What is your Branch Recommending?List.

[mucker]

Lovejoy

You and I see eye to eye on not liking this deal.

Where we differ is the what the vote recommendations should be. There is no plan B is not a reason for voting yes. There is no more money is not a reason for voting yes. Misrepresentation is not a reason to vote yes and there have been many on here to misrepresent what the deal actually is and I think you are well aware of the reasons behind that statement.

Would a No vote mean more strikes - no it would not.
Would a No vote mean that the agreement needs to be revisited and look at the clear disparity in the rewards. Yes it would.
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.
Would a No vote give more time to finalise the revision tools and set out workshops - Yes it would.
Would a No vote make them realise that a 3 year deal is not in our best interests - Yes it would.
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.


There is never only the one path and it is disingenuous to say that's it take it or leave it.

We'll go around in circles for ever but I'll just say this........ can I please have some of whatever you are taking please??

he makes some very valued point's lovejoy shame you cant see them................

[lovejoy]

Lovejoy

You and I see eye to eye on not liking this deal.

Where we differ is the what the vote recommendations should be. There is no plan B is not a reason for voting yes. There is no more money is not a reason for voting yes. Misrepresentation is not a reason to vote yes and there have been many on here to misrepresent what the deal actually is and I think you are well aware of the reasons behind that statement.

Would a No vote mean more strikes - no it would not.
Would a No vote mean that the agreement needs to be revisited and look at the clear disparity in the rewards. Yes it would.
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.
Would a No vote give more time to finalise the revision tools and set out workshops - Yes it would.
Would a No vote make them realise that a 3 year deal is not in our best interests - Yes it would.
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.


There is never only the one path and it is disingenuous to say that's it take it or leave it.

We'll go around in circles for ever but I'll just say this........ can I please have some of whatever you are taking please??

he makes some very valued point's lovejoy shame you cant see them................

I'll respond to them in another thread if u like but was trying to keep to the original subject!

[dvbuk55]

Lovejoy

You and I see eye to eye on not liking this deal.

Where we differ is the what the vote recommendations should be. There is no plan B is not a reason for voting yes. There is no more money is not a reason for voting yes. Misrepresentation is not a reason to vote yes and there have been many on here to misrepresent what the deal actually is and I think you are well aware of the reasons behind that statement.

Would a No vote mean more strikes - no it would not.
Would a No vote mean that the agreement needs to be revisited and look at the clear disparity in the rewards. Yes it would.
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.
Would a No vote give more time to finalise the revision tools and set out workshops - Yes it would.
Would a No vote make them realise that a 3 year deal is not in our best interests - Yes it would.
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.


There is never only the one path and it is disingenuous to say that's it take it or leave it.

We'll go around in circles for ever but I'll just say this........ can I please have some of whatever you are taking please??

Well after you've eaten some humble pie lovejoy try a little truth serum it would do wonders for your soul.

[I am number six]

Lovejoy

You and I see eye to eye on not liking this deal.

Where we differ is the what the vote recommendations should be. There is no plan B is not a reason for voting yes. There is no more money is not a reason for voting yes. Misrepresentation is not a reason to vote yes and there have been many on here to misrepresent what the deal actually is and I think you are well aware of the reasons behind that statement.

Would a No vote mean more strikes - no it would not.
Would a No vote mean that the agreement needs to be revisited and look at the clear disparity in the rewards. Yes it would.
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.
Would a No vote give more time to finalise the revision tools and set out workshops - Yes it would.
Would a No vote make them realise that a 3 year deal is not in our best interests - Yes it would.
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.


There is never only the one path and it is disingenuous to say that's it take it or leave it.

We'll go around in circles for ever but I'll just say this........ can I please have some of whatever you are taking please??

Well after you've eaten some humble pie lovejoy try a little truth serum it would do wonders for your soul.

Well Dvbuk you certainly have your feet well dug in don’t you !

At the end of the day this deal is about protecting you futures for the long term

So what more important for you a secure future and knowing you will still have a job

Or a short term quick fix that does not provide anyone with job security or any future?

[fishtank]

Well Dvbuk you certainly have your feet well dug in don’t you !

At the end of the day this deal is about protecting you futures for the long term

So what more important for you a secure future and knowing you will still have a job

Or a short term quick fix that does not provide anyone with job security or any future?

So where is it...........the secure future.
I've read and re-read the agreement many times and i really can't find it.
Is it the mass redundancies or the reduction in full-time working?
Is it the increase in delivery spans and workload?
Is it the failure to address the institutionalised management bullying and harrassment that is rife throughout this business?
Is it the longer and later saturdays that make a mockery of Royal Mails family freindly policies?
I could go on but i'm still struggling to find some crumb of security in any of it?
And that's without mentioning the long term pay cut in real terms.

[dvbuk55]

Well Dvbuk you certainly have your feet well dug in don’t you !

At the end of the day this deal is about protecting you futures for the long term

So what more important for you a secure future and knowing you will still have a job

Or a short term quick fix that does not provide anyone with job security or any future?

So where is it...........the secure future.
I've read and re-read the agreement many times and i really can't find it.
Is it the mass redundancies or the reduction in full-time working?
Is it the increase in delivery spans and workload?
Is it the failure to address the institutionalised management bullying and harrassment that is rife throughout this business?
Is it the longer and later saturdays that make a mockery of Royal Mails family freindly policies?
I could go on but i'm still struggling to find some crumb of security in any of it?
And that's without mentioning the long term pay cut in real terms.

Hush your mouth you heretic! Have you got that tinfoil hat on? I seem to be picking up the same vibes

[I am number six]

Well Dvbuk you certainly have your feet well dug in don’t you !

At the end of the day this deal is about protecting you futures for the long term

So what more important for you a secure future and knowing you will still have a job

Or a short term quick fix that does not provide anyone with job security or any future?

So where is it...........the secure future.
I've read and re-read the agreement many times and i really can't find it.
Is it the mass redundancies or the reduction in full-time working?
Is it the increase in delivery spans and workload?
Is it the failure to address the institutionalised management bullying and harrassment that is rife throughout this business?
Is it the longer and later saturdays that make a mockery of Royal Mails family freindly policies?
I could go on but i'm still struggling to find some crumb of security in any of it?
And that's without mentioning the long term pay cut in real terms.

With this agreement we have an opportunity to;-
Increase full time jobs.
We have an opportunity to shape the success of the industry through vastly improved agreed revision processes.
We have an opportunity to increase the amount of Saturdays our members can have off across the forthcoming years.
We have an opportunity to safeguard our future.
We have an opportunity to increase basic pay year on year.

Is that not enough?

[dvbuk55]

Well Dvbuk you certainly have your feet well dug in don’t you !

At the end of the day this deal is about protecting you futures for the long term

So what more important for you a secure future and knowing you will still have a job

Or a short term quick fix that does not provide anyone with job security or any future?

So where is it...........the secure future.
I've read and re-read the agreement many times and i really can't find it.
Is it the mass redundancies or the reduction in full-time working?
Is it the increase in delivery spans and workload?
Is it the failure to address the institutionalised management bullying and harrassment that is rife throughout this business?
Is it the longer and later saturdays that make a mockery of Royal Mails family freindly policies?
I could go on but i'm still struggling to find some crumb of security in any of it?
And that's without mentioning the long term pay cut in real terms.

With this agreement we have an opportunity to;-
Increase full time jobs.
We have an opportunity to shape the success of the industry through vastly improved agreed revision processes.
We have an opportunity to increase the amount of Saturdays our members can have off across the forthcoming years.
We have an opportunity to safeguard our future.
We have an opportunity to increase basic pay year on year.

Is that not enough?

Just point out the relevant clauses where these possibilities exist and bingo.

Increase full time jobs? Nope the FT ratio is to fall by 4%
Well if you could just show us the much improved revision process.........
Saturdays off - well lets just see if you're going to like what you have to do to get it
Safeguarding our Future ................What in this agreement safeguards your future? In fact there is more likely that cheap labour will be privatised
Increase it year on year after year 2 - well that's really reassuring considering we don't know who our masters are going to be 2 months from now.

[MinisterofCucumber]

No.6,

Opportunities are not guarantees.

There is not enough in this proposal to justify any branch recommending a 'yes' vote.

[lovejoy]

No.6,

Opportunities are not guarantees.

There is not enough in this proposal to justify any branch recommending a 'yes' vote.

But the overwhelming majority of branches disagree with you.

[dvbuk55]

No.6,

Opportunities are not guarantees.

There is not enough in this proposal to justify any branch recommending a 'yes' vote.

But the overwhelming majority of branches disagree with you.

Overwhelming ? Wow Minister we'd better pack it in then and vote Yes

[Exrep]

Merseyside amal recommend a YES vote unlucky my office is voting NO...............

[axeman]

ah lovejoy ! whilst the area and local reps might have been bambozled with bullshit from ward & co ...this does not mean the rank and file are so please do not yet claim victory unless you know what is already the outcome of the ballot ....is it fixed by hq already ?

[POSTMAN]

In part,there are some good posts in this thread,many questions are asked,many answered,i would say,in part again it is quite informative.
But the other parts are very sarcy.

Ladies,let it not kick of please,let's not try to score points with each other.

[lovejoy]

ah lovejoy ! whilst the area and local reps might have been bambozled with bullshit from ward & co ...this does not mean the rank and file are so please do not yet claim victory unless you know what is already the outcome of the ballot ....is it fixed by hq already ?

Where have I claimed victory?