BRANCH BY BRANCH BREAKDOWN OF PAY BALLOT RESULT

brothermagrew · Post by **brothermagrew** » 08 Feb 2008, 05:24

lovejoy wrote:
BELIAL wrote: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

brother lovejoy

Any chance of listing those branches that did return a NO vote? Sure I read somewhere that there were only about five.

Post by **baldrick** » 08 Feb 2008, 07:52

The No majority Branches apparently were:
1006 Eastern No 6: 56%
4002 Norther Ireland: 55%
10008 Watford: 61%
10009 NHC Postal 55%
10012 Northern/North West London: 55%
10019 Romford Amalgamated: 69%
10021 South & East Thames Amal: 53%

Split branches were:
3012 North East Coastal Amal: 50%
4001 Northern Ireland No 1: 50%

mailsort6 · Post by **mailsort6** » 08 Feb 2008, 09:49

I think alot the people voted yes because of the money and what I can gather from my office is that some people just want the Â£400 and don't care about the implications of flexibility. I would rather keep my current hours and duty that I am doing know for life and stuff the Â£400. I don't want to work 30mins later and I don't want long and shorts. Do we have a choice?

Night Tonic · Post by **Night Tonic** » 08 Feb 2008, 10:44

It all hinged on that vote as it did when the original vote was cast to reject the deal earlier last year. Those against industrial action also complained that though they might have been in the union, it didn't follow that they wanted to strike. A majority swings it. From the stats, the vote looks fairly unanimous even if a few branches voted otherwise. Those not in the union also have to go along with it of course. The deed is done. Worth noting that East Midlands was some 97% in favour. Doesn't that cover Burslem?

Fluke · Post by **Fluke** » 08 Feb 2008, 13:17

Night Tonic wrote:It all hinged on that vote as it did when the original vote was cast to reject the deal earlier last year. Those against industrial action also complained that though they might have been in the union, it didn't follow that they wanted to strike. A majority swings it. From the stats, the vote looks fairly unanimous even if a few branches voted otherwise. Those not in the union also have to go along with it of course. The deed is done. Worth noting that East Midlands was some 97% in favour. Doesn't that cover Burslem?

No. Burslem comes under Midlands No7.

Post by **solcat** » 08 Feb 2008, 16:16

mailsort6 wrote:I think alot the people voted yes because of the money and what I can gather from my office is that some people just want the Â£400 and don't care about the implications of flexibility. I would rather keep my current hours and duty that I am doing know for life and stuff the Â£400. I don't want to work 30mins later and I don't want long and shorts. Do we have a choice?

That's spot on mailsort6,too many blinkered people methinks

Edward Hunter · Post by **Edward Hunter** » 08 Feb 2008, 20:32

Implimenting flexibility, is now a damage limitation exercise. Its for a few months in the summer and it involves (in my office anyway) people being taken off ips to prep walks of sick colleagues. Posties delivering will still be payed OT for the actual delivery part of the duty.Not ideal, but not exactly life changing.