LTB / COMMS UPDATE

[Steviea34]

But if there is a YES for the MTSF and a NO for the Business Transformation 2010 What happens?
Because they are interlinked.

Doubt you would get " Ronnie without Reggie, " Laurel without Hardy" so i will say it will be both or neither

[fishtank]

But if there is a YES for the MTSF and a NO for the Business Transformation 2010 What happens?
Because they are interlinked.

Just vote NO to both and save on all the confusion.

[Martin Walsh]

But if there is a YES for the MTSF and a NO for the Business Transformation 2010 What happens?
Because they are interlinked.

The changes on MTSF was agreed as part of the overall agreement if it is rejected then the changes to MTSF will not apply.

[nelson]

Thanks for that Dingo
The problem I see is that the majority of RM staff would then be denied due to the minority ie Delivery etc voting no.
Maybe I was on RM too long and mistrust everything.

[Big Daz]

It's funny i've read it a few times and i can't find anything about longer delivery spans and removing the cap on D2D or day specific D2Ds

That product has not been developed yet, technically were voting on RML and CWU developing this idea and turning it into a viable working reality.

Let them do their stuff and then put it out to ballot and see what happens

[chewi]

But if there is a YES for the MTSF and a NO for the Business Transformation 2010 What happens?
Because they are interlinked.

The changes on MTSF was agreed as part of the overall agreement if it is rejected then the changes to MTSF will not apply.

So why do letters staff need to vote on MTSF seperately?

I understand that MTSF affects other staff in RM group so they need a vote on that bit but if it's all part of the agreement and indivisible for members in letters then two questions on the ballot seems at best unintentionally redundant and very confusing, and at worst possibly deliberately so!

[Martin Walsh]

Thanks for that Dingo
The problem I see is that the majority of RM staff would then be denied due to the minority ie Delivery etc voting no.
Maybe I was on RM too long and mistrust everything.

Personally judging by the amount of Branch`s supporting the agreement and the small number of branch`s opposing it I do think it will go through.

At the moment I have sensed no big campaign against it other then on this site. Of course members could ingnore Branch decisons but this is not normally the case.

My understanding is that only Bristol , Solent , South East Wales , Kent ivicta , Eastern 6 , North Lancs and Cumbria have made a decision to vote no.

The majority of the other Branch`s have chosen to support the agreement , I know there are a few Branch`s still to make a decision but in the main the majority are supporting. I know in London , no Branch has yet decided to go against the agreement and all but one has not made a decison and even dirty harrys branch is supporting it.

But at the end of the day the members will decide as is only right.

[Martin Walsh]

But if there is a YES for the MTSF and a NO for the Business Transformation 2010 What happens?
Because they are interlinked.

The changes on MTSF was agreed as part of the overall agreement if it is rejected then the changes to MTSF will not apply.

So why do letters staff need to vote on MTSF seperately?

I understand that MTSF affects other staff in RM group so they need a vote on that bit but if it's all part of the agreement and indivisible for members in letters then two questions on the ballot seems at best unintentionally redundant and very confusing, and at worst possibly deliberately so!

Because the MTSF package of measures are group wide and effect members in quadrant , pol ,romec etc and they need to be consulted and thats why there needs to be an extra ballot paper.

[Steviea34]

Thanks for that Dingo
The problem I see is that the majority of RM staff would then be denied due to the minority ie Delivery etc voting no.
Maybe I was on RM too long and mistrust everything.

Personally judging by the amount of Branch`s supporting the agreement and the small number of branch`s opposing it I do think it will go through.

At the moment I have sensed no big campaign against it other then on this site. Of course members could ingnore Branch decisons but this is not normally the case.

My understanding is that only Bristol , Solent , South East Wales , Kent ivicta , Eastern 6 , North Lancs and Cumbria have made a decision to vote no.

The majority of the other Branch`s have chosen to support the agreement , I know there are a few Branch`s still to make a decision but in the main the majority are supporting. I know in London , no Branch has yet decided to go against the agreement and all but one has not made a decison and even dirty harrys branch is supporting it.


Reminds me of Jean Luc Pickard on the Enterprise about to be assimilated in the BORG collective -
Remember - RESISTANCE IS FUTILE sorry people , must get out more

But at the end of the day the members will decide as is only right.

[el_cartero]

bla bla bla stop trying to sell an agreement that nobody wants .

the only people that do are the ones that dont deliver d2d

[chewi]

But if there is a YES for the MTSF and a NO for the Business Transformation 2010 What happens?
Because they are interlinked.

The changes on MTSF was agreed as part of the overall agreement if it is rejected then the changes to MTSF will not apply.

So why do letters staff need to vote on MTSF seperately?

I understand that MTSF affects other staff in RM group so they need a vote on that bit but if it's all part of the agreement and indivisible for members in letters then two questions on the ballot seems at best unintentionally redundant and very confusing, and at worst possibly deliberately so!

Because the MTSF package of measures are group wide and effect members in quadrant , pol ,romec etc and they need to be consulted and thats why there needs to be an extra ballot paper.

Thats what i said (see bold highlight) but you haven't answered my question. Why do letters members have two questionsto vote on if the second question is also part of the first?

[jessicarabbit]

Anyone smell 'an invalid ballot' coming up best just to go with the PEC recommendation lads

[Cut Off King]

Bristol , Solent , South East Wales , Kent ivicta , Eastern 6 , North Lancs and Cumbria have made a decision to vote no.

At least some branches have listened to their members, shame about the rest.

[gb93]

Can someone please explain why if you cant have the new MTSF without a yes vote for 2010 & Beyond do you need to have separate votes on ballot paper.

Surely if its a yes for 2010 & Beyond you get the new MTSF if its a no you wont.

Why do you need a separate vote for MTSF on ballot paper.

Could this be to encourage ( for want of a better word) MC staff to vote yes.

[pickaname]

Bristol , Solent , South East Wales , Kent ivicta , Eastern 6 , North Lancs and Cumbria have made a decision to vote no.

At least some branches have listened to their members, shame about the rest.

Whats 'Solent'? Dont you mean Portsmouth and District?

Oh what the hell, I and the majority of my office are cancelling our subs if this goes through anyway so it wont matter.