it is a yes vote

[Ahebban]

Any leakage, however late, is not welcome as it does call into question the independence of the counting process. It may simply be a case of someone having a lucky guess, but I would expect the CWU/RM to press Electoral Reform Services for confirmation of its security procedures at the very least.

[Stormproof]

There were 2 questions on the ballot paper so what was the other result?

[eroader]

It's a 'sad 'sad 'day.
That's the pension deficit sorted then(we will all croak before retirement with overwork).
No chance of any live footie on Saturdays.

[headscrewedon]

There were 2 questions on the ballot paper so what was the other result?

The other result was also a Yes, on the improved MtSF agreement.

[Stormproof]

There were 2 questions on the ballot paper so what was the other result?

The other result was also a Yes, on the improved MtSF agreement.

s**t was hoping they had muddled up the results

[TrueBlueTerrier]

sorry its not a rigged vote , it the membership vote. Spin it how you like but at the end of the day the membership has spoken.

Well 2/3 of those that bothered did and we have to accept that. But with around 50% not being bothered enough to vote, or perhaps more of "no point in voting it will come in anyway" which is what I kept hearing.

OK its a democratic vote and we have to accept it thems the breaks. But with the turn out being on a par with a GE I think the Union should be careful about trumpeting this deal or claiming an overwhelming mandate. They haven't yet, officially at least, but I think it will come across as arrogant and out of touch if they do.

[pinstripe]

The main thing now is to get the best out of the deal as we can and stick together.
If it turns out to be so terrible and RM go back to their old habits, we will be out again and back to square one.

I seriously doubt that.
1. There will be a drop in membership
2. What would be the point of striking? Lose money only for the union to concede everything that RM want and sell it to the membership as 'the only deal available'.
This deal is the last straw, I voted against SDD and 2007 as well as against 2010, each time the majority of the membership voted to accept them. If the majority continually vote for short term gain and the worsening of my terms and conditions, then they and the union no longer represent my views. They have proved for the third time that the weakest members do not count.
Oh well, at least I'll have the delivery supplement to make up the loss of D2D money, no wait it's pro-rata. Well at least I'll get a £5 a week pay rise, no wait, that's because the full timers are getting a shorter working week. Oh well, at least I'll get one Saturday in four off, (as if) Oh well, at least every Saturday that I work will be till 3.00pm, at least I'll start work at the time when I used to finish, at least I'll have an unspecified delivery span, and at least I'll have £300 (not (400) blood money...Oh wait, that was mine anyway.
What a bloody good deal, well done.

[andy2007]

Any leakage, however late, is not welcome as it does call into question the independence of the counting process. It may simply be a case of someone having a lucky guess, but I would expect the CWU/RM to press Electoral Reform Services for confirmation of its security procedures at the very least.

Ballots are one situation where I agree with you. I've ended up making a fool of myself, because I was worried about the accuracy of the leak. Sorry everyone.

[iamchopski]

sorry its not a rigged vote , it the membership vote. Spin it how you like but at the end of the day the membership has spoken.

Well 2/3 of those that bothered did and we have to accept that. But with around 50% not being bothered enough to vote, or perhaps more of "no point in voting it will come in anyway" which is what I kept hearing.

OK its a democratic vote and we have to accept it thems the breaks. But with the turn out being on a par with a GE I think the Union should be careful about trumpeting this deal or claiming an overwhelming mandate. They haven't yet, officially at least, but I think it will come across as arrogant and out of touch if they do.

"This was a strong ballot result for a strong deal and we're delighted that our members have fully supported this hard fought for agreement," said Dave Ward, the CWU's deputy general secretary.

[banner18]

The main thing now is to get the best out of the deal as we can and stick together.
If it turns out to be so terrible and RM go back to their old habits, we will be out again and back to square one.

I seriously doubt that.
1. There will be a drop in membership
2. What would be the point of striking? Lose money only for the union to concede everything that RM want and sell it to the membership as 'the only deal available'.
This deal is the last straw, I voted against SDD and 2007 as well as against 2010, each time the majority of the membership voted to accept them. If the majority continually vote for short term gain and the worsening of my terms and conditions, then they and the union no longer represent my views. They have proved for the third time that the weakest members do not count.
Oh well, at least I'll have the delivery supplement to make up the loss of D2D money, no wait it's pro-rata. Well at least I'll get a £5 a week pay rise, no wait, that's because the full timers are getting a shorter working week. Oh well, at least I'll get one Saturday in four off, (as if) Oh well, at least every Saturday that I work will be till 3.00pm, at least I'll start work at the time when I used to finish, at least I'll have an unspecified delivery span, and at least I'll have £300 (not (400) blood money...Oh wait, that was mine anyway.
What a bloody good deal, well done.

1. The drop will not be that great. Remember, half the membership couldn't be bothered to vote. Doubt they could be bothered ringing up to cancel. Twenty odd thousand voted no. Maybe a quarter of them will leave and I think that is generous.
2. The strike brought back change by agreement. We have change by agreement regardless of the views on here. Breaking the agreement will bring about strikes again.

The fact that the deal is going to be harsh to you is a signal for you to just forget about the ins and outs and just do your hours. The agreement (and no agreement ever) supersedes the relationship between the hours you work and how much you are paid.

[fishtank]

The agreement (and no agreement ever) supersedes the relationship between the hours you work and how much you are paid.

What about the relationship between the hours you work and what you are expected to do inside those hours?
That is what unrealistic workloads mean banner not working over your hours.
Many on this forum are in for a nasty shock over the next few months.
And just "working your hours" will not save you.

[proper postie]

sorry its not a rigged vote , it the membership vote. Spin it how you like but at the end of the day the membership has spoken.

Well 2/3 of those that bothered did and we have to accept that. But with around 50% not being bothered enough to vote, or perhaps more of "no point in voting it will come in anyway" which is what I kept hearing.

OK its a democratic vote and we have to accept it thems the breaks. But with the turn out being on a par with a GE I think the Union should be careful about trumpeting this deal or claiming an overwhelming mandate. They haven't yet, officially at least, but I think it will come across as arrogant and out of touch if they do.

"This was a strong ballot result for a strong deal and we're delighted that our members have fully supported this hard fought for agreement," said Dave Ward, the CWU's deputy general secretary.

Is that a gen up quote?

[banner18]

The agreement (and no agreement ever) supersedes the relationship between the hours you work and how much you are paid.

What about the relationship between the hours you work and what you are expected to do inside those hours?
That is what unrealistic workloads mean banner not working over your hours.
Many on this forum are in for a nasty shock over the next few months.
And just "working your hours" will not save you.

You say that, but I see the same people moaning and groaning about their duties and yet they still work in the same manner as pre SDD. They moan as more is put on them.
I keep telling them to work properly but it seems to fall on deaf ears.
It will obviously now be very difficult for them to book ot or cut off because they didn't start how they should have meant to go on.
I and a number of others did. After a revision, If the duty I did was busted, I cut off or booked ot time after time whilst also doing the job right and grafting for the hours paid.
Working your hours is the only answer for us. A manageable workload for those hours is the only answer for them.

[proper postie]

The agreement (and no agreement ever) supersedes the relationship between the hours you work and how much you are paid.

What about the relationship between the hours you work and what you are expected to do inside those hours?
That is what unrealistic workloads mean banner not working over your hours.
Many on this forum are in for a nasty shock over the next few months.
And just "working your hours" will not save you.

You say that, but I see the same people moaning and groaning about their duties and yet they still work in the same manner as pre SDD. They moan as more is put on them.
I keep telling them to work properly but it seems to fall on deaf ears.
It will obviously now be very difficult for them to book ot or cut off because they didn't start how they should have meant to go on.
I and a number of others did. After a revision, If the duty I did was busted, I cut off or booked ot time after time whilst also doing the job right and grafting for the hours paid.
Working your hours is the only answer for us. A manageable workload for those hours is the only answer for them.

Tell you one thing mucker,they can kiss ma swingers if they think I'm doing a second more than my contracted.

[banner18]

The agreement (and no agreement ever) supersedes the relationship between the hours you work and how much you are paid.

What about the relationship between the hours you work and what you are expected to do inside those hours?
That is what unrealistic workloads mean banner not working over your hours.
Many on this forum are in for a nasty shock over the next few months.
And just "working your hours" will not save you.

You say that, but I see the same people moaning and groaning about their duties and yet they still work in the same manner as pre SDD. They moan as more is put on them.
I keep telling them to work properly but it seems to fall on deaf ears.
It will obviously now be very difficult for them to book ot or cut off because they didn't start how they should have meant to go on.
I and a number of others did. After a revision, If the duty I did was busted, I cut off or booked ot time after time whilst also doing the job right and grafting for the hours paid.
Working your hours is the only answer for us. A manageable workload for those hours is the only answer for them.

Tell you one thing mucker,they can kiss ma swingers if they think I'm doing a second more than my contracted.

what about a millisecond?