dingo wrote: a possible review of the BTA agreement
Looks like a bit of backtracking there,the letter sent to all members suggested that was a must,so why now only
a 'possible' review of BT2010?
Or maybe im reading it wrong,which makes think is there such a thing as a Thesaurus
of Vague Words?- that the Union and Royal Mail refer to and which only special agent Roger Poole can decode?
dingo wrote:As a result of the massive yes vote...
In which only 54% of members voted...
Thats an irrelevant point.
The fact is that all members who were ellegible to vote were given the oppertunity to vote.
If they fail to take up their chance to infuence the ballot, then the others who do vote ( and the CWU ) can hardly be held accountable for the others lack of action.
Almost all ballots / votes are run the same way
If we only allowed results where say 80% + voted in a ballot stood, then I don't think that the country would have EVER had a goverment elected, or a town council or parrish council elected either
We are all free to vote OR not to vote
But if we don't vote & leave it to others, then we can hardly complain about the outcome can we ?
gb93 wrote:
Action now would only leave London on their own, they are the only ones who have had a yes result ballot.
I believe you yourself have stated it will take some time & be difficult to get a yes vote for IA nationally.
These talks are taking place next week, let's see how they play out ( over a reasonable timeframe ).
It will be tricky for both sides but the union have two opportunities to get something from them.
The talks could go well and an agreement can be reached or RM act as bully boys and will not budge which can be used by the union to help secure a yes vote for IA nationally.
Of course their is also the danger of another 'sold down the river' feeling amongst members.
Unlike 2009 in this case a Yes vote was not designed to bring Royal Mail to the negotiating table,they have been in constant talks for almost a year over this.
It was designed to force Royal Mail to commit to zero compulsory redundancies.
It is non-negotiable and in my opinion a commitment that should be made before resuming talks.
We constantly fall into this trap of being dragged into protracted talks until such times as the threat of action recedes....If Royal Mail are progressing 300+ VR's in the Greater London Area this will severely weaken both the LDC's credibility and their bargaining position.
I think Royal Mail are stalling for time and we would be foolish to fall for it.
Question - Am I right in thinking that after a YES vote , ACTION must be called within 28 days of the ballot, or the mandate will have been deemed to have lapsed and a fresh ballot would have to be run before there could be any more action called ?
Cut Off King wrote:Question - Am I right in thinking that after a YES vote , ACTION must be called within 28 days of the ballot, or the mandate will have been deemed to have lapsed and a fresh ballot would have to be run before there could be any more action called ?
Except when negotiators reach an amicable agreement that it can be extended like last time where it was thrust into the limelight time after time that strike action was still possible.............not that it was as 2010 BT came into force................which has lasted 12 months ...just.
So are you in favour of a national ballot for IA immediately Fish,going straight into strike action if yes result if no promise of no CR from RM.
And do you think this will be a good or only tactic for the union to use.
This ain't no baseball game, you get only one chance and you blew it.
Now why would a national ballot need to be called for IA, the ballot for London CWU has already been taken and an affirmative recorded. You go to the table and RM won't play ball so you end up taking action...................go for it now and they will know you are serious from the word go. Exactly what aspirations are going to be put forward other than CRs in London?
gb93 wrote:So are you in favour of a national ballot for IA immediately Fish,going straight into strike action if yes result if no promise of no CR from RM.
And do you think this will be a good or only tactic for the union to use.
I don't think there's time for dicking around if that's what you mean.
No i don't unfortunately think the membership are ready for a national ballot despite what the delegate backslapping might indicate...there are a lot of good people attend conference but there are also a lot of union sycophants who promise much but when they get back to branch deliver nothing...
The point i am trying to make is if there is no commitment to no compulsory redundancies the rest of the talks are pointless....If there is no commitment to no compulsory redundancies which to be honest would be my first question when entering the room...why bother with the talks.
As i said....it should and must be a pre-condition,not something you hope to talk them into.
More talks,well our manager got an e-mail for volunteers to prepare go to London at short notice this is in Scotland seems RM saying one thing o the CWU again but the truth is very different.Suprise!!
Body Beyond Repair wrote:More talks,well our manager got an e-mail for volunteers to prepare go to London at short notice this is in Scotland seems RM saying one thing o the CWU again but the truth is very different.Suprise!!
Well that is a surprise indeed. Hands up all those who think RM are going to back track, now hands up all those who think this has been engineered by Royal Mail.
gb93 wrote:So are you in favour of a national ballot for IA immediately Fish,going straight into strike action if yes result if no promise of no CR from RM.
And do you think this will be a good or only tactic for the union to use.
I don't think there's time for dicking around if that's what you mean.
No i don't unfortunately think the membership are ready for a national ballot despite what the delegate backslapping might indicate...there are a lot of good people attend conference but there are also a lot of union sycophants who promise much but when they get back to branch deliver nothing...
The point i am trying to make is if there is no commitment to no compulsory redundancies the rest of the talks are pointless....If there is no commitment to no compulsory redundancies which to be honest would be my first question when entering the room...why bother with the talks.
As i said....it should and must be a pre-condition,not something you hope to talk them into.
So put yourself in the union negotiators postion, you say "No i don't unfortunately think the membership are ready for a national ballot" but then say "If there is no commitment to no compulsory redundancies which to be honest would be my first question when entering the room...why bother with the talks" so what you are saying is that London will have to fight the battle against compulsory redundancies on there own? or have I read your post wrong?
Bravery isn’t not being afraid. Bravery is being afraid but doing it anyway
can't quite get me hands up there... oh yes I can
This has been TOTALLY engineered dvb, you know it I know it and the Majority of the Work-force know it... RM want to break London simples... Yes we have in different parts of the country gone thru this Modernasation .. wsm/ dm etc but we have not done this with the REAL threat of CR. have we ... so to me the point is if we let this happen in London it will come back and bite us all on the ARSE..................................
Going by brother rockytony67 signature it would appear that the brother and I mean brother dvbuk55 has finally returned to the darkside. Long overdue ya auld goat.
"Today’s workplace has become heartless and soulless. Employees are seen as units of labour, automatons, functionaries, objects for achieving designated tasks, and as costs to be minimised."
The CWU need to have DEMANDS and if these DEMANDS are not met then no agreement should be made otherwise RM will have the PANTS down on every CWU member across the country for a THIRD time!
).
