The CWU and the 'Warchest' - explanation needed

[postslippete]

If you are voting no, despite understanding the outcome of a no vote, you have to be doing so out of spite, as it is objectively the nuclear option. I can’t blame ignorant people for voting no, but you seem reasonably intelligent and clued in, and I have more resentment for people like yourself who have voted against the deal frankly, despite knowing what the outcome will be.

Everyone I've spoken to has agreed that it's a poor deal. There might not be anything that posties or the CWU can do about the revisions in our office or failing the USO nor the reductions in sick pay that RM have given 90 days notice on or the company recruiting a two-tier workforce. But for me it really comes down to personal circumstances regarding the later finishes. Apologies if that sounds selfish and I know there aren't that many jobs that finish before 3pm.

In all honesty, it is the company that have opted for the nuclear option by somehow turning record profits one year into record losses the next. If that doesn't make sense then neither does suddenly getting rid of internal flights due to carbon emissions that means mail will arrive in delivery offices later. They are not banning external flights due to carbon emissions!! Neither are Amazon and I've seen their Amazon prime airplanes a few times up in the sky. Its all sounds rather convenient as a way for Royal Mail who seem rather determined to try and fit a large square peg into a small round hole (do you like that metaphor!) and they might find it difficult to come unstuck.

I don't criticise those who are voting yes but if they believe that it will stop Royal Mail from continuing to attack this workforce then they are very badly mistaken. We have seen that with how they are planning the closure of CSPs, first by reducing their opening hours - even though they agreed to keep them open just months earlier.

[scotchy1962]

God the quotes just keep coming to justify voting for this agreement. Drunk surgeons?
If what you are trying to say is its the best of a bad deal just say that, trying to find different ways to say the same thing is draining.
We know you want a yes vote as you think we are in real trouble without.
Some of us choose to differ, that's life everyone thinks differently.
I think that we and the union are in trouble with a yes vote.
But let's see what happens on Tuesday

Not quotes, metaphors, and I liked it. The problem some of us are having is, it isn’t choosing to differ if you vote no, it is ignoring every side involved in this agreement, who are telling you to vote for it, with no reason to do so.

I am not sure what makes you think that me not voting the way you would like me too is a problem?
You believe that because the company and the union tell you to accept this agreement you must as they are very smart people.
You believe its the best deal you can get.
You think anyone voting NO is ignoring all your valid arguments to vote yes.
1st if you think the company/union are all that smart explain how you go from record profits to record losses and how the union have broken every one of their so called "Red lines" in this agreement.
2nd i don't think its the best we could get and if it is i don't particularly want it.
3rd i am not ignoring anything you say as a valid argument, i just don't agree with you, not sure what reason will ever satisfy you but i suggest you just let it go until Tuesday and see how it turns out.
This is the "Holier than thou" attitude i dislike, just because you say its right doesn't mean it is, same goes for the company/union standing on this.
You quote like it's the gospel, it isn't.

[LouBarlow]

God the quotes just keep coming to justify voting for this agreement. Drunk surgeons?
If what you are trying to say is its the best of a bad deal just say that, trying to find different ways to say the same thing is draining.
We know you want a yes vote as you think we are in real trouble without.
Some of us choose to differ, that's life everyone thinks differently.
I think that we and the union are in trouble with a yes vote.
But let's see what happens on Tuesday

Not quotes, metaphors, and I liked it. The problem some of us are having is, it isn’t choosing to differ if you vote no, it is ignoring every side involved in this agreement, who are telling you to vote for it, with no reason to do so.

I am not sure what makes you think that me not voting the way you would like me too is a problem?
You believe that because the company and the union tell you to accept this agreement you must as they are very smart people.
You believe its the best deal you can get.
You think anyone voting NO is ignoring all your valid arguments to vote yes.
1st if you think the company/union are all that smart explain how you go from record profits to record losses and how the union have broken every one of their so called "Red lines" in this agreement.
2nd i don't think its the best we could get and if it is i don't particularly want it.
3rd i am not ignoring anything you say as a valid argument, i just don't agree with you, not sure what reason will ever satisfy you but i suggest you just let it go until Tuesday and see how it turns out.
This is the "Holier than thou" attitude i dislike, just because you say its right doesn't mean it is, same goes for the company/union standing on this.
You quote like it's the gospel, it isn't.

Intellect has nothing to do with it. I evaluate situations based on expertise. If people more qualified than me are telling me something is true, I have no ability to prove it otherwise. Apparently you do though, which is fine, but you have offered no logical explanation as to why you are ignoring your employer, your union, the postal executive and indeed independent arbitrators who are all telling you to vote for this deal.

As to advising me to ‘let it go’ - why are you constantly banging on about it then, if it is something I should give up on? It is important. I wouldn’t dare be so presumptuous as to tell you what you can and can’t post so do me the same courtesy.

[scotchy1962]

Lou i think you might find it's you banging on about it like its gospel. It isn't.
I have no reason whatsoever to believe all these quoted people, not because i am stupid, but because their past record is not littered in success.
I deal in hard facts, and i know they say all these things are a problem and we have to change, that isn't a problem.
Will their change work? In my opinion no, but that is just my opinion.
Be under no illusions i want a payrise as much as anyone else, it's the price we have to pay that is wrong.
Having the workforce on board would help with their plans and with some input from forward thinking people who know and understand how to actually run the company their plan could work, but unfortunately they only have arrogant money grabbers who know very little.
But again just my thoughts.

[LouBarlow]

Lou i think you might find it's you banging on about it like its gospel. It isn't.
I have no reason whatsoever to believe all these quoted people, not because i am stupid, but because their past record is not littered in success.
I deal in hard facts, and i know they say all these things are a problem and we have to change, that isn't a problem.
Will their change work? In my opinion no, but that is just my opinion.
Be under no illusions i want a payrise as much as anyone else, it's the price we have to pay that is wrong.
Having the workforce on board would help with their plans and with some input from forward thinking people who know and understand how to actually run the company their plan could work, but unfortunately they only have arrogant money grabbers who know very little.
But again just my thoughts.

The point is, there is a consensus of opinion between those people. People from RM (one side), the CWU and the PEC (the other) and the independent arbitrators who oversaw the talks, who have no allegiance either way. If you don’t believe any of this group, you have to offer some methodology as to how you have reached this conclusion.

And for the umpteenth time, we are going to ‘pay the price’ regardless of this deal because the company is failing. Change is happening. If you think if this deal is torn up that things are going to carry on as they are, then sorry but you are deluded.

[Acca Dacca]

Lou, every single agreement thats went to ballot to be endorsed or not by the membership in the past ( and will be the case in the the future ) has been recommended by CWU and RM - thats how it works.

You seem to think this one is unique because the CWU and RM are both recommending it be voted through.

[LouBarlow]

Lou, every single agreement thats went to ballot to be endorsed or not by the membership in the past ( and will be the case in the the future ) has been recommended by CWU and RM - thats how it works.

You seem to think this one is unique because the CWU and RM are both recommending it be voted through.

Yes, because it is in all of our interests. I’m glad you agree.

[postieblueshirt]

Lou i think you might find it's you banging on about it like its gospel. It isn't.
I have no reason whatsoever to believe all these quoted people, not because i am stupid, but because their past record is not littered in success.
I deal in hard facts, and i know they say all these things are a problem and we have to change, that isn't a problem.
Will their change work? In my opinion no, but that is just my opinion.
Be under no illusions i want a payrise as much as anyone else, it's the price we have to pay that is wrong.
Having the workforce on board would help with their plans and with some input from forward thinking people who know and understand how to actually run the company their plan could work, but unfortunately they only have arrogant money grabbers who know very little.
But again just my thoughts.

The point is, there is a consensus of opinion between those people. People from RM (one side), the CWU and the PEC (the other) and the independent arbitrators who oversaw the talks, who have no allegiance either way. If you don’t believe any of this group, you have to offer some methodology as to how you have reached this conclusion.

And for the umpteenth time, we are going to ‘pay the price’ regardless of this deal because the company is failing. Change is happening. If you think if this deal is torn up that things are going to carry on as they are, then sorry but you are deluded.

I've mentioned this before but most no voter's I've talked to don't have or don't think thing's will stay the same people are not nieve or stupid.The union over promised and under delived plain and simple people are VERY pissed off there is no plan b,c,d.....the company have pushed to far to soon and will have to drag its workforce through the changes needed.

[LouBarlow]

Lou i think you might find it's you banging on about it like its gospel. It isn't.
I have no reason whatsoever to believe all these quoted people, not because i am stupid, but because their past record is not littered in success.
I deal in hard facts, and i know they say all these things are a problem and we have to change, that isn't a problem.
Will their change work? In my opinion no, but that is just my opinion.
Be under no illusions i want a payrise as much as anyone else, it's the price we have to pay that is wrong.
Having the workforce on board would help with their plans and with some input from forward thinking people who know and understand how to actually run the company their plan could work, but unfortunately they only have arrogant money grabbers who know very little.
But again just my thoughts.

The point is, there is a consensus of opinion between those people. People from RM (one side), the CWU and the PEC (the other) and the independent arbitrators who oversaw the talks, who have no allegiance either way. If you don’t believe any of this group, you have to offer some methodology as to how you have reached this conclusion.

And for the umpteenth time, we are going to ‘pay the price’ regardless of this deal because the company is failing. Change is happening. If you think if this deal is torn up that things are going to carry on as they are, then sorry but you are deluded.

I've mentioned this before but most no voter's I've talked to don't have or don't think thing's will stay the same people are not nieve or stupid.The union over promised and under delived plain and simple people are VERY pissed off there is no plan b,c,d.....the company have pushed to far to soon and will have to drag its workforce through the changes needed.

We have been in dispute for nearly a year. Why do you think RM have refused to budge and the union have been forced to compromise on their promises? Because both realise that change is needed to save all of our jobs.

[Acca Dacca]

Lou, every single agreement thats went to ballot to be endorsed or not by the membership in the past ( and will be the case in the the future ) has been recommended by CWU and RM - thats how it works.

You seem to think this one is unique because the CWU and RM are both recommending it be voted through.

Yes, because it is in all of our interests. I’m glad you agree.

Why do you think the membership should even get a vote then?

For instance, I dont think the future of the business hinges on us not getting sick pay if we happen to be off more than once and reduced IHR terms. I think there can be an agreement without that policy. You may not. Thats fine. I am not endorsing an agreement that has that included.

If RM decides it would rather ''go bust'' than concede the new policy then thats on them. It would be nothing to do with the workforce voting NO.

FWIW I think it will be a YES vote anyway

[Woody Guthrie]

If RM decides it would rather ''go bust'' than concede the new policy then thats on them. It would be nothing to do with the workforce voting NO.

They won't decide they would rather go bust.
They'll decide they would rather impose the level of change they believe they need to stop them going bust.

Whether it would be "on them" or not would be nothing more than a pub argument because it would be us that would pay the price of the No vote.

[Acca Dacca]

If RM decides it would rather ''go bust'' than concede the new policy then thats on them. It would be nothing to do with the workforce voting NO.

They won't decide they would rather go bust.
They'll decide they would rather impose the level of change they believe they need to stop them going bust.

Whether it would be "on them" or not would be nothing more than a pub argument because it would be us that would pay the price of the No vote.

They can impose what they want. There would be repercussions. Hence why they want an agreement. You have made clear you dont believe there would be. Thats fine. Vote YES.

I remember a time when you stood up against Martin Walsh when he was telling us all Sunday working was coming and would be brought in if we didnt stand up to it. I remember when you rightfully said it wasnt as easy for them to impose that upon us.

You would argue with yourself now.

[LouBarlow]

If RM decides it would rather ''go bust'' than concede the new policy then thats on them. It would be nothing to do with the workforce voting NO.

They won't decide they would rather go bust.
They'll decide they would rather impose the level of change they believe they need to stop them going bust.

Whether it would be "on them" or not would be nothing more than a pub argument because it would be us that would pay the price of the No vote.

They can impose what they want. There would be repercussions. Hence why they want an agreement. You have made clear you dont believe there would be. Thats fine. Vote YES.

I remember a time when you stood up against Martin Walsh when he was telling us all Sunday working was coming and would be brought in if we didnt stand up to it. I remember when you rightfully said it wasnt as easy for them to impose that upon us.

You would argue with yourself now.

Maybe that is why Woody is for the agreement then, as it keeps sunday working optional.

[Acca Dacca]

If RM decides it would rather ''go bust'' than concede the new policy then thats on them. It would be nothing to do with the workforce voting NO.

They won't decide they would rather go bust.
They'll decide they would rather impose the level of change they believe they need to stop them going bust.

Whether it would be "on them" or not would be nothing more than a pub argument because it would be us that would pay the price of the No vote.

They can impose what they want. There would be repercussions. Hence why they want an agreement. You have made clear you dont believe there would be. Thats fine. Vote YES.

I remember a time when you stood up against Martin Walsh when he was telling us all Sunday working was coming and would be brought in if we didnt stand up to it. I remember when you rightfully said it wasnt as easy for them to impose that upon us.

You would argue with yourself now.

Maybe that is why Woody is for the agreement then, as it keeps sunday working optional.

No because Woody once argued, correctly, that RM couldn’t impose Sunday working as mandatory without legal consequences

Do you think differently?

[LouBarlow]

If RM decides it would rather ''go bust'' than concede the new policy then thats on them. It would be nothing to do with the workforce voting NO.

They won't decide they would rather go bust.
They'll decide they would rather impose the level of change they believe they need to stop them going bust.

Whether it would be "on them" or not would be nothing more than a pub argument because it would be us that would pay the price of the No vote.

They can impose what they want. There would be repercussions. Hence why they want an agreement. You have made clear you dont believe there would be. Thats fine. Vote YES.

I remember a time when you stood up against Martin Walsh when he was telling us all Sunday working was coming and would be brought in if we didnt stand up to it. I remember when you rightfully said it wasnt as easy for them to impose that upon us.

You would argue with yourself now.

Maybe that is why Woody is for the agreement then, as it keeps sunday working optional.

No because Woody once argued, correctly, that RM couldn’t impose Sunday working as mandatory without legal consequences

Do you think differently?

I do yes. Royal Mail could make working Sunday mandatory. What legal consequences do you mean? They don’t need to now, which is why they aren’t enforcing it, as new contracts have clearly stated Sunday working in them, but none of our old legacy contracts mentioned it. Which specific employment law would stop RM from bring this in, if a no vote is returned?