Have to vote No

[daveyeff]

But they've brought in changes without any agreement. Its safe to assume they will do it again

[daveyeff]

And they are saying if we vote no they will come in anyway, so that being the case, they would be bringing in change without agreement.

[LouBarlow]

And they are saying if we vote no they will come in anyway, so that being the case, they would be bringing in change without agreement.

Agreement has been reached with collective bargaining. The vote result doesn’t prevent changes from happening. That isn’t how unions work.

[X_hamster]

And they are saying if we vote no they will come in anyway, so that being the case, they would be bringing in change without agreement.

Agreement has been reached with collective bargaining. The vote result doesn’t prevent changes from happening. That isn’t how unions work.

So is the members ballot just a money wasting exercise then?

[daveyeff]

And they are saying if we vote no they will come in anyway, so that being the case, they would be bringing in change without agreement.

Agreement has been reached with collective bargaining. The vote result doesn’t prevent changes from happening. That isn’t how unions work.

Voting for it makes it easier

[LouBarlow]

And they are saying if we vote no they will come in anyway, so that being the case, they would be bringing in change without agreement.

Agreement has been reached with collective bargaining. The vote result doesn’t prevent changes from happening. That isn’t how unions work.

So is the members ballot just a money wasting exercise then?

Well I wouldn’t call it that, but we are at a point where the union exists to save members from themselves so will act in their best interests if a no vote result somehow comes about. The best interests of members and ultimately themselves.

[Woody Guthrie]

But they've brought in changes without any agreement. Its safe to assume they will do it again

And they are saying if we vote no they will come in anyway, so that being the case, they would be bringing in change without agreement.

So you agree that voting yes will have absolutely no bearing on whether they bring in unagreed changes or not...

I'm glad we've cleared that up.

[daveyeff]

I am saying voting yes will make it easier

[Acca Dacca]

But they've brought in changes without any agreement. Its safe to assume they will do it again

And they are saying if we vote no they will come in anyway, so that being the case, they would be bringing in change without agreement.

So you agree that voting yes will have absolutely no bearing on whether they bring in unagreed changes or not...

I'm glad we've cleared that up.

The changes they want to make wouldnt need to be unagreed changes if we vote yes to them is his point.They would then be agreed changes. Its easier to bring in agreed changes than unagreed changes. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

[Acca Dacca]

And they are saying if we vote no they will come in anyway, so that being the case, they would be bringing in change without agreement.

Agreement has been reached with collective bargaining. The vote result doesn’t prevent changes from happening. That isn’t how unions work.

So is the members ballot just a money wasting exercise then?

Well I wouldn’t call it that, but we are at a point where the union exists to save members from themselves so will act in their best interests if a no vote result somehow comes about. The best interests of members and ultimately themselves.

So if its a No vote, the CWU will go against what that the majority of their members have rejected?

You are talking absolute nonsense Lou. There is a '' negotiators agreement''. There has been no agreement ratified via collective bargaining until the membership accept it. Thats the democracy of the union.

[steve2zaf]

You are failing to understand that the CWU and the Royal Mail have forged together New Memos of Agreement and Understanding, and that is how we have this attractive deal and massive lump sum of £1400 on the table for all 160,000 postal workers.

It is scaremongering of the highest order to suggest that Royal Mail will take advantage of a Yes vote, that is not how it works anymore.

The CWU and Royal Mail are now in total lockstep together to strive for a more profitable, agile and feasible business model going forward, which if successful, will bring many rewards and financial incentives for all postal workers and shareholders, and don't forget the majority of postal workers are also shareholders in their company, so it is in everybody's interest to vote a resounding and unequivocal YES to the Deal.

Jahbalon or babble on . Everything you say is absolutely cringeworthy. There is only one person that would communicate this drivel . An obnoxious , arrogant , self praising fool with a beard . Only he would glorify the useless , spineless CWU.
YOU ARE CHRIS WEBB .

[steve2zaf]

You are failing to understand that the CWU and the Royal Mail have forged together New Memos of Agreement and Understanding, and that is how we have this attractive deal and massive lump sum of £1400 on the table for all 160,000 postal workers.

It is scaremongering of the highest order to suggest that Royal Mail will take advantage of a Yes vote, that is not how it works anymore.

The CWU and Royal Mail are now in total lockstep together to strive for a more profitable, agile and feasible business model going forward, which if successful, will bring many rewards and financial incentives for all postal workers and shareholders, and don't forget the majority of postal workers are also shareholders in their company, so it is in everybody's interest to vote a resounding and unequivocal YES to the Deal.

Jahbalon or babble on . Everything you say is absolutely cringeworthy. There is only one person that would communicate this drivel . An obnoxious , arrogant , self praising fool with a beard . Only he would glorify the useless , spineless CWU.
YOU ARE CHRIS WEBB .

[Woody Guthrie]

The changes they want to make wouldnt need to be unagreed changes if we vote yes to them is his point.They would then be agreed changes. Its easier to bring in agreed changes than unagreed changes. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

That isn't his point and no I'm not being deliberately obtuse but thanks for the insult.
You just didn't bother reading his original point that I replied to.

they definitely want a yes. so when they come back with more of the same, they can turn round and say ''well you's voted for it''.

If they come back for more it will by definition be unagreed.
That's kind of what more means isn't it?

[LouBarlow]

And they are saying if we vote no they will come in anyway, so that being the case, they would be bringing in change without agreement.

Agreement has been reached with collective bargaining. The vote result doesn’t prevent changes from happening. That isn’t how unions work.

So is the members ballot just a money wasting exercise then?

Well I wouldn’t call it that, but we are at a point where the union exists to save members from themselves so will act in their best interests if a no vote result somehow comes about. The best interests of members and ultimately themselves.

So if its a No vote, the CWU will go against what that the majority of their members have rejected?

You are talking absolute nonsense Lou. There is a '' negotiators agreement''. There has been no agreement ratified via collective bargaining until the membership accept it. Thats the democracy of the union.

You need to let Martin Walsh and the rest of the PEC know then, as he has clearly stated this many times on this forum. I get it though, he’s lying again and/or you know better. Sure.

[scotchy1962]

And they are saying if we vote no they will come in anyway, so that being the case, they would be bringing in change without agreement.

Agreement has been reached with collective bargaining. The vote result doesn’t prevent changes from happening. That isn’t how unions work.

So is the members ballot just a money wasting exercise then?

Well I wouldn’t call it that, but we are at a point where the union exists to save members from themselves so will act in their best interests if a no vote result somehow comes about. The best interests of members and ultimately themselves.

So if its a No vote, the CWU will go against what that the majority of their members have rejected?

You are talking absolute nonsense Lou. There is a '' negotiators agreement''. There has been no agreement ratified via collective bargaining until the membership accept it. Thats the democracy of the union.

You need to let Martin Walsh and the rest of the PEC know then, as he has clearly stated this many times on this forum. I get it though, he’s lying again and/or you know better. Sure.

Lou could you point out where it has been stated as i find it hard to believe that the union would ever say they would ignore the result of a democratic vote.
They would cease to exist almost overnight as people would leave any union that ignored their wishes.
Saying we need saving from ourselves is a bit like saying we are incapable of making a educated decision on the agreement, or is that just your opinion?
Stirring it up like this gets you the abuse that you complain about.
Just wait for the result of the ballot, lets see where we are after that.