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

[dvbuk55]

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.

And if it's a NO? Shares will plummet? Hardly they don't really exist. What will affect the value of Royal Mail is despite the vote they will be judged on performance and that will not only depend on targets but how many jobs have been shed over the next two years.

[belle smith]

I will be voting no but, if it comes back as a no we have to at the very least be prepared to strike!!

[dvbuk55]

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!

You missed the second point belle - RM need the acceptance of delivery officers to implement the changes - you can lead a horse to water .............

[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!

You missed the second point belle - RM need the acceptance of delivery officers to implement the changes - you can lead a horse to water .............

Okay, are you talking about local strikes?

[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!!!

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

You missed the second point belle - RM need the acceptance of delivery officers to implement the changes - you can lead a horse to water .............

Yes they do need the acceptance of the members but there were about 300 local units taking action last year over the savings that RM implemented. That left 1200 that just accepted them......... I think without the protection of a national agreement for our members they'll be happy to work on that ratio don't you

[drb]

We as a branch are voting no because they are charging one of our reps with trumped up charges.I think we could live with the rest of it,bar the "trust" page,(that being the first page).

[lovejoy]

We as a branch are voting no because they are charging one of our reps with trumped up charges.I think we could live with the rest of it,bar the "trust" page,(that being the first page).

Fair play to you. Always look after your own.

[dvbuk55]

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:

You see lovejoy you are your own worst enemy - you do not answer the questions - embarrassing as they are. You see it isn't about finding another £20m or wanting more - it's about having an agreement that fulfils the criteria laid down for strike action. And I will repeat there would be little enthusiasm to go on strike if after two days we had yet another "Interim Agreement" but that doesn't mean the war is lost - if that is what you think it is.

As for my political affiliation it was labour until new labour, now I have none, I have worked for over twenty years in a delivery office and I mean worked on the frontline lovejoy now what are your credentials?

[dvbuk55]

We as a branch are voting no because they are charging one of our reps with trumped up charges.I think we could live with the rest of it,bar the "trust" page,(that being the first page).

Fair play to you. Always look after your own.

Your own being who lovejoy?

[snoddy]

Maybe the real point that DVB could be making is that we don`t need the CWU HQ at all. If all negotiations were done locally then many of us believe we would fare much better.

[gb93]

Has my offer of help in the event of a no vote, in my last post been lost in all the back and forth lovejoy.

Or have you just chose to ignore it and stick with the neg team as is (neg=cant spell).

[drb]

Told by our DSM this week that "if the geo route spits out more hours then so be it". This was only because the workshops will have ACAS involved and BSI will be ACAS BSI...not Royal Mail's version

[lovejoy]

We as a branch are voting no because they are charging one of our reps with trumped up charges.I think we could live with the rest of it,bar the "trust" page,(that being the first page).

Fair play to you. Always look after your own.

Your own being who lovejoy?

Reps my friend.

Come on Dvbuk I know you are on the ropes tonight and dodging points better my beloved Scunthorpe but no need to stoop...

[BELIAL]

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'

A "we won the dispute comms" is not what is required as well you know. Figures for supplements ;figures for shares;figures for bribes;figures for job cuts they are all out there, not one figure for jobs saved to back up this job security fairytale used to sell us a pay cut. Still if you don't find that strange it tells us a lot

[lovejoy]

Has my offer of help in the event of a no vote, in my last post been lost in all the back and forth lovejoy.

Or have you just chose to ignore it and stick with the neg team as is (neg=cant spell).

Ha well you should have stood for the PEC mate.... all members had the chance. Elections have only just closed.

I suppose if you have a few million pound lying around then you could make a difference!