Let's compare the turn outs

[Martin Walsh]

The strike action ballot had 72019 ballot papers-returned 56339 voted yes and 15624 voted no. This was 62% turn out.

The ballot for the agreement had 65558 ballot papers returned and 61993 voted yes and 3595 voted no in a 57% turn out.

No one on here questioned the mandate for the strike vote and people should now accept the yes vote. it would have probably been higher if there was a genuine organised opposition

[dvbuk55]

The strike action ballot had 72019 ballot papers-returned 56339 voted yes and 15624 voted no. This was 62% turn out.

The ballot for the agreement had 65558 ballot papers returned and 61993 voted yes and 3595 voted no in a 57% turn out.

No one on here questioned the mandate for the strike vote and people should now accept the yes vote. it would have probably been higher if there was a genuine organised opposition

And who would have financed that the CWU?

[mailman71]

The strike action ballot had 72019 ballot papers-returned 56339 voted yes and 15624 voted no. This was 62% turn out.

The ballot for the agreement had 65558 ballot papers returned and 61993 voted yes and 3595 voted no in a 57% turn out.

No one on here questioned the mandate for the strike vote and people should now accept the yes vote. it would have probably been higher if there was a genuine organised opposition

It is a huge vote for the union's stance so nobody can complain,if there is the same turnout in elections the politicians would be happy.

[newtimes]

The strike action ballot had 72019 ballot papers-returned 56339 voted yes and 15624 voted no. This was 62% turn out.

The ballot for the agreement had 65558 ballot papers returned and 61993 voted yes and 3595 voted no in a 57% turn out.

No one on here questioned the mandate for the strike vote and people should now accept the yes vote. it would have probably been higher if there was a genuine organised opposition

Would you question a decision which you thought was "the right and proper one".
As in a other post I ask "If we live in a society when the growing trend is for people not to vote, a minority can exploit that and promote that culture to gain power. So what I am saying, are people selling ideas to only the majority of the minority of people who actually vote."

[Lincox]

Dingo, how do you think the figures would have panned out if there had been no backdating of pay, so no lump sum?

You know that this is not an endorsement of the agreement, but a need for money from many members that work part time and cleverly manipulated by RM and the CWU to make the back pay a worth while lump sum by delaying the agreement until the Christmas Period when a large tranche of the membership would be at their most needy.

I hope it doesn,t but I think the whole fiasco of not negotiating a deal on deliveries will come back to bite the CWU.

[fishtank]

It's hard to say it's an endorsement of an agreement because this isn't an agreement, There is very little detail at all in AFG from the parcel strategy to mail centre rationalisation right through to the National Delivery Review, It's an endorsement of a framework for and agreement.

With legal protections and almost a full year of back pay getting a membership endorsement was the easy part, The hard work is only starting for the union, The blanks will need to be filled in and that's where the real worry is for members because what exactly is the union planning to do if Royal Mail starts taking a hard line and decides it wants to do most of the filling in itself?

[newtimes]

Dingo, how do you think the figures would have panned out if there had been no backdating of pay, so no lump sum?

You know that this is not an endorsement of the agreement, but a need for money from many members that work part time and cleverly manipulated by RM and the CWU to make the back pay a worth while lump sum by delaying the agreement until the Christmas Period when a large tranche of the membership would be at their most needy.

I hope it doesn,t but I think the whole fiasco of not negotiating a deal on deliveries will come back to bite the CWU.

Could that imply the leadership in the CWU have manipulated the situation to get a yes vote. Does this type of behaviour create an environment for apathy to grow.

[leadseal]

The strike action ballot had 72019 ballot papers-returned 56339 voted yes and 15624 voted no. This was 62% turn out.

The ballot for the agreement had 65558 ballot papers returned and 61993 voted yes and 3595 voted no in a 57% turn out.

No one on here questioned the mandate for the strike vote and people should now accept the yes vote. it would have probably been higher if there was a genuine organised opposition

Spot on, a yes vote was a yes vote in the eyes of RMC despite the turnout. Same applies here.

[Martin Walsh]

I am have been a member of this board for about 7 years , I have contributed and supplied a fair amount of information which most members do not get.

I think the board is useful and both postman and TBT give a vital outlet for postmen and women. There are some very good posters Fishtank is one I respect a great deal and whilst we probably disagree on most issues we do both I believe have the members at heart first and foremost.

I think however it is disrespectful that some on here believe that the back pay was the reason for the yes vote being so big. I believe that members are concerned about the threat of privatisation. Look at other industries even within our own union in BT they used to be one, after privatisation BT split into different lines of business with outsourcing to India , Hungary , Manila , they have outsourced work to manpower They have broken up the company , they have a two tier workforce in new grid , they have franchised operations.

Most other companies which have privatised have ended up the same. Look at the RMT the reason they have so many ballots is that all the rail companies have been franchised and they are fighting that .

Most on here mocked and ridiculed the legal protections but they now will stop that from happening. We already know a number of private equilty companies are attempting to buy up shares to get more influence on the board. They are not bothered about service they are not bothered about staff or quality they are just about profit.

This is why a lot of Branch's recomended the deal and members voted for it. The pay rise is good .

You may not believe this but I have repsresented some of your views more than most at all levels.

But you do yourself no favours by believing every delivery office is being attacked and bullied. I agree that we need to stop this from happening but rejecting this agreement was not the answer. The CWU is rolling out the Dignity and Fairness and respect agreement but the negotations on delivery is about shaping the future not fighting the battles of the past? This agreement will now review effiency to see if Royal Mail targets are achievable .realistic and sustainable. This is now the battleground.

[The_Wax_Man]

Dingo,

Agreed with many of your posts and to a degree somewhat of the above. - I certainly appreciate your openness, and candor to many discussions.

A very high % of Members on this agreement saw the ££ signs and that was that - If the case of transparency as you argue, then why was a very high % the verbatim coming from the CWU in the last few weeks about Vote yes because you are getting ££ paid, and so and so backdated.


I've spent many years on the corporate ladder and can read,speak,understand waffle. - A lot of unrationalised waffle in the agreement outlines that have been given as nothing more than header notes to members.

Lot's of talk about the future being 'shaped, revised, efficiency being reviewed. - where is the meat on these bones - where is the precise plan of action, where is the business plan details for the next 12 months following this agreement ? - Not just on deliveries but the way forward into a parcel company that RM is so keen on telling us about ? - If this does not exist, then what the hell is this agreement about about ? - What is being hidden? What has not been said ? - Every company has a business plan, with every PL broken down into extreme projections, forecasts, actuals and growth strategy - Has RM got this available to it's staff ?

We've not seen that in detail at all - All that has been seen in detail is that where it discusses what ££ could be given (bonus/backpay/payrises etc ) if ( and it has ) been voted in. Look at the threads on here - how many replies are from people saying when are we getting paid, how much, what do I spend it on blah blah. - That is what got this vote.

It's a shambles turnout voted in on a game of pounds & pence, not real meat, - I'd like to revisit this post in 12 months time to see what the 'real deal' turned out to be.



It could well be this from FT- A lot of RM filling methinks

It's hard to say it's an endorsement of an agreement because this isn't an agreement, There is very little detail at all in AFG from the parcel strategy to mail centre rationalisation right through to the National Delivery Review, It's an endorsement of a framework for and agreement.

With legal protections and almost a full year of back pay getting a membership endorsement was the easy part, The hard work is only starting for the union, The blanks will need to be filled in and that's where the real worry is for members because what exactly is the union planning to do if Royal Mail starts taking a hard line and decides it wants to do most of the filling in itself?

[BernardBresslaw]

Dingo you are living in cloud-cuckoo land. Members voted for back-pay and a pay-rise, nothing more, nothing less. Nothing wrong with that mind you, just don't pretend it was anything else.

[pudz1224]

do some of u guys actually see past the end of your nose? `dingo is spot on,voting yes wasn't just about the money but the bigger picture of a wee bit of job security for a few more years,not many places you can say that at the moment. But carry on thinking what u think,and live in your small sublime world.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Things is whichever way you voted, and indeed even if you didn't, there is no doubt many reasons why you decided to do what you did.

People from both sides of the argument who try to pin it down to one particular point are trying to make an absurd conclusion from a complicated issue. Its called Reductio ad Absurdum, and all anyone really knows is why they voted the way THEY did.

Whilst discussing the reasons for the result is interesting its fairly certain that there were 5k different reasons for voting No and 60k reasons for voting yes and roughly the same for not voting, or not being able to vote. Do we really have to be condescending about how others voted just because it was different to our choice or reason.

[fishtank]

do some of u guys actually see past the end of your nose? `dingo is spot on,voting yes wasn't just about the money but the bigger picture of a wee bit of job security for a few more years,not many places you can say that at the moment. But carry on thinking what u think,and live in your small sublime world.

Do you ever post anything without a display of (usually smug) moral superiority derived from a sense that your beliefs are of greater virtue than those of anyone else?

This agreement is a lot of different things to a lot of different people and only time will tell whether it lives up to the hype but one thing even the top bods at the CWU will admit is that it is a step into the unknown, a gamble, one that may or may not pay off, that's why they use words like "unprecedented" and "groundbreaking".

Nobody will know why members voted to accept it, not me, not you and not dingo, All we know is that they did and we move on from there.

[gluteus maximus]

Might i be so bold as to ask how many Ballot papers were issued

95.5 % yes vote
57% yes vote on Ballot papers returned
What has happened to the other 43 % of Ballot papers issued

How many members are there in the postal section of the CWU, and

TOTAL NUMBER OF ballot papers despatched to the members