Where's the consistency here?

[Donk]

Y'see, before we were balloted, our LM had us all stop for a team talk - encouraging us to use our vote if we had one.

Came out with all the now usual stuff about volumes, customers going elsewhere etc. and said "If you have a vote and don't use it, you're effectively voting Yes for a strike." (I'm sure there's some sort of logic in there but damned if I understand it)

NOW we're being told at those same team talks (and it's been repeated on the news and in the press) that 60% of the workforce did not vote to strike. I know they're good at manipulating the figures but- Pardon? So I asked LM does that 60% include those that did not vote?

LM: Yes.

So was a non-vote a No or a Yes then?

LM: Ummmm what do you mean?

You said a non-vote was a Yes now you're counting it as a No because it suits your argument.

LM: Well, if....ummm...I didn't say it WAS an actual Yes.......

Chorus: YES YOU DID!!!

LM *twitch, dribble* OK moving on to tonight's forecast.....

Get the picture? Consistently inconsistent. Another one of the problems that comes from managing from a piece of paper somebody else wrote.

I give up.

[POSTMAN]

Bless 'em,you caught him on the hop,previously he had a script,that day,there wasn't one.

[greynut]

I think the feeling was, certainly in my office, that the vote was going to be a lot closer than it was, and those that chose not to vote would, if forced to, vote no. The LM was trying to get the silent ones to vote no. :cfo