DVBUK 55's VIEWS ON WHAT HAPPENS IF IT IS A NO

[mucker]

Just wanted to add that the reason for the passion is that this isn't a game. It is real life. Jobs, futures, strikes and the Industry. I care thats all as I know you all do.

Your right,It isn't a game
Most of us have 20 or 30 years still to work in RM
Thats why we don't want a SH*T deal that will mean we will be lucky if we last 10 years in the job before were forced out by the "top 10%"

Sorry but it's still a NO from me...

fook me im glad i havent got 20 or 30 years left in royal fail,some one pass me a knife to slash my wrists

[pickaname]

If this deal goes through I, and the majority of my office, will be phoning payroll on the day of the ballot result to have my subs stopped.

I WILL NOT be a member of a so called union that doesnt have its members interests at its core.

its clear this agreement secures the CWU's position in the workplace as an arm of management in return for the corroision of its members terms and conditions.

VOTE NO THEN RESIGN YOUR MEMBERSHIP

[BELIAL]

Care to put a figure on the number of jobs this deal will save Lovejoy?

No because I don't know but what I am sure of is that Royal Mail at the offset of this dispute wanted the 'dutch model' in deliveries. The dutch have a 25/75 FT ratio.

This agreement commits them to a 75/25 so I would say thats many thousands and I'm sure you'll do the maths!.... on top of this commitment D2D into workload will protect jobs as will the shorter working week!

Thanks for your honesty, but blimey ,4 months of talks;access to all figures ;lots a fine details and yet no figure for jobs saved but frequently repeated claims of increased job security.

You must see the flaw in your Dutch model/ 75/25 argument . Committing to a 75/25 ratio is no guarantee of job security whatsoever . 90,000 FT out of 120,000 workforce is 75/25 but so is 60,000 FT out of an 80,000 workforce, it does not give job security

I am not saying there isnt a figure of the number of jobs that have been protected I am just saying I don't know it.

Fair enough ,however, does it not strike you as more than a little bit odd that the people who claim this deal is a triumph in terms of securing jobs are not trumpeting the exact scale of their achievement from every rooftop?

[gb93]

OK Lovejoy back on after being blocked by the cyber police

Appreciate honest answer to my last question, I will take you to your word

Good to see you are not the all knowing oracle after all

Gives hope to people with different opinions to you, that they could be right too

And finally is my point about PHG & DRIVERS allowance not something to go back to RM with if (God forbid ) there is a no vote.

[jobies]

Later Saturdays make this a definite NO vote for me.I have a family and finishing time will change by 3hours.which gives me little time to do anything with kids before dinner.even 1in2 off won't compensate me for this.

[belle smith]

If this deal goes through I, and the majority of my office, will be phoning payroll on the day of the ballot result to have my subs stopped.

I WILL NOT be a member of a so called union that doesnt have its members interests at its core.

its clear this agreement secures the CWU's position in the workplace as an arm of management in return for the corroision of its members terms and conditions.

VOTE NO THEN RESIGN YOUR MEMBERSHIP

Do you honestly believe your unit rep would become an arm of management!!
Why wouldn't he/she apply for the job of manager then and take the payrise that goes with it?
I think high spirits may have got the better of you with that.

[lovejoy]

OK Lovejoy back on after being blocked by the cyber police

Appreciate honest answer to my last question, I will take you to your word

Good to see you are not the all knowing oracle after all

Gives hope to people with different opinions to you, that they could be right too

And finally is my point about PHG & DRIVERS allowance not something to go back to RM with if (God forbid ) there is a no vote.

It may well be but unlike d2d those payments would equate to pennies when shared amongst all delivery staff

[lovejoy]

Later Saturdays make this a definite NO vote for me.I have a family and finishing time will change by 3hours.which gives me little time to do anything with kids before dinner.even 1in2 off won't compensate me for this.

So who says your office will have to finish at 3 on a saturday? ..... That will depend on where u r in relation to the sequencers..... i.e the offices furthest away will have the 3pm finish..... and many of these offices (rural) already work to this time despite what anyone says

[lovejoy]

Care to put a figure on the number of jobs this deal will save Lovejoy?

No because I don't know but what I am sure of is that Royal Mail at the offset of this dispute wanted the 'dutch model' in deliveries. The dutch have a 25/75 FT ratio.

This agreement commits them to a 75/25 so I would say thats many thousands and I'm sure you'll do the maths!.... on top of this commitment D2D into workload will protect jobs as will the shorter working week!

Thanks for your honesty, but blimey ,4 months of talks;access to all figures ;lots a fine details and yet no figure for jobs saved but frequently repeated claims of increased job security.

You must see the flaw in your Dutch model/ 75/25 argument . Committing to a 75/25 ratio is no guarantee of job security whatsoever . 90,000 FT out of 120,000 workforce is 75/25 but so is 60,000 FT out of an 80,000 workforce, it does not give job security

I am not saying there isnt a figure of the number of jobs that have been protected I am just saying I don't know it.

Fair enough ,however, does it not strike you as more than a little bit odd that the people who claim this deal is a triumph in terms of securing jobs are not trumpeting the exact scale of their achievement from every rooftop?

I think what you'l find is nationally the 2 parties have agreed not to put out the 'we won the dispute comms' on the advice of acas and as part of building a new relationship.

I think the comms that come out this week and with the ballot paper will be very much centred on a good agreement for everyone sort of vibe.... 'The new world'

[dvbuk55]

People have asked for answers to Dvbuk's views on if it's a no vote.

Dvbuk says...Would a No vote mean more strikes - no it would not.

Well firstly no you are right it would not automatically mean a strike. The truth is though that if we reject this agreement and the CWU are unable to get a new settlement that members will go for (since they spent 4 months talking on this one my opinion is that this process is exhausted) then our options will include strike. Any member voting no must do so in the full knowledge that they should be prepared for further strike action.

Despite people's hazy memories the honest picture is that many areas were creaking after 2 days. Will these same areas be able to sustain IA? If this agreement goes down it will be in deliveries and on d2d. There are other issues but this is the most contentous. Do people really think a national all function vote let alone dispute could be won on this issue??

Dvbuk says......Would a No vote mean that the agreement needs to be revisited and look at the clear disparity in the rewards. Yes it would.

Not to be too blunt and trying to keep passions to a minimum but get in the real world. They have been talking for 4 months with the assistance of ACAS. The CWU have squeezed every penny from the company and moved them on every single one of their original positions. Do people really think a no vote would mean royal mail would say 'oh we misjudged that one, here's another £20m we found down the sofa'

Dvbuk says....Would a No vote bring a little more clarity to the CWU to focus on who they represent and who pays their bills - at least up to now. Yes it would.

Absoulute rubbish. The CWU achieved a number of conference policies in this agreement.... The outdoor department sent out a delivery blueprint to branches 12 montsh ago setting out the CWU aims..... every single one has been reached. The focus of our negotiators led to acas being involved and the focus of our negotiators turned over RMs original position on everything!

Dvbuk says....Would a No vote give more time to finalise the revision tools and set out workshops - Yes it would.

Wrong.... A no vote would mean both sides go back to war and RM revert to using their own unagreed standards. The last thing on the minds of the 2 HQs in the event of a no vote would be workshops (oh and they r booked in for week after next). If anything a no vote put this at risk.

Dvbuk says...Would a No vote make them realise that a 3 year deal is not in our best interests - Yes it would.

I have to say this is the biggest red herring of the lot. At a time when companies across the world and the uk are going to the wall, people around us are losing their jobs YOU see the security of a 3 year deal as bad thing. Unbelievable.

Dvbuk says....Would a No vote allow a Labour/Tory Government get in office and press the Pensions issue until such time as a decision is made, which has never been done with sufficient vigour. Yes it would.

HAHAHA........ Oh yes I am sure the tories would really listen to us pressing them when they have the other option of painting us as millitants with no agreement in place and making their move to smash the union and privatise the industry then set about robbing our pension fund.

In summary (and I apologise for the rant but it is for good reasons i assure everyone) I have no issue with anyone voting no but come on what is the alternative. If anyone is being honest you can see that Dvbuk's alternative is probably fine in an ideal worls. Sadly we do not live in that world.

In the circumstances this is a very good settlement. I expect the majority of members to see the agreement / background to it as a whole by the time the vote comes out.

If you want to attack me carry on but when you do I ask you to think not about yourselves because I know that you are good trade unionists and would back action at anytime. The National Union must judge the situation as a whole. They feel that the process is exhausted, there is no widespread appetite for more action, the agreement represents very good value for cwu members in the current environment and that now is the time to settle.

I could analyse the negative points from the deal (and I have ) but also to make a real call you must also look at the positives and the internal and external environment. When all this is taken into consideration I think we will see a YES vote in the ballot.

Roll on the insults /////

Well at last:

I have never objected to people wanting a yes vote for whatever misguided reasons - what I strongly object to is the half truths and plain lying to obtain that result.

Now lets deal with subject of the strikes - the first step would be the CWU going back to the table - as for calling a strike - they wouldn't get a yes vote but clearly the membership are not for accepting the agreement in its present form and so there has to be a reworking of the agreement. Royal Mail need the acceptance of the delivery officers to get this modernisation programme regardless of what the vote is.

The 75/25 split - now really could you expand on how this is going to be policed because you say that this will be discussed quarterly Nationally and how is that going to work exactly - especially since the agreement says AROUND 75/25 so what exactly would be an acceptable split would you say, because 75/25 is not precise if it is around that figure.

So the fact that the reasons that we went on strike for lovejoy and I don't want to labour the point again were secondary to conference protocols that had nothing to do with the strike from the members point of view. Which reinforces the argument that the interests of the members were not the primary reason for negotiating.

Now we come to the three year deal - a bad bad thing. The last one was for two years and ended in a strike because the agreement was not adhered to and not all on Royal Mails side I might add, some areas were reluctant to accept the changes agreed - and this will be no different when Royal Mail start to implement the changes. BUT not least of all the Government may be about to change and the pension issue has not been resolved and with a cosy 3 year deal there is no imperative to get a settlement. Once again I don't want to labour a point but this has gone on for years, promised ballot, chasing the government and nothing has happened because the previous two year deal did nothing to enhance the chances of settlement BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN DECOUPLED and lo and behold decoupled again OR more to the point no longer mentioned. So what is the answer to the pension fund lovejoy - just laugh and forget it, until they want a bit more? As for privatisation from the Tories if we mention the pension fund deficit - it is just as likely without mentioning the pension fund. Just another red herring - don't mention the war.

So in summary I would say that any sensible delivery officer will see this deal not as an improvement on their working environment, not as any long term security but a denigration of both with less reward than before, with revision tools sight unseen. The reasons we went on strike for have NOT been fulfilled, we can only vote NO. I do not believe we live in an ideal world but I do believe we should fight for what we believe is right and fair and not be misled into thinking others know better what is in OUR best interests.

[belle smith]

I think the comms that come out this week and with the ballot paper will be very much centred on a good agreement for everyone sort of vibe.... 'The new world'

I did notice in a recent letter to members, that the CS already issued may increase in value as a result of this agreement.
great deal for shareholders.

[gb93]

So maybe "Every last penny" has not been squeezed out of RM after all

I think i have dicovered a PLAN B

Or at the very least a start of one

If it is a no vote i will be happy to assist all i can in the fresh negotations, but then again there will be probably no need.

[lovejoy]

People have asked for answers to Dvbuk's views on if it's a no vote.

Dvbuk says...Would a No vote mean more strikes - no it would not.

Well firstly no you are right it would not automatically mean a strike. The truth is though that if we reject this agreement and the CWU are unable to get a new settlement that members will go for (since they spent 4 months talking on this one my opinion is that this process is exhausted) then our options will include strike. Any member voting no must do so in the full knowledge that they should be prepared for further strike action.

Despite people's hazy memories the honest picture is that many areas were creaking after 2 days. Will these same areas be able to sustain IA? If this agreement goes down it will be in deliveries and on d2d. There are other issues but this is the most contentous. Do people really think a national all function vote let alone dispute could be won on this issue??

Dvbuk says......Would a No vote mean that the agreement needs to be revisited and look at the clear disparity in the rewards. Yes it would.

Not to be too blunt and trying to keep passions to a minimum but get in the real world. They have been talking for 4 months with the assistance of ACAS. The CWU have squeezed every penny from the company and moved them on every single one of their original positions. Do people really think a no vote would mean royal mail would say 'oh we misjudged that one, here's another £20m we found down the sofa'

Dvbuk says....Would a No vote bring a little more clarity to the CWU to focus on who they represent and who pays their bills - at least up to now. Yes it would.

Absoulute rubbish. The CWU achieved a number of conference policies in this agreement.... The outdoor department sent out a delivery blueprint to branches 12 montsh ago setting out the CWU aims..... every single one has been reached. The focus of our negotiators led to acas being involved and the focus of our negotiators turned over RMs original position on everything!

Dvbuk says....Would a No vote give more time to finalise the revision tools and set out workshops - Yes it would.

Wrong.... A no vote would mean both sides go back to war and RM revert to using their own unagreed standards. The last thing on the minds of the 2 HQs in the event of a no vote would be workshops (oh and they r booked in for week after next). If anything a no vote put this at risk.

Dvbuk says...Would a No vote make them realise that a 3 year deal is not in our best interests - Yes it would.

I have to say this is the biggest red herring of the lot. At a time when companies across the world and the uk are going to the wall, people around us are losing their jobs YOU see the security of a 3 year deal as bad thing. Unbelievable.

Dvbuk says....Would a No vote allow a Labour/Tory Government get in office and press the Pensions issue until such time as a decision is made, which has never been done with sufficient vigour. Yes it would.

HAHAHA........ Oh yes I am sure the tories would really listen to us pressing them when they have the other option of painting us as millitants with no agreement in place and making their move to smash the union and privatise the industry then set about robbing our pension fund.

In summary (and I apologise for the rant but it is for good reasons i assure everyone) I have no issue with anyone voting no but come on what is the alternative. If anyone is being honest you can see that Dvbuk's alternative is probably fine in an ideal worls. Sadly we do not live in that world.

In the circumstances this is a very good settlement. I expect the majority of members to see the agreement / background to it as a whole by the time the vote comes out.

If you want to attack me carry on but when you do I ask you to think not about yourselves because I know that you are good trade unionists and would back action at anytime. The National Union must judge the situation as a whole. They feel that the process is exhausted, there is no widespread appetite for more action, the agreement represents very good value for cwu members in the current environment and that now is the time to settle.

I could analyse the negative points from the deal (and I have ) but also to make a real call you must also look at the positives and the internal and external environment. When all this is taken into consideration I think we will see a YES vote in the ballot.

Roll on the insults /////

Well at last:

I have never objected to people wanting a yes vote for whatever misguided reasons - what I strongly object to is the half truths and plain lying to obtain that result.

Now lets deal with subject of the strikes - the first step would be the CWU going back to the table - as for calling a strike - they wouldn't get a yes vote but clearly the membership are not for accepting the agreement in its present form and so there has to be a reworking of the agreement. Royal Mail need the acceptance of the delivery officers to get this modernisation programme regardless of what the vote is.

The 75/25 split - now really could you expand on how this is going to be policed because you say that this will be discussed quarterly Nationally and how is that going to work exactly - especially since the agreement says AROUND 75/25 so what exactly would be an acceptable split would you say, because 75/25 is not precise if it is around that figure.

So the fact that the reasons that we went on strike for lovejoy and I don't want to labour the point again were secondary to conference protocols that had nothing to do with the strike from the members point of view. Which reinforces the argument that the interests of the members were not the primary reason for negotiating.

Now we come to the three year deal - a bad bad thing. The last one was for two years and ended in a strike because the agreement was not adhered to and not all on Royal Mails side I might add, some areas were reluctant to accept the changes agreed - and this will be no different when Royal Mail start to implement the changes. BUT not least of all the Government may be about to change and the pension issue has not been resolved and with a cosy 3 year deal there is no imperative to get a settlement. Once again I don't want to labour a point but this has gone on for years, promised ballot, chasing the government and nothing has happened because the previous two year deal did nothing to enhance the chances of settlement BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN DECOUPLED and lo and behold decoupled again OR more to the point no longer mentioned. So what is the answer to the pension fund lovejoy - just laugh and forget it, until they want a bit more? As for privatisation from the Tories if we mention the pension fund deficit - it is just as likely without mentioning the pension fund. Just another red herring - don't mention the war.

So in summary I would say that any sensible delivery officer will see this deal not as an improvement on their working environment, not as any long term security but a denigration of both with less reward than before, with revision tools sight unseen. The reasons we went on strike for have NOT been fulfilled, we can only vote NO. I do not believe we live in an ideal world but I do believe we should fight for what we believe is right and fair and not be misled into thinking others know better what is in OUR best interests.

I tell you what you deserve a for dodging my counter to every single one of your points.

I am not telling anyone how to vote but if anyone reads what you write and are bought in my the 'they'll just have to go back to the table' line then they are making a big mistake.

If you want me to go through your other points I will but its getting a bit embarassing as you are really scraping the barrel!

If you didnt tell me you were a delivery postie (and of course i believe you ) then I would swear you were a member of the SWP or another left organisation......... Champion the alternative but actually have no alternative.

[belle smith]

Now lets deal with subject of the strikes - the first step would be the CWU going back to the table - as for calling a strike - they wouldn't get a yes vote.

Why would anybody vote no to the agreement and then no to a further strike ballot!! What kind of negotiating position is that!!!

Thats not directed at you dvbuk55, i know you would vote to strike. But that really would not be a strong position!

[lovejoy]

Now lets deal with subject of the strikes - the first step would be the CWU going back to the table - as for calling a strike - they wouldn't get a yes vote.

Why would anybody vote no to the agreement and then no to a further strike ballot!! What kind of negotiating position is that!!!

Exactly my friend. What a joke!!!

Imagine the negotiators going to RM

CWU: Our members have rejected the deal and want more

RM: What are they prepared to do about it?

CWU: Nothing they listened to Dvbuk and thought that you would find another "20m if they voted no

RM: