No vote from me!

[Pat Ostman]

Well since we have got a similar thread going, just from a different slant, I finally made up my mind and posted the ballot.

Its a no vote from me.

[DirtyHarry]

Good man, Pat.
I just hope and pray that the majority of colleagues remember what happens when they vote in favour of a deal that is so obviously bad for them, as in 2007.
Shan't be holding my breath though.

[banner18]

It will be a yes vote, maybe closer than normal, but yes nevertheless.

[superteamu10]

I wouldn't be surprised if it were a yes vote, but I have voted no as I would have liked Ward and Gibson to go back to RM and get us a 'proper' deal.

My conscience is clear if it is voted in.

[Rommagic]

It will be a yes vote, maybe closer than normal, but yes nevertheless.

Who is voting yes?,everyone i talk to says NO.Indoor staff don't want the deal because of job cuts and some MC will shut.Out door staff dont want less pay for more D2D,drivers are saying No also.

[DirtyHarry]

It will be a yes vote, maybe closer than normal, but yes nevertheless.

Another defeat snatched from the jaws of victory, then?
Expect management might celebrate, postal workers won't, though.

[dayjur]

Does anyone honestly think RM will honour the 2010 and Beyond agreement
when they couldn't honour a simple agreement on election materials.
They will twist the wording and use the interpretation to their advantage.
VOTE NO

[proper postie]

Surely a NO vote is a vote of no confidence and the high heed yins like Dave and Bob need to be removed?

[stupidboy]

a very definite no vote from me as well

[REARVIEWMIRROR]

probably be accepted voted no myself,, All seems really vague to me doubt that we will be singing from same hymn sheet!!! spoke to a couple of managers on how i interpreted aspects of the agreement they seemed amazed :

[I-POSTIE]

When I began reading the 2010 “A Fresh Start,” I decided to put to the back of my mind, what are often referred to as “Carrot Payments.” If a deal is worth voting for then the authors do not need to offer inducements or bribes, as I think of such payment, to cause me to vote in its favour. It is ridiculous to think that I would vote for a deal with worse conditions than I already have, for a mere £1000, that could follow me through to retirement many years yonder. The sum is a trifle when reasoned by this means. Therefore once more the alarm bells went off in my mind as to the contents of this deal as to what I would find objectionable.

I read this proposed agreement hoping that it would satisfy me that it had dealt with the foolish errors that allowed the employer to make such massive inroads in to our working conditions since the ratification of the 2007 agreement. What has become clear in the intervening period is that we cannot and should not trust the employer with ulterior agreement dealings at local area level. An agreement to hold further talks that may eventually end in a decision which is not a fair compromise at a later date, should the union member vote in favour of the agreement, is basically nonsense. The employer plays lip service to union reps and when the situation stalls, press ahead with their decisions, with the countenance that they have fulfilled their part of the agreement. The problem with this deal is that it repeats this regretful mistake made in the 2007 agreement in all areas, Deliveries, Mail Centres, Logistic, etcetera. We cannot once again get caught out in this kind rearguard action. Dave Ward and the Executive Council should be very aware of this but it appears they seemed to have totally missed this once again.

And why? They have been blinded by what they seemed to believe are great achievements. A reduction in hours. Good! One Saturday off in four. Excellent! The settlement of next three pay rises. Tremendous! £20.60 supplement in our pay. Wait minute! Wait a minute! How did they manage that? What? They, without any mention to the members want to give up the crown jewels of delivery, the three door-to-door per week sealing! B@5tards!

Prior to the 2007 agreement I attended a special meeting for grass-roots members to encourage us to support the call for industrial action. One of the disagreements with the employer was the forthcoming pay rise where the employer wanted to pay lump sums at intervals instead of a standard in pay, rise. The reason for this was that they did not want to pay the pensionable addition on the increment. With the £20.60 subsidy they have found a way of achieving an increase in pay without an pension contribution. So when Dave Ward tells us that it is a good idea that the door-to-door has found it's way in to workload he should also be telling us the payment has also found it's way into everyone's pay without pension rights – he is not. So no pensionable payment for work done as workload. This is dangerous. I mention this as when pay rise number four, which is not covered by this agreement, is in negotiation once again the employer will be using that old cliché that, “Their workers are paid better than the industry standard.” It is dubious a situation to be in, where the door-to-doors are in workload and the payment is a subsidy which the employer can use as a bargaining tool in future pay negotiations until at some point it disappears completely or is used to bolster pay without the addition of pension contributions as an on going scheme.

Of course there are other self-evident reasons why I do not agree with the door-to-door nonsense. I keep hearing my colleagues using the phrase, “It's a lot more work for less money,” an indisputable truth. Rightly, they believe if they are to do the work of collating, carrying and distributing the door-to-door items then they should take home every penny of what they are earning especial if they are being asked carry unlimited amounts of these items. The reasoning is fairly obvious too: if you were to pay driving allowance or any other allowance specific to a given job to everyone it makes a mockery of the payment. What is the incentive to do a specified job? Today delivery staff are earning more delivering three items. Some are earning more by delivering door-to-door for colleagues whom do not want to deliver them. So where is the incentive in losing money? It is that well used verbalism of Billy Hayes, “Stealing from Peter to pay Paul.”

My underlying distrust of the employer leads me to believe they will lose their head with the number of items we will have to deliver. After all, if it is not in the agreement then anything goes. Word of mouth is not worth the paper it's not written upon and time and change in management means any verbal guarantees change as when and whom it suits. I was looking to this agreement to resolve issues such as deliveries that are to large, the continuing bulling by managers to get us to work through our breaks and beyond our finishing time and now it seems we are landed with another assault upon our workload. The agreement does not resolve walking speeds or delivery spans. So with no limits to door-to-door, a walking speed which can fluctuate between a lower and higher version to make workload fit the span: how does one properly and fairly evaluate a delivery when testing?

The door-to-door is like Pandora's box once they are set free (no limits) there is no going back. The only difference being there is no hope for any of us reaching retirement with the physical and mental stress this new turn will bring us. Will it not make the employer happy if we go before our time? How much will it save them in pension pot and cost us? Dave Ward and the Executive Councils big picture ideal is rather to too large for me. We wanted this agreement to end the shabby, aggressive and thoroughly inequitable way in which the employer reacts towards us. Dave and the team appear to want to open a new can of worms. If we vote for this ideology then we will be back out on strike again in another couple years time, providing we can take the punishment. I and others were right last time. Pity there was not enough of us to counter Dave and Executives mistakes and prevent the 2007 going through. It has cost us dearly. Let us not make the same mistake this time. Vote NO!

[POSTMAN]

Well where the feck have you been!!

Welcome back.

[Pat Ostman]

Very informative post I-POSTIE, thankyou.