Yes or no?

[BingBong]

Big day tomorrow folks. Which way will it swing? Yes or no?

[worktotime]

we would have got a big yes in our delivery office due to the amount of s**t we go through with the idiot doms , but the £300 bribe to work has thrown a few I think so the biggest majority will be a YES..

[chickenwittle]

think it will be yes but not with a massive majority and as usual nowhere near everyone will vote which always does my head in.

[BingBong]

we would have got a big yes in our delivery office due to the amount of s**t we go through with the idiot doms , but the £300 bribe to work has thrown a few I think so the biggest majority will be a YES..

Fools! £200 is already ours anyway. My god.

[OnAFlyer]

we would have got a big yes in our delivery office due to the amount of s**t we go through with the idiot doms , but the £300 bribe to work has thrown a few I think so the biggest majority will be a YES..

Fools! £200 is already ours anyway. My god.

Er, no. It's already been confirmed by both RM and the CWU (including on here) that the £300 payment is separate to the £200 Christmas bonus due this year.

They're only fools if they vote no.

[steven100]

Hopefully its a massive Yes vote. Hopefully in the next 1 year it will be cheerio RM for me so I didn't need to support the strike, but unfair workloads, bullying and harassing, pension issues .......... really its a no brainer whether your staying or going not to vote Yes. Unless you have aspirations of becoming a manager then you may vote No.

It will surely be a MASSIVE Yes vote.

[krussel]

It will be a big yes vote.

[meweavy]

It will be a yes vote, but not a big yes vote, ,too many numpties who cant see the bigger picture will probably vote no and expect the £300 no strike bribe.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Its the turn out and the size of the Yes vote that I think are the most important - due out around 3pm IIRC.

[taurus88]

I abstained. I couldn't really see any way in which the CWU could influence an as yet undisclosed company to honour as yet undetermined terms and conditions. Yes, we're supposed to be striking to protect our position, but we don't know our position. And until such time as we know who holds the majority stake in Royal Mail, we have no realistic scope of maintaining any negotiated terms. I've no problem with striking and I shall not ever cross any picket line, but I think the CWU has more faith in itself and its members if it truly believes it has clout sufficient to win this fight. Some would undoubtedly argue that one should fight irrespective, and I guess that is a fair point. But we are a marginalised minority workforce, nowadays, and modern economics is but a race to the bottom. No amount of fighting shall ease our plight. This is not olden, golden day unionism. It's unionism by numbers, going through the motions, doing what must be done in the hope that what shall be done can, by some miracle, be averted. No amount of striking will save the jobs, the pay, the conditions, of ourselves and our colleagues, if there is somebody at the top who is determined to destroy them.

[AnotherLimey]

I abstained. I couldn't really see any way in which the CWU could influence an as yet undisclosed company to honour as yet undetermined terms and conditions. Yes, we're supposed to be striking to protect our position, but we don't know our position. And until such time as we know who holds the majority stake in Royal Mail, we have no realistic scope of maintaining any negotiated terms. I've no problem with striking and I shall not ever cross any picket line, but I think the CWU has more faith in itself and its members if it truly believes it has clout sufficient to win this fight. Some would undoubtedly argue that one should fight irrespective, and I guess that is a fair point. But we are a marginalised minority workforce, nowadays, and modern economics is but a race to the bottom. No amount of fighting shall ease our plight. This is not olden, golden day unionism. It's unionism by numbers, going through the motions, doing what must be done in the hope that what shall be done can, by some miracle, be averted. No amount of striking will save the jobs, the pay, the conditions, of ourselves and our colleagues, if there is somebody at the top who is determined to destroy them.

I'd rather you voted no than not voting at all, not voting is a foolish thing to do, you speak some sense but not voting at all? your view of all is lost so why bother? to many like you my friend and if we don't fight now we truely are buggered, yes we have lost part of the battle but fighting will give our union atleast some leverage to get us something.

[blackadder]

I abstained. I couldn't really see any way in which the CWU could influence an as yet undisclosed company to honour as yet undetermined terms and conditions. Yes, we're supposed to be striking to protect our position, but we don't know our position. And until such time as we know who holds the majority stake in Royal Mail, we have no realistic scope of maintaining any negotiated terms. I've no problem with striking and I shall not ever cross any picket line, but I think the CWU has more faith in itself and its members if it truly believes it has clout sufficient to win this fight. Some would undoubtedly argue that one should fight irrespective, and I guess that is a fair point. But we are a marginalised minority workforce, nowadays, and modern economics is but a race to the bottom. No amount of fighting shall ease our plight. This is not olden, golden day unionism. It's unionism by numbers, going through the motions, doing what must be done in the hope that what shall be done can, by some miracle, be averted. No amount of striking will save the jobs, the pay, the conditions, of ourselves and our colleagues, if there is somebody at the top who is determined to destroy them.

realy do think you could have voted yes or no. there fields out in france filled with british dead so you could have your say. i do think no matter what you vote, vote

[taurus88]

I abstained. I couldn't really see any way in which the CWU could influence an as yet undisclosed company to honour as yet undetermined terms and conditions. Yes, we're supposed to be striking to protect our position, but we don't know our position. And until such time as we know who holds the majority stake in Royal Mail, we have no realistic scope of maintaining any negotiated terms. I've no problem with striking and I shall not ever cross any picket line, but I think the CWU has more faith in itself and its members if it truly believes it has clout sufficient to win this fight. Some would undoubtedly argue that one should fight irrespective, and I guess that is a fair point. But we are a marginalised minority workforce, nowadays, and modern economics is but a race to the bottom. No amount of fighting shall ease our plight. This is not olden, golden day unionism. It's unionism by numbers, going through the motions, doing what must be done in the hope that what shall be done can, by some miracle, be averted. No amount of striking will save the jobs, the pay, the conditions, of ourselves and our colleagues, if there is somebody at the top who is determined to destroy them.

realy do think you could have voted yes or no. there fields out in france filled with british dead so you could have your say. i do think no matter what you vote, vote

I did have my say. I couldn't vote no because I didn't think no was the correct way to vote. But I didn't think yes was, either. I don't hold a polarised view on whether or not we should go through the motions before cut and burn politics takes a hold. Personally, I take the view that you cannot fight something if you do not know what it is, what its intentions are, and whether or not it has the intention of playing nice when you have reached accord with all other relevant parties. If there comes a point when a new, privatised company makes an appearance, they are not bound by any sense of honour to maintain any agreements negotiated post-strike, which will simply render our position worthless and leave us in need of further strikes to attempt to negotiate a new position. I do not believe that the union is doing wrong, not at all, but I think they should have acted either a) much earlier or b) slightly later, as at both of those times, they would actually know what they were fighting for and against. Presently, they know only what they're fighting for, and they're not fighting from a position of strength. Hence the futility of the (immediate) situation.

[AnotherLimey]

I abstained. I couldn't really see any way in which the CWU could influence an as yet undisclosed company to honour as yet undetermined terms and conditions. Yes, we're supposed to be striking to protect our position, but we don't know our position. And until such time as we know who holds the majority stake in Royal Mail, we have no realistic scope of maintaining any negotiated terms. I've no problem with striking and I shall not ever cross any picket line, but I think the CWU has more faith in itself and its members if it truly believes it has clout sufficient to win this fight. Some would undoubtedly argue that one should fight irrespective, and I guess that is a fair point. But we are a marginalised minority workforce, nowadays, and modern economics is but a race to the bottom. No amount of fighting shall ease our plight. This is not olden, golden day unionism. It's unionism by numbers, going through the motions, doing what must be done in the hope that what shall be done can, by some miracle, be averted. No amount of striking will save the jobs, the pay, the conditions, of ourselves and our colleagues, if there is somebody at the top who is determined to destroy them.

realy do think you could have voted yes or no. there fields out in france filled with british dead so you could have your say. i do think no matter what you vote, vote

I did have my say. I couldn't vote no because I didn't think no was the correct way to vote. But I didn't think yes was, either. I don't hold a polarised view on whether or not we should go through the motions before cut and burn politics takes a hold. Personally, I take the view that you cannot fight something if you do not know what it is, what its intentions are, and whether or not it has the intention of playing nice when you have reached accord with all other relevant parties. If there comes a point when a new, privatised company makes an appearance, they are not bound by any sense of honour to maintain any agreements negotiated post-strike, which will simply render our position worthless and leave us in need of further strikes to attempt to negotiate a new position. I do not believe that the union is doing wrong, not at all, but I think they should have acted either a) much earlier or b) slightly later, as at both of those times, they would actually know what they were fighting for and against. Presently, they know only what they're fighting for, and they're not fighting from a position of strength. Hence the futility of the (immediate) situation.

But thier strengh comes from us, the members, they are NOTHING without us, a no vote or none at all from the likes of you only makes them stronger right? do you not realise this is the final battle? the gloves are off, it's do or die and your postion only makes us weaker, we have to fight for our pensions which are under attack for the second time and our T&C which will be destroyed if we don't stand together, could the union have acted faster yes, am i dissapointed with then yes, but a no vote all none at all as you have chosen helps no one apart from them, you are wrong mate i'm afraid to say

[Shambles]

Some people's gumption, comes from a bottle, others, from their hearts, each to their own