Why I'll be voting no...

[fishtank]

This site is great but it always need to remembered that we (mostly) dont know each other are and some definitly have their own agendas.

And your agenda is?
You seem to know a lot about Mr W.

[numan]

The bullshit I was referring to was the stuff the CWU have spouted as their press release. I am a CWU member, from an office with 100% solidarity during the last 3 disputes. And no I don't trust the leadership and I will be voting against their piss poor recommendation, as I did in 2003 and 2007.

[Flatlander]

I come from a branch not too far away, and my agenda is "Make your own minds up, and listen to people you know and trust!"

[dvbuk55]

Anyone advocating this as a good deal needs psychiatric help.

No-one is advocating it is a good deal.It isn't and was never going to be.Anyone who thought it was is in need of psychiatric help.
All I am trying to point out is it might be an acceptable deal to some and why.
Lots voted yes in 2007 and I bet very few of them posted on here.

That was 2007 and people are far more wary this time - then there was some trust in the union now there is an inherent distrust and there is going to be questions asked. Strange that some in the "know" was touting this as and I quote, the deal of the century, the biggest pay deal ever, life changing. No one expected to make any money out of this deal and it never was about the money, but 2% over 2 years, and a certain loss for D2Ds and ESA - which I might add for some is over £23 and the "winners" are far outweighed by the "losers". Ask yourself this - as a union should we be advocating that there should be any losers, that the revision tools are sight unseen, the delivery spans and D2D are open ended, that there is no share in future profits from increased D2D market, there is no real system to ensure 75/25 FT/PT split, the disagreement rule has been neutered, the monies due to us are being touted as part of this deal when in fact they are part of previous agreements, no compulsory redundancies, can retain FT hours and PT hours when that has never been an issue - this is a definite NO deal not only by vote but by nature.

[dvbuk55]

I don't know if wranglered has an agenda or not - if he had it may well be justified, if he was paid a lot of money to leave RM then you can assume he deserved it or he wouldn't have got it. I personally find some of his posts most illuminating and informative. Oh and I don't have a secret agenda - my agenda is to get a fair days work for a fair days pay, equal rights for all and a representation that is worthy of the support of the membership.

[wranglered]

This site is great but it always need to remembered that we (mostly) dont know each other are and some definitly have their own agendas.

Be they managers, non members, customers, whatever some are definitly "Trolls" and delight in doing nothing better than stirring sh*t.

bullshit detectors go off every time wranglered turns his PC on!

A man with a separate agenda no doubt and definitly not a CWU member,

Be careful pepes and dont believe everything you read on here

Make your own minds up, and listen to people you know and trust!

Good to hear from you Fen tiger...glad you haven't forgotten me!

[wranglered]

I don't know if wranglered has an agenda or not - if he had it may well be justified, if he was paid a lot of money to leave RM then you can assume he deserved it or he wouldn't have got it. I personally find some of his posts most illuminating and informative. Oh and I don't have a secret agenda - my agenda is to get a fair days work for a fair days pay, equal rights for all and a representation that is worthy of the support of the membership.

If anyone can tell me what Fen Tiger had to say about me being paid a lot of money to leave Royal Mail, I am all ears. Send me a PM. Confidentiality ensured. Legal expertise guaranteed!!!

As I have said before, RMC is the only obvious voice of dissention to this appalling piece of negotiation....and there are those within the CWU hierarchy who are only too keen to stifle alternative views on here.

....what I like is that these "trolls", to quote Fen Tiger, never seem to want to engage me in debate about the CWU.....I wonder why that is????

I paid in for 10 years. I would still be paying in if they had delivered the goods. I was "lucky" enough to rub swords with the CWU VIP's and so I am in quite a position of strength to give you an "insight", much in the way we get "insights" from the likes of the Truth, Dingo and Lovejoy....

Some of you might not like what I have to say, but that is democracy and freedom of speech and HAVING THE BALLS TO STAND UP TO WHAT IS NOT RIGHT

...like this deal of the century.....

[dvbuk55]

I don't know if wranglered has an agenda or not - if he had it may well be justified, if he was paid a lot of money to leave RM then you can assume he deserved it or he wouldn't have got it. I personally find some of his posts most illuminating and informative. Oh and I don't have a secret agenda - my agenda is to get a fair days work for a fair days pay, equal rights for all and a representation that is worthy of the support of the membership.

If anyone can tell me what Fen Tiger had to say about me being paid a lot of money to leave Royal Mail, I am all ears. Send me a PM. Confidentiality ensured. Legal expertise guaranteed!!!

As I have said before, RMC is the only obvious voice of dissention to this appalling piece of negotiation....and there are those within the CWU hierarchy who are only too keen to stifle alternative views on here.

....what I like is that these "trolls", to quote Fen Tiger, never seem to want to engage me in debate about the CWU.....I wonder why that is????

I paid in for 10 years. I would still be paying in if they had delivered the goods. I was "lucky" enough to rub swords with the CWU VIP's and so I am in quite a position of strength to give you an "insight", much in the way we get "insights" from the likes of the Truth, Dingo and Lovejoy....

Some of you might not like what I have to say, but that is democracy and freedom of speech and HAVING THE BALLS TO STAND UP TO WHAT IS NOT RIGHT

...like this deal of the century.....

Well if this IS the deal of the Century I wouldn't like to see one that spanned just a decade - and to quote a well known poster - this is an improved offer

[danalvarez]

I'll be voting NO simply because the agreement does not specifically say that work loads will be reduced, i.e- shorter duties, no increase in delivery spans...
In fact it says D2D might actually increase! And the new delivery methods (two people in 1 van) involve taking what we take now plus all the big parcels and the firms. They tried it out in my old office n it turned out to be more work! If we can't cope with workloads now how on earth are we going to do that?! It's a total joke...

Don't know about any one else but the main issue for me was always the work load, not a pay rise
The bonuses are just a bribe, in the long term we'll be shafted
Vote NO!