BRANCH BY BRANCH BREAKDOWN OF PAY BALLOT RESULT

[lovejoy]

HAD THIS FOR MONTHS NOW BUT HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY RELEASED NOW

COMMUNICATION WORKERS UNION
ROYAL MAIL PAY AND MODERNISATION AGREEMENT 2007 2008

Returns by Branch

Branch No Branch Members Returns % Returns YES % YES NO % NO SPOILT
1001 ESSEX AMAL 2717 1792 66% 590 33% 1198 67% 4
1002 COLCHESTER & DISTRICT 653 435 67% 226 52% 208 48% 1
1003 EASTERN NO 3 1472 1021 69% 832 82% 188 18% 1
1004 EASTERN NO 4 1361 918 67% 674 74% 243 26% 1
1005 EASTERN NO 5 1918 1319 69% 1021 77% 297 23% 1
1006 EASTERN NO 6 1758 1217 69% 532 44% 683 56% 2
1008 SUFFOLK AMAL 930 656 71% 424 65% 231 35% 1
1009 SOUTH CENTRAL NO 1 2165 1405 65% 784 56% 621 44% 0
2001 BIRMINGHAM DIST AMAL 2836 1759 62% 1249 71% 509 29% 1
2002 COVENTRY AREA 1655 979 59% 659 67% 319 33% 1
2003 LEICESTERSHIRE 1797 1212 67% 838 69% 372 31% 2
2004 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE 1867 1196 64% 881 74% 315 26% 0
2005 WOLVERHAMPTON DIST AML 2271 1381 61% 968 70% 413 30% 0
2006 DERBYSHIRE 1210 799 66% 591 74% 208 26% 0
2007 MIDLAND NO 7 1220 838 69% 509 61% 328 39% 1
2008 NOTTINGHAM DIST AMAL 2283 1530 67% 971 64% 558 36% 1
3001 NORTH EAST NO 1 1861 1240 67% 950 77% 289 23% 1
3002 SOUTH YORKSHIRE & DISTRICT AMAL 2316 1609 69% 989 62% 618 38% 2
3003 BRADFORD & DISTRICT AMAL 1657 1147 69% 716 63% 429 37% 2
3005 LEEDS NO 1 AMAL 3000 1960 65% 1244 64% 714 36% 2
3006 YORK & DISTRICT AMAL 1257 892 71% 699 78% 193 22% 0
3007 HULL/EAST RIDINGS AMAL 641 451 70% 350 78% 101 22% 0
3008 NEWCASTLE AMAL 2258 1527 68% 936 61% 589 39% 2
3009 DARLINGTON AMAL 649 462 71% 395 86% 66 14% 1
3010 CLEVELAND AMAL 1010 673 67% 466 69% 206 31% 1
3011 DURHAM COUNTY 418 275 66% 180 65% 95 35% 0
3012 NORTH EAST COASTAL AML 427 274 64% 137 50% 137 50% 0
4001 NORTHERN IRELAND NO 1 1387 776 56% 387 50% 388 50% 1
4002 NORTHERN IRELAND EAST 386 228 59% 102 45% 126 55% 0
4003 NORTHERN IRELAND WEST 795 479 60% 249 52% 230 48% 0
5001 MERSEYSIDE AMAL 2296 1447 63% 809 56% 638 44% 0
5003 CHESHIRE NO 1 AMAL 917 650 71% 489 75% 159 25% 2
5004 NORTH WEST CENTRAL AMAL 2623 1683 64% 903 54% 778 46% 2
5006 GREATER MANCHESTER 2549 1563 61% 979 63% 583 37% 1
5007 WIGAN AMAL 422 279 66% 171 61% 108 39% 0
5008 BOLTON & BURY 836 534 64% 305 57% 228 43% 1
5009 OLDHAM & ROCHDALE AMAL 671 436 65% 280 64% 156 36% 0
5010 EAST LANCS AMAL 608 388 64% 328 85% 59 15% 1
5011 NORTH LANCS & CUMBRIA 3110 2056 66% 1565 76% 489 24% 2
6001 GLASGOW DIST AMAL 4141 2561 62% 1645 64% 915 36% 1
6002 SCOTLAND NO 2 3085 2050 66% 1061 52% 987 48% 2
6003 GRAMPIAN/SHETLAND AMAL 869 600 69% 519 87% 80 13% 1
6005 SCOTLAND NO 5 878 569 65% 407 72% 161 28% 1
6006 CLYDE VALLEY AMAL 477 252 53% 140 56% 112 44% 0
6007 ORKNEY 59 43 73% 39 91% 4 9% 0
6008 HIGHLAND AMAL 414 308 74% 275 89% 33 11% 0
7001 SOUTHDOWNS AMAL S E NO 1 1178 739 63% 516 70% 223 30% 0
7002 SOLENT AMAL 1330 936 70% 608 65% 327 35% 1
7003 SOUTH EAST NO 3 1499 949 63% 710 75% 239 25% 0
7004 KENT INVICTA 2120 1469 69% 848 58% 619 42% 2
7005 SOUTH EAST NO 5 6310 3486 55% 2128 61% 1356 39% 2
8001 WESTERN COUNTIES 2770 1863 67% 1146 62% 716 38% 1
8002 PLYMOUTH/EAST CORNWALL AMAL 1463 940 64% 777 83% 163 17% 0
8003 BOURNEMOUTH & DORSET AMAL 1334 870 65% 603 69% 265 31% 2
8004 WESSEX SOUTH CENTRAL 1525 1017 67% 747 73% 270 27% 0
8005 BRISTOL & DIST AMAL 2699 1671 62% 870 52% 799 48% 2
8006 GLOUCESTERSHIRE AMAL 1194 775 65% 605 78% 169 22% 1
8007 SOUTH WEST NO 7 1026 688 67% 388 56% 299 44% 1
8011 WORCESTER & HEREFORD AMAL 895 624 70% 495 80% 127 20% 2
8012 CORNWALL AMAL 573 385 67% 319 83% 65 17% 1
9001 NORTH WALES & MARCHES 1741 1223 70% 849 69% 374 31% 0
9002 SHROPSHIRE & MID WALES 1204 829 69% 716 86% 113 14% 0
9003 SOUTH EAST WALES AMAL 1807 1154 64% 745 65% 408 35% 1
9004 SOUTH WEST WALES AMAL 1470 998 68% 822 83% 173 17% 3
9005 GWENT AMAL 818 567 69% 291 51% 275 49% 1
10002 MOUNT PLEASANT 2115 1155 55% 703 61% 452 39% 0
10004 LONDON WEST END AMAL 716 409 57% 219 54% 190 46% 0
10006 LDN NORTH WESTERN C&C 19 10 53% 10 100% 0 0% 0
10007 LONDON 7 48 34 71% 28 82% 6 18% 0
10008 WATFORD NO 1 829 498 60% 193 39% 305 61% 0
10009 NHC POSTAL 1076 689 64% 311 45% 378 55% 0
10011 LONDON PARCELS & STATION AMAL 291 157 54% 63 40% 94 60% 0
10012 NORTHERN/NORTH WEST LONDON 2174 1202 55% 538 45% 663 55% 1
10013 EAST LONDON POSTAL 1598 912 57% 659 72% 253 28% 0
10015 WEST LONDON POSTAL 1151 577 50% 419 73% 158 27% 0
10016 SOUTH EAST LDN PTL & CTR 1455 805 55% 537 67% 268 33% 0
10017 LONDON SOUTH WEST 2562 1347 53% 968 72% 376 28% 3
10018 KINGSTON AREA 845 488 58% 258 53% 230 47% 0
10019 ROMFORD AMALGAMATED 1404 931 66% 287 31% 643 69% 1
10020 HARROW & DISTRICT 1856 942 51% 542 58% 399 42% 1
10021 SOUTH & EAST THAMES AMAL 1293 821 63% 384 47% 437 53% 0
10022 CROYDON & SUTTON AMAL 1257 714 57% 410 58% 303 42% 1
10023 S W MIDDLESEX AMAL 1368 789 58% 495 63% 293 37% 1
21819 CENTRAL COUNTIES COMBINED 26 25 96% 24 96% 1 4% 0
21827 SOUTH EAST ANGLIA 25 22 88% 20 91% 2 9% 0
22032 BIRMINGHAM 54 36 67% 22 61% 14 39% 0
22238 LEICESTER & MIDSHIRES 22 18 82% 14 78% 4 22% 0
22803 EAST MIDLANDS BRANCH 39 30 77% 29 97% 1 3% 0
23404 SOUTH YORKSHIRE 25 20 80% 17 85% 3 15% 0
23808 NORTH EAST 37 28 76% 28 100% 0 0% 0
23830 WEST YORKSHIRE BRANCH 34 24 71% 20 83% 4 17% 0
25414 MERSEYSIDE & S W LANCS 46 35 76% 26 74% 9 26% 0
25821 CENTRAL & WEST LANCS 20 15 75% 15 100% 0 0% 0
26156 GLASGOW & MOTHERWELL 23 15 65% 15 100% 0 0% 0
26825 EDINBURGH DUNDEE & BORDERS 35 24 69% 19 79% 5 21% 0
27805 MERIDIAN 56 41 73% 35 85% 6 15% 0
28021 SOUTH WEST ENGINEERING 29 18 62% 17 94% 1 6% 0
28828 SOLENT BRANCH 45 29 64% 25 86% 4 14% 0
29823 SOUTH WALES 19 15 79% 14 93% 1 7% 0
30255 LONDON POSTAL ENG 175 121 69% 107 88% 14 12% 0
99999 Popularis 182 177 97% 142 80% 35 20% 0
999999 Spoil 85 85
TOTAL 126035 80310 64% 51260 64% 28894 36% 156

COMMUNICATION WORKERS UNION
NETWORK 07 AGREEMENT AND NETWORK DRIVERS PAY 2008

Returns by branch:


Branch No Branch Members Returns % Returns YES % YES NO % NO SPOILT
1001 ESSEX AMAL 57 33 58% 17 52% 16 48% 0
1005 EASTERN NO 5 79 45 57% 35 78% 10 22% 0
1006 EASTERN NO 6 18 11 61% 7 64% 4 36% 0
2001 BIRMINGHAM DIST AMAL 53 23 43% 18 78% 5 22% 0
2002 COVENTRY AREA 111 55 50% 29 53% 26 47% 0
2004 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE 105 68 64% 46 68% 22 33% 0
2005 WOLVERHAMPTON DIST AML 21 13 62% 9 69% 4 31% 0
2008 NOTTINGHAM DIST AMAL 48 31 65% 13 42% 18 58% 0
3005 LEEDS NO 1 AMAL 203 129 64% 82 64% 47 36% 0
3008 NEWCASTLE AMAL 41 28 68% 22 79% 6 21% 0
5004 NORTH WEST CENTRAL AMAL 194 100 52% 62 62% 38 38% 0
5006 GREATER MANCHESTER 37 18 49% 16 89% 2 11% 0
5011 NORTH LANCS & CUMBRIA 23 12 52% 11 92% 1 8% 0
6001 GLASGOW DIST AMAL 103 50 49% 33 66% 17 34% 0
7004 KENT INVICTA 108 62 57% 37 60% 25 40% 0
7005 SOUTH EAST NO 5 132 65 49% 45 69% 20 31% 0
8001 WESTERN COUNTIES 19 12 63% 8 67% 4 33% 0
8002 PLYMOUTH/EAST CORNWALL AMAL 29 13 45% 4 31% 9 69% 0
8004 WESSEX SOUTH CENTRAL 54 30 56% 27 90% 3 10% 0
8005 BRISTOL & DIST AMAL 131 78 60% 57 73% 21 27% 0
8007 SOUTH WEST NO 7 50 36 72% 22 61% 14 39% 0
9003 SOUTH EAST WALES AMAL 36 23 64% 21 91% 2 9% 0
10009 NHC POSTAL 136 66 49% 36 55% 30 45% 0
10011 LONDON PARCELS & STATION AMAL 242 100 41% 64 64% 36 36% 0
10022 CROYDON & SUTTON AMAL 17 10 59% 8 80% 2 20% 0
99999 POPULARIS 53 28 53% 23 82% 5 18% 0
999999 Spoil 2 2
TOTAL 2100 1141 54% 752 66% 387 34% 2

[BELIAL]

Thanks. Just one question ,why the official delay?

[lovejoy]

Thanks. Just one question ,why the official delay?

not sure really mate. Its the same with the PEC elections... the branch details come out later! I think its so fingers of blame/attack aren't pointed in the heat of the moment

[BELIAL]

Makes you wonder does'nt it? Perhaps it should be branch policy to conduct simultaneous secret ballots,purely to act as a check/ safeguard on the postal ballot system. Allowing for a say 5-10% dipstick factor any discrepancies could be investigated. Any idea if there is a statute of limitations applying to contesting postal ballots, and if so does this official release date exceed the time limit?

[lovejoy]

Makes you wonder does'nt it? Perhaps it should be branch policy to conduct simultaneous secret ballots,purely to act as a check/ safeguard on the postal ballot system. Allowing for a say 5-10% dipstick factor any discrepancies could be investigated. Any idea if there is a statute of limitations applying to contesting postal ballots, and if so does this official release date exceed the time limit?

I think the only legal data they need to release are the national statistics signed off by the scruntineer

[BELIAL]

So in theory, legally this information COULD have been released on the day of the ballot result announcement. If not why not?

[lovejoy]

So in theory, legally this information COULD have been released on the day of the ballot result announcement. If not why not?

Yeah they could have done but like i say it is always held back. I think there were fears people would start pointing fingers and blaming people for voting one way or another. As it happens very few branches got a no vote and even those that did were VERY slim.

Some big branches recommended a NO and ended up with big yes's. You'll probably find these branches are reluctant to see these figures as well

[doveston]

after reading that theres some bullshi$$ers in my area.

[lovejoy]

after reading that theres some bullshi$$ers in my area.

that goes for many my friend!!

Senior reps gobbing off about how they can carry their members and the figure say ...... perhaps not

[pinstripe]

My branch had 75% YES, but no one in my office says they voted Yes. Going by the stats, my office must have provided just under half of the NO votes then! I don't think so. We all know that most people voted YES. We tried to tell them, but they would not listen. To those that have the courage to publicly state you voted Yes, well I understand why you did, but those who lie to us, claiming to have voted no, you have reaped what you have sown. Flexibility is only the start. I reckon we have less than 5 years before we are privatised.

[L Tommo]

28%???????? And there goes another pig.....


FECKING JOKERS!! :lfo :cfo

[BELIAL]

So in theory, legally this information COULD have been released on the day of the ballot result announcement. If not why not?

Yeah they could have done but like i say it is always held back. I think there were fears people would start pointing fingers and blaming people for voting one way or another. As it happens very few branches got a no vote and even those that did were VERY slim.

Some big branches recommended a NO and ended up with big yes's. You'll probably find these branches are reluctant to see these figures as well

I'm not at all reluctant to see the figures,in fact I would welcome full and PROMPT disclosure. Still can't think of a legitimate reason for delaying publication, finger pointing does'nt really cut the mustard
does it, we've already got that.
Not wanting to shoot the messenger,but any ideas for the real, legitimate reason for with-holding these stats for so long?

[lovejoy]

So in theory, legally this information COULD have been released on the day of the ballot result announcement. If not why not?

Yeah they could have done but like i say it is always held back. I think there were fears people would start pointing fingers and blaming people for voting one way or another. As it happens very few branches got a no vote and even those that did were VERY slim.

Some big branches recommended a NO and ended up with big yes's. You'll probably find these branches are reluctant to see these figures as well

I'm not at all reluctant to see the figures,in fact I would welcome full and PROMPT disclosure. Still can't think of a legitimate reason for delaying publication, finger pointing does'nt really cut the mustard
does it, we've already got that.
Not wanting to shoot the messenger,but any ideas for the real, legitimate reason for with-holding these stats for so long?

Like i said i can only assume mate. They would have been high profile on the date of the ballot but will slip away now.

I never said you were reluctant ........ my point was that many reps/branches promoted a no vote but came nowhere near. Look for example at south east number 5 branch. got a 61%yes. Why is this strange?? Well its Dave Warrens branch! Remember him? The champion of the no vote yet he cannot even get as far as carrying his own branch.

Thats why the No campaign was dead in the water from the start mate. It was being led by followers

[lovejoy]

So in theory, legally this information COULD have been released on the day of the ballot result announcement. If not why not?

Yeah they could have done but like i say it is always held back. I think there were fears people would start pointing fingers and blaming people for voting one way or another. As it happens very few branches got a no vote and even those that did were VERY slim.

Some big branches recommended a NO and ended up with big yes's. You'll probably find these branches are reluctant to see these figures as well

I'm not at all reluctant to see the figures,in fact I would welcome full and PROMPT disclosure. Still can't think of a legitimate reason for delaying publication, finger pointing does'nt really cut the mustard
does it, we've already got that.
Not wanting to shoot the messenger,but any ideas for the real, legitimate reason for with-holding these stats for so long?

Like i said i can only assume mate. They would have been high profile on the date of the ballot but will slip away now.

I never said you were reluctant ........ my point was that many reps/branches promoted a no vote but came nowhere near. Look for example at south east number 5 branch. got a 61%yes. Why is this strange?? Well its Dave Warrens branch! Remember him? The champion of the no vote yet he cannot even get as far as carrying his own branch.

Thats why the No campaign was dead in the water from the start mate. It was being led by followers

[BELIAL]

So in theory, legally this information COULD have been released on the day of the ballot result announcement. If not why not?

Yeah they could have done but like i say it is always held back. I think there were fears people would start pointing fingers and blaming people for voting one way or another. As it happens very few branches got a no vote and even those that did were VERY slim.

Some big branches recommended a NO and ended up with big yes's. You'll probably find these branches are reluctant to see these figures as well

I'm not at all reluctant to see the figures,in fact I would welcome full and PROMPT disclosure. Still can't think of a legitimate reason for delaying publication, finger pointing does'nt really cut the mustard
does it, we've already got that.
Not wanting to shoot the messenger,but any ideas for the real, legitimate reason for with-holding these stats for so long?

Like i said i can only assume mate. They would have been high profile on the date of the ballot but will slip away now.

I never said you were reluctant ........ my point was that many reps/branches promoted a no vote but came nowhere near. Look for example at south east number 5 branch. got a 61%yes. Why is this strange?? Well its Dave Warrens branch! Remember him? The champion of the no vote yet he cannot even get as far as carrying his own branch.

Thats why the No campaign was dead in the water from the start mate. It was being led by followers

Hmm, getting used to reading between the lines. Be delighted if this strategy works,but it is high risk and it does require the no voters to play their part.

Dead in the water or strangled,we stand or fall together