Consultative Ballot Question 3 - CWU Pay Claim

[clashcityrocker]

1 You still haven't said how long you think this straw poll will take. Although you are quite clear that if some of our cousins in the sticks get left out - well that's OK. (Winners and losers anyone)
2. Anyone on annual leave/day off they don't get a say in your poll either.
3. This poll would have to be conducted on the gate - so anyone who can't be arsed to go out, there view won't get counted either.
4. The show of hands is never a good idea because people don't like to be seen going against the majority. All it takes is a couple of Larry loudmouths to sway a whole office. It isn't really very representative.
5. You have absolutely no idea what would be the legal implications of your IA straw poll.

Instead we have a consultative ballot which will clearly demonstrate the members' willingness to follow the CWU lead or not.
It doesn't mention industrial action though it was made quite clear to us that this is possibly the way this is going to go.

The issues before us - privatisation/pay/savings and unfair competition are being clearly placed before the membership. The CWU is making it quite plain to the members what the issues are. They are doing the communicating some people have constantly complained is missing from the CWU.

But you carry on with your little straw poll. Do be sure to let us know how it went.

[Cut Off King]

Q-Do you support the CWU pay claim?

What exactly is the CWU pay claim ? what are they asking for, what are the exact details of the claim ?

You can't vote until you know the details

[TrueBlueTerrier]

[Cut Off King]

The leaflet is short on detail

How much above inflation?
what's the details of the bonus scheme

they must have a figure in mind

[dvbuk55]

1 You still haven't said how long you think this straw poll will take. Although you are quite clear that if some of our cousins in the sticks get left out - well that's OK. (Winners and losers anyone)
2. Anyone on annual leave/day off they don't get a say in your poll either.
3. This poll would have to be conducted on the gate - so anyone who can't be arsed to go out, there view won't get counted either.
4. The show of hands is never a good idea because people don't like to be seen going against the majority. All it takes is a couple of Larry loudmouths to sway a whole office. It isn't really very representative.
5. You have absolutely no idea what would be the legal implications of your IA straw poll.

Instead we have a consultative ballot which will clearly demonstrate the members' willingness to follow the CWU lead or not.
It doesn't mention industrial action though it was made quite clear to us that this is possibly the way this is going to go.

The issues before us - privatisation/pay/savings and unfair competition are being clearly placed before the membership. The CWU is making it quite plain to the members what the issues are. They are doing the communicating some people have constantly complained is missing from the CWU.

But you carry on with your little straw poll. Do be sure to let us know how it went.

Winners and Losers - the CWU invented that phrase after BT 2010. the consultative ballot tells nothing other than the member will vote yes to them all and that is a million miles from taking any industrial action which is totally a separate issue. The union shouldn't need a consultative ballot it should be in tune with the members and the questions are fully loaded for a YES - how much of an idiot wouldn't see the outcome of that ballot BEFORE it was taken.

[Cut Off King]

Winners and Losers - the CWU invented that phrase after BT 2010. the consultative ballot tells nothing other than the member will vote yes to them all and that is a million miles from taking any industrial action which is totally a separate issue. The union shouldn't need a consultative ballot it should be in tune with the members and the questions are fully loaded for a YES - how much of an idiot wouldn't see the outcome of that ballot BEFORE it was taken.

Its almost as if Alex Salmond wrote the questions.........

[daveyeff]

The leaflet is short on detail

How much above inflation?
what's the details of the bonus scheme

they must have a figure in mind

dingo said inflation was 3.2% in march and that is what they will be seeking

[daveyeff]

interestingly,,today, the branch secretary and area rep were at ours for the consultative ballot. and surprisingly they were allowed in the office downstairs on our bait time to do it. the b/s said its never been known for them to be allowed in the office for balloting issues etc. it was scheduled to be held in the yard at the gate, so he said they were amazed. which begs the question ''do royal mail secretly want us to boycott the mail''? ,,,,the area rep thought so. also i asked about the pay deal. because rm have said they are now insisting they will not make an offer until outstanding bt issues are resolved.,,, does this mean we will have to wait until every office have gone through their revision BEFORE we get our rise?? because there is still about 50% of the offices yet to go through their revisions and it took us 3 YEARS to get to this stage. he could not answer and could not give a timescale on it. he said dave ward was keeping his cards close to his chest. which wasnt very reassuring.

[Pat Ostman]

1 You still haven't said how long you think this straw poll will take. Although you are quite clear that if some of our cousins in the sticks get left out - well that's OK. (Winners and losers anyone)
2. Anyone on annual leave/day off they don't get a say in your poll either.
3. This poll would have to be conducted on the gate - so anyone who can't be arsed to go out, there view won't get counted either.
4. The show of hands is never a good idea because people don't like to be seen going against the majority. All it takes is a couple of Larry loudmouths to sway a whole office. It isn't really very representative.
5. You have absolutely no idea what would be the legal implications of your IA straw poll.

Instead we have a consultative ballot which will clearly demonstrate the members' willingness to follow the CWU lead or not.
It doesn't mention industrial action though it was made quite clear to us that this is possibly the way this is going to go.

The issues before us - privatisation/pay/savings and unfair competition are being clearly placed before the membership. The CWU is making it quite plain to the members what the issues are. They are doing the communicating some people have constantly complained is missing from the CWU.

But you carry on with your little straw poll. Do be sure to let us know how it went.

Winners and Losers - the CWU invented that phrase after BT 2010. the consultative ballot tells nothing other than the member will vote yes to them all and that is a million miles from taking any industrial action which is totally a separate issue. The union shouldn't need a consultative ballot it should be in tune with the members and the questions are fully loaded for a YES - how much of an idiot wouldn't see the outcome of that ballot BEFORE it was taken.

I have to agree, this ballot is pointless as the questions are rhetorical. Nothing is on the line, there is no commitment to back up the yes, which they will get on all points.

So what would you do when the majority, as they will, vote yes on all points because I would like to move to that part. I do see your point on delaying the eventual ballot however.

[clashcityrocker]

Of course the questions are loaded to produce a yes vote.
How could they possibly go back to negotiations without any such endorsement?

CWU: We want an above inflation pay rise.
RM: But that position isn't supported by your members is it?

[dvbuk55]

Of course the questions are loaded to produce a yes vote.
How could they possibly go back to negotiations without any such endorsement?

CWU: We want an above inflation pay rise.
RM: But that position isn't supported by your members is it?

So every pay claim has gone to a consultative ballot - please refresh my memory I must have missed it/them - actually I don't ever remember any other consultative ballot during my service to endorse the unions negotiation - RM must assume that the CWU members actually support the people they pay the money to, wouldn't you think? If not there is something very wrong!

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Of course the questions are loaded to produce a yes vote.
How could they possibly go back to negotiations without any such endorsement?

CWU: We want an above inflation pay rise.
RM: But that position isn't supported by your members is it?

So every pay claim has gone to a consultative ballot - please refresh my memory I must have missed it/them - actually I don't ever remember any other consultative ballot during my service to endorse the unions negotiation - RM must assume that the CWU members actually support the people they pay the money to, wouldn't you think? If not there is something very wrong!

Sometimes DVBUK I think your are being obtuse for enjoyment and to be fair sometimes it can have some comedic value.

Of course the Union can say that the members support them, but if they have a consultative ballot its physical evidence that xx% support that particular position. The previous pay negotiations were in a different climate both industrially and politicly and the Union officials decided that a strike ballot was they way to achieve their aims. This time they believe, probably because of the number of issues, that a consultative ballot is the best way to go.

For once I agree with them, you have to change tactics on how you approach certain situations and take into account the national conditions and industrial atmosphere. Back in 2009 and 2007 the Union were being forced into action by local actions and a consultative ballot was inappropriate and a waste of time. Now in 2013, the appetite, even on here, for a strike is not at the same levels as back then. The Union are now guiding the membership and that's why a consultative ballot is more appropriate, after all there is no point leading a charge into battle, just to turn round and see the foot soldiers aren't following

[fishtank]

It could be valid to say that circumstances may have overtaken the need for a consultative ballot and it's an expensive,time consuming distraction now.

If it is supported very strongly across the country it might give us a slightly stronger bargaining position.
If it isn't or it shows up pockets of weakness we could be in a very bad place indeed,weaker through the exposure of weakness than we would be without it.
It probably appealed to HQ as a low risk strategy since nothing was really on the line but unless HQ has no intention of balloting the membership nationally for Industrial Action it's actually increased the risk of us looking weak.

If we get weak support from the consultative ballot we are screwed,there will be no national IA ballot in my opinion.
If we get strong support but get complacent and follow that up with a rejection of an IA ballot we're screwed.
Nevertheless we are where we are and have to make the best of it.

[dvbuk55]

Of course the questions are loaded to produce a yes vote.
How could they possibly go back to negotiations without any such endorsement?

CWU: We want an above inflation pay rise.
RM: But that position isn't supported by your members is it?

So every pay claim has gone to a consultative ballot - please refresh my memory I must have missed it/them - actually I don't ever remember any other consultative ballot during my service to endorse the unions negotiation - RM must assume that the CWU members actually support the people they pay the money to, wouldn't you think? If not there is something very wrong!

Sometimes DVBUK I think your are being obtuse for enjoyment and to be fair sometimes it can have some comedic value.

Of course the Union can say that the members support them, but if they have a consultative ballot its physical evidence that xx% support that particular position. The previous pay negotiations were in a different climate both industrially and politicly and the Union officials decided that a strike ballot was they way to achieve their aims. This time they believe, probably because of the number of issues, that a consultative ballot is the best way to go.

For once I agree with them, you have to change tactics on how you approach certain situations and take into account the national conditions and industrial atmosphere. Back in 2009 and 2007 the Union were being forced into action by local actions and a consultative ballot was inappropriate and a waste of time. Now in 2013, the appetite, even on here, for a strike is not at the same levels as back then. The Union are now guiding the membership and that's why a consultative ballot is more appropriate, after all there is no point leading a charge into battle, just to turn round and see the foot soldiers aren't following

I'm not being obtuse at all, there are those on here who seem to think that a consultative ballot is the holy grail. What position of strength does a fully loaded questionnaire to produce a yes vote give an impression of? IMO the union are guiding us down the wrong path by actually consulting the members on any action they take SHORT of IA.

Lets put things in perspective. If you ask any group of people four questions which can only be realistically answered in one way would that be representative of the groups position? I submit it wouldn't. If you galvanise the members with meetings and full time officials putting forward the likelihood of industrial action and the pros and cons of such action I believe it would be a more honest way of dealing with the members and have a far greater impact if you go to the employer with a mandate for action. The consultative ballot does nothing to impress.

[clashcityrocker]

The consultative ballot does nothing to impress.

It does nothing to impress you.
But what does exactly?
Your position seems to be - the CWU should consult the members, but when they do it is wrong.
We are where we are - and you are in your usual position of criticising anything and everything the CWU does.
I can't be the only one bored to tears by it.