One absolute sure and solid reason to NOT vote yes!

[Just_My_Opinion]

Surely no one would be as gullible to vote 'yes' on this agreement because there is no plan B?

Vote no! Stand up for yourself and your fellow colleagues! Do not listen to the propaganda machine of the CWU/Royal Mail. And certainly don't fall for their lines of

'it's the best deal considering the financial situation were in'

or

'there is no plan B'

or

'if we don't vote this in they'll bring in the changes anyway'

Let them bring/force in their changes at least you have tried to stand up for yourself by voting no. You would still have your self respect knowing you voted no or is a few bits of silver worth more?

[tojobevred]

i agree its about time we stand up to them
will crozier take his golden handshake or will he not take it cause of the state we are in
i doubt it even tho it his fault

[redrobber]

Have to say i am with you on this one. The propaganda machine trying to scare everyone with this "no plan B" scenario. So to ask the question, what if a no vote is delivered? What will Ward and Hayes do? If they have no "plan B" then surely they have to resign or get back to the negotiating table and find a "plan B"

[coxie]

if the union cant come up with a plan b then they should offer to refund our subs, they r paid to think of plan B's

[Just_My_Opinion]

Have to say i am with you on this one. The propaganda machine trying to scare everyone with this "no plan B" scenario. So to ask the question, what if a no vote is delivered? What will Ward and Hayes do? If they have no "plan B" then surely they have to resign or get back to the negotiating table and find a "plan B"

Isn't that what Mr Dave Ward and co are paid for with our money? To find Plan B? I prefer your first option though for him to resign. He's all fart and no sh*t!

[mrbungle]

Here here. Couldn't have said it any better myself. Let's hope that not too many people are swayed by the short term financial perks.

[opgpat]

Plan B is adhere to members wishes and return to the negotiating table - that's the LAW in a democracy.

[Just_My_Opinion]

Plan B is adhere to members wishes and return to the negotiating table - that's the LAW in a democracy.

Is it really the law?????

[sareknees]

vote yes cause its the best we can agree to - BOLLOCKS find some balls CWU .. we had RM by them pre xmas before you advised us to get back to work

[opgpat]

Plan B is adhere to members wishes and return to the negotiating table - that's the LAW in a democracy.

Is it really the law?????

In a way yes. If they want change they MUST have an agreement, otherwise they are making changes to your contract without consent and that is illegal and can be challenged in court.

So the facts are a NO vote will mean:
NO change and life largely goes on as it is at RM with years of local-issue battles- unthinkable
OR
More negotiation and a new deal proposed.

THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN FACT. Anyone disagree?

[Tman]

If they want change they MUST have an agreement, otherwise they are making changes to your contract without consent and that is illegal and can be challenged in court.

Sadly that's not true. Employers do have the right to change contracts of employment as they see fit. The only proviso is that sufficient notice (or financial compensation) of the change must be given.

[opgpat]

According to the Government that is untrue:

What or who can change a contract of employment?
Either you or your employer might want to change your employment contract. However, neither you or your employer can change your employment contract without each other's agreement. Changes should normally be made after negotiation and agreement.

Changes to employment contracts could be made by:

* agreement between you and your employer
* collective agreement - this is a negotiation between your employer and a trade union or staff association
* implication - that is through a change in long standing custom and practice (for example if your employer allows all employees a day off each year for New Year's Eve)

If a collective agreement makes a change to employment contracts, the change will still apply to you even if you are not a member of the trade union or staff association.

Flexibility clauses

Your employment contract may include 'flexibility clauses'. These give your employer the right to change certain conditions (for example, shift patterns) or there may be a 'mobility clause', allowing changes to your job location.

A flexibility clause that is vaguely worded - for example, 'the employer reserves the right to change terms from time to time' - cannot be used to bring in completely unreasonable changes. This is because there's an 'implied term of mutual trust and confidence' in all contracts that requires the employer not to act completely unreasonably. There is more information about implied terms in the 'Employment contract terms article'.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/ ... G_10028079" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tman]

Your employment contract may include 'flexibility clauses'. These give your employer the right to change certain conditions (for example, shift patterns) or there may be a 'mobility clause', allowing changes to your job location.
A flexibility clause that is vaguely worded - for example, 'the employer reserves the right to change terms from time to time' - cannot be used to bring in completely unreasonable changes.

Which says employers can change certain things, and that's why RM staff appointment letters often have a clause which reads something like "subject to the operational needs of the service" or similar.
This why the CWU have never taken RM to court over changes; they wouldn't stand a chance of winning as they couldn't prove the changes were "unreasonable".

[opgpat]

I firmly believe that taking away money for d2d which has been paid for decades and increasing the number of d2ds from 3 to 10 could successfully be argued to be TOTALLY unreasonable. That would be reinforced by the fact that they CANNOT argue that the new payment is a replacement payment as that would be illegal as it also renumerates non-delivery staff. IF they made this argument they would also have to face the pro-rata isue which would also be illegal.

I also also don't believe 3pm finishes on a SAT after decades of 12:30 could be argued to be 'reasonable' esp as it will mean a MASSIVE disruption to family life. If the workforce decide on mass it is unreasonable then by logical conclusion it must be.

Thirdly the issue of extending 3 1/2 hour deliveries to potentially 5 hour deliveries. That could clearly be argued to be 'uneasonable' as it clearly IS unreasonable if not physically IMPOSSIBLE! It's also a MASSIVE change to working conditions.

It doesn't matter WHAT RM put in their correspoindence to you. The bottom line in a court of law is - is there a breach of employment law occuring. A change on this scale MUST be agreed or it is clearly illegal looking at the simple and clear wording here.

A flexibility clause that is vaguely worded - for example, 'the employer reserves the right to change terms from time to time' - cannot be used to bring in completely unreasonable changes.

So with a NO vote there are NO 3pm Sats, NO loss of d2d money and NO change to 5hr or more deliveries. Why do you think they spent 4 months on this Agreement if they can make the changes anyway?????????????????????????????????????????????

[mountec1]

Surely no one would be as gullible to vote 'yes' on this agreement because there is no plan B?

Vote no! Stand up for yourself and your fellow colleagues! Do not listen to the propaganda machine of the CWU/Royal Mail. And certainly don't fall for their lines of

'it's the best deal considering the financial situation were in'

or

'there is no plan B'

or

'if we don't vote this in they'll bring in the changes anyway'

Let them bring/force in their changes at least you have tried to stand up for yourself by voting no. You would still have your self respect knowing you voted no or is a few bits of silver worth more?

I am going to vote yes even though i have not read the agreement and i doubt most of you have yet,because it doesn't matter what ever the union came up with, you lot would have still voted no because that's the nature of this forum.