stand up for what we believe in.
And what we hope to gain is negotiated agreements on change.

[chunk]

33% of our colleagues either spoilt or could not be bothered to vote
Royal fail will use this to there benift

its a good turnout! really it is
local elections don't do better and even general elections suffer from embarrassingly low turnouts.

[chunk]

* Edit post
* Report this post
* Reply with quote

Re: Ballot results

Postby chunk » Yesterday, 11:58
80% yes from a 70% turnout is realistically the best we can hope for.
for the reasons mentioned by Heston e.g every time a member takes vr they are replaced by a part timer,
but to offset that
a lot of the part timers taken on recently wont vote as their not in the union and many former no voters or abstainers have come over
due to their recent poor treatment re lapsing Georoute etc.
I'm a postman-and i know where you live.....


My estimate yesterday thanks for not disappointing me well done all.

[prowler]

Not looked to make an argument, but I know a good few people in various other companies who have been made redundant and another person with a pay freeze and even one with a pay cut forced.
We haven't faced any of this (unless I'm wrong and some have), so I view us as exceptionally fortunate compared to a considerable number of others out there. ALL companies are/have been struggling after all.
I just don't see how really pissing of the country will do anything to aid us and don't even see the need to do so when so many other friends/people are in FAR worse situations with their jobs. Quite frankly it makes me ashamed and embarrassed to talk to people facing real serious issues with their work life and employers.
I'm sure to elect some hatred for this post, but I don't mean any negativity to those here or who voted yes, I just genuinely don't see how it is a good thing. Just an understanding issue, not a hatred one!

Yes, many others are in a worse situation. But that doesn't explain why we should accept the s**t we have to put up with, nor why they should either. I'm not just in favour of us postal workers resisting such things, but others too. Ultimately the powers that be want us workers to pay for a crisis which is not of our making. They can bail out the banks with billions, but we are supposed to pay with job losses, pay freezes etc. We should resist and we should support everyone else that does. If we do so successfully, we can set an example to others.

Agreed.
How long are the people of this country going to put up with all the crap they are told by politicians??

[prowler]

* Edit post
* Report this post
* Reply with quote

Re: Ballot results

Postby chunk » Yesterday, 11:58
80% yes from a 70% turnout is realistically the best we can hope for.
for the reasons mentioned by Heston e.g every time a member takes vr they are replaced by a part timer,
but to offset that
a lot of the part timers taken on recently wont vote as their not in the union and many former no voters or abstainers have come over
due to their recent poor treatment re lapsing Georoute etc.
I'm a postman-and i know where you live.....


My estimate yesterday thanks for not disappointing me well done all.

That was actually MY estimate, posted before you, thanks.

[Midge]

I can't see many of the part timers voting for a strike. Most of them won't be union members anyway. It's a case of "how many union members voted" not "how many people work for Royal Mail".

Don't know how many part-timers you have in your kneck of the woods mate, but we are very nearly 50:50 in ratio, which has been getting steadily worse since about 1994.

But, the number of CWU part-time members has also grown at the same time.

There is no difference in 'density': just the same proportion of part-timers are CWU members as full-time.

Part-timers being treated as second class, not really posties, or not really CWU members really is a thing of the past.

Most of our young recruits are still part-time, but want to be full-time. They have mostly never been in a union before. But not one of them scabbed in 2007...

As for the non-members. If they can't be bothered to join like the rest of us, then they will have to just put up with subs-paying members voting and deciding for them. No payee, no sayee. Simplez.

And just like in a general election, non-voters have no right to complain about the result...

[chunk]

your right ! a day earlier on a different thread
great minds as they say
I only wish i was as confident predicting the outcome of the talks

[Midge]

OK, we've had enough euphoria. Let's examine the reality. Rough figures to make the point plain:

60K in favour.
20K against.
40K didn't vote.

Add in all the people who aren't members of the union (please don't think their views don't matter, because when it comes to taking part in IA they definitely do) and we have a MINORITY who are definitely 'yes'. The rest are lukewarm at best.

An ambiguous result. What a disaster.

Deep down, and judging by their attitudes today, Hayes and Ward know this.

Some people can never see the bright side.

Anyone remember the 'fantastic' result in 2007? I looked it up tonight...

'YES' was 66,064, i.e. 77.5%
'NO' was 19,119, i.e. 22.5%

Not much different, eh? No need for pessimism, then, huh?

If we have lost thousands of jobs since 2007, then it seems we have recruited more members to compensate, or more have voted this time. Or both. Whichever way, there's reasons to be very cheerful.