Did they ask the right question?

[Zootsuit]

Are you prepared to take part in industrial action consisting of a strike?

My answer to that question is actually yes, because I think as a union member if the decision to strike is made I should support it.

However, my answer to a question such as 'Do you consider that strike action will result in a positive outcome with respect to working conditions, pensions, pay guarantees and job security' my answer would be no because I can't imagine anything good can come out of it.

On other posts there are semi rabid responses to questions about bullying strike breakers. There are people excitedly jumping up and down about the prospects of strike action and 'taking them on'. I think this attitude is backward and unimaginative. All for one and one for all is dead and gone. Like the mining industry. Look after yourself and your loved ones, no one else will.

Ladies and gentlemen, I put it to you that the question is unashamedley biased toward gaining a yes majority. Soon we will all (apart from about 100 concientious objectors apparently) be shareholders in the company. The financial institutions are falling over themselves to buy in. The forecast is for a stock that will return good dividends. We should be getting stuck in and helping Royal Mail and ourselves to make more profit, not shooting ourselves in the foot on a hare brained stone aged concept of trying to hold our employers to ransom. It will not work.

I'm going to vote no because I think the question posed is emotive rather than logical. The union is counting on the primeval instincts of the worker against the manager. Most people I work with are intelligent and articulate. They are more than capable of independent thought and mature reasoning and I think sounder arguments have rained down on us from Royal Mail than have been presented by the Union.

Strike when they actually try to reduce wages to minimum rates, strike when they actually try to introduce zero hour contracts, not on the perception that you are going to be made more of a slave than you are now.

OK, only joking. Vote yes. Bin the pay rise, bin the bonuses, bin the 3 year protection of terms.
Vote yes for left wing dinosaurs and no change in what you do know and how your managers deal with you.

Vote yes for cloud cookoo land, do you want fries with that?

[tommyrep]

Kjm
I agree. The has obviously slipped into dream mode, and may realise on awakening he has just forgotten his medication.,! He cannot be real ? He is unaware of the true facts of the offer as you point out about "no strike" part of the deal. No one with any working man/class ethic could ever be bound to such a clause, it is truly the only real tool we have in our workers armoury. Without that right we are toothless and bound to life of slavery!

[ebbzie]

Oh well all the RM properganda shite we have had relentlessly over the last month or so has caught one tiny fish .

[Chelseablue]

Shakes my head,,,,are u millionaire Cameron? C OCk clegg? Moya thatcher? A banker ,or. .....A normal working class guy trying to stand up for his job, terms and conditions ,pensions and self respect ????

[wandle]

Are you prepared to take part in industrial action consisting of a strike?


Strike when they actually try to reduce wages to minimum rates, strike when they actually try to introduce zero hour contracts

He does make some good points. We're constantly told foreboding tales about 'zero hour contracts' and 'wages will be slashed', as if those things would happen with absolutely no resistance from the CWU. If the CWU are really just going to let these things come in, in 2016, without first having the mother of all industrial disputes, we may as well stop paying subs right now.

Oh, and get this. One rep in my area is actually buying additional shares over and above his free allocation .

How's that for a principled stance? Being pragmatic, and not refusing the free allocation is one thing... but if he truly believes a privatised RM will chuck thousands of posties on the dole, seeking to benefit financially from those actions is not only unprincipled, it's immoral

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Are you prepared to take part in industrial action consisting of a strike?


Ladies and gentlemen, I put it to you that the question is unashamedley biased toward gaining a yes majority.

No the question is 1 of only 2 they can ask. The only other legal Industrial Action Ballot question is.

Are you prepared to take part in industrial action short of a strike.

Any other question on an Industrial Action ballot invalidates the result.

The union is counting on the primeval instincts of the worker against the manager. Most people I work with are intelligent and articulate.

No the government that drafted the bill on Legal Industrial Action was counting on the fear and uncertainty that some Union members will understandably feel when given such a stark choice.

https://www.gov.uk/industrial-action-st ... g-a-ballot" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Questions on the voting paper
When you’re balloted, your voting paper must ask whether you want to take part in either (or both):

strike action
action short of a strike

The union can only call on members to take action if a majority of members who voted were in favour of that particular action. If both questions are asked on the ballot paper and members vote yes to both, the union can decide what industrial action to take.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/content ... on-ballots" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The ballot paper

The ballot paper used for an industrial action ballot must meet specific legal requirements. These are that the ballot paper includes:

A question asking voters, which can be answered with either a 'Yes' or a 'No', whether they are prepared to take part, or continue to take part, in strike action and/or a question asking whether they are prepared to take part, or continue to take part, in industrial action short of a strike. A union cannot 'roll up' both questions in one sentence. They must be asked separately if the action is to involve both forms of industrial action. A union does not need to specify the form of industrial action short of a strike they are contemplating. However, if they do so in literature accompanying the ballot paper, subsequent action will be restricted to that which they have outlined.
The statement: "if you take part in a strike or other industrial action, you may be in breach of your contract of employment." ·
To reflect the changes to the law of unfair dismissal, the Employment Relations Act adds the following to the above statement
"However, if you are dismissed for taking part in strike or other industrial action which is called officially and is otherwise lawful, the dismissal will be unfair if it takes place fewer than twelve weeks after you started taking part in the action, and depending on the circumstances may be unfair if it takes place later".

This statement must not be qualified or commented on by the union in any way (even where, for example, the industrial action contemplated would not in fact be a breach of contract).

The name(s) or descriptions of persons who have authority to call for industrial action, the name of the independent scrutineer, and the address to which, and the date by which, the ballot paper is to be returned. ·
A series of consecutive numbers (to prevent copying).
There is nothing to prevent the union from adding more information, provided it does not prevent the above requirements from being met, and that it does not encourage those taking part in the ballot to vote in a particular way.

The Employment Relations Act also reversed the decision in Connex South Eastern LTD v RMT [1999] IRLR 249 (Word 34Kb), where the Court of Appeal held that a trade union ban on overtime and rest-day working was within the statutory definition of a 'strike'. Therefore, overtime and call-out bans are to be treated as action short of a strike (other industrial action, as opposed to full-scale strike) for the purposes of s 229(2) of TULR(C)A.

[nataddick]

Thanks TrueBlue for taking the time to provide the legal background relating to the ballot paper.

It is all very well for MightyHunter to pontificate about the wording of the question but it really boils down to 'Do you support your union or not?'

I personally, have made an informed choice to do so and I am not swayed by the ramblings of others.

As my old boss used to say 'Lower your voice and strengthen your argument'

[bondos]

Received a letter from Moya today asking me to vote NO and informing me that if I take part in industrial action then I will not get the £300 lump sum offered in this years pay deal.

I am neither greedy nor stupid but this has really got my back up.

I will now vote YES because I will not be manipulated by tactics such as these.

And yes, I could really do with £300 but that is not the point.

Well done Moya, you have turned an apathetic into a radical.

[Lincox]

Mightyhunters argument that we should defer until such time as RM reduces our pay or applies zero hour contracts is a weak argument. Why enter the bull ring when you can stop the slaughter before it appears.

[Chelseablue]

Yeah that Moyas letter has just strengthened the yes vote , corrupt woman

[bertieboy]

Yeah that Moyas letter has just strengthened the yes vote , corrupt woman

Moya's letter changes nowt.It's a big YES from me.She can stuff her 'Judas' money.

[Pete22]

We will lose more than £300 in the long term if she manages to get a no vote.
Also if I find out that individuals are given the bribe when we are on strike I will sue her.

[Chelseablue]

She's no even from from theses parts grrrr

[redneck]

Using the business speak of the Thatcher's child who posted this I would suggest voting YES on the basis of a short to medium term investment in your future i.e. a YES vote will bring collectively a far better return from the company even after the initial loss of income due to strike action, wiping out any deficit many times over. The company will be privatised, but it was always about the checks and balances to ensure the certain race to the bottom does not commence in haste for the current and future workforce.