I'm voting no

BeamishStout · Post by **BeamishStout** » 17 Sep 2017, 07:12

chrisj wrote:Furthermore, RM has now come up with sums claiming the CWU will make 70% worse off.

I saw this on my pda friday but there was no detail. Surprised this has not been picked up by more folk or the cwu yet.

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 17 Sep 2017, 16:19

chrisj wrote:Some even said a YES vote does not mean one has to go on strike - what is that all about? You are being balloted fir a strike and a snake dance; it might be bloody or fatal.

Really? You don't understand how democracy works?

The bigger the yes vote, the stronger the Unions position is.

The stronger the Unions position the more likely there will be a compromise deal acceptable to the majority of members.

The bigger the No Vote, the weaker the Unions Position is. The weaker the Unions position the less likely Royal Mail will compromise.

It's not a difficult concept, but it is one some struggle to understand.

Also even if you do vote Yes for a strike, there is no law, process or contract that demands you honour that vote - though I will.

Post by **POSTMAN** » 17 Sep 2017, 17:16

I have voted YES for strike action in every ballot we have had and voted NO for every agreement that has come out of said strike action.

For instance I can't rem what agreement it was to screw new starters over the 1st year no sick pay thing, like I said I voted no for every agreement as each agreement was/is, a recipe for disaster and would always be interpreted by managers differently to what was actually in the agreement, the wording of every agreement is s**t.

CWU to this day have not learnt their lesson with that, will they in any new agreements.

I feel for the newbies and part timers, they could be the downfall in this dispute.

CWU to this day seem to have not learnt their lesson with the newbies and part timers, will it now bite them on the arse.

And lets not forget the ignorance of " some if not most " full timers/senior staff ignoring newbies and part timers. troubles.

Post by **POSTMAN** » 17 Sep 2017, 17:18

Just went to look at the vote thread, at the time of writing this is the latest post on it...

it's a NO for me guys.

As a part time floater I have never received one ounce of help from any senior members who all have easy rounds and yet moan, moan, moan.
I complained in a wtl that I haven't had a saturday off in 9 months and not one person backed me up - the cwu rep even said " operational needs"
I'll do my 25 hours same as usual - which is what I do every week.
I've come to realise its each man for himself with royal mail so I'm voting for me.
If I dont like any changes then I'll leave and get another job.
Not too sure if its true but another part time said in 2008 the CWU stitched up 2008 + starters with pensions.
Not meaning to antagonise but thats how I feel

Post by **SpacePhoenix** » 17 Sep 2017, 17:25

POSTMAN wrote:I have voted YES for strike action in every ballot we have had and voted NO for every agreement that has come out of said strike action.

For instance I can't rem what agreement it was to screw new starters over the 1st year no sick pay thing, like I said I voted no for every agreement as each agreement was/is, a recipe for disaster and would always be interpreted by managers differently to what was actually in the agreement, the wording of every agreement is s**t.

CWU to this day have not learnt their lesson with that, will they in any new agreements.

I feel for the newbies and part timers, they could be the downfall in this dispute.

CWU to this day seem to have not learnt their lesson with the newbies and part timers, will it now bite them on the arse.

And lets not forget the ignorance of " some if not most " full timers/senior staff ignoring newbies and part timers. troubles.

Aren't the part-timers in a way their own worst enemy? If they all stuck with just their contract hours, RM might have been forced to make more of them upto full time. Why does RM need to make part-timers up to full time when they can get the work covered as needed by part-timers on ot?

chrisj · Post by **chrisj** » 17 Sep 2017, 18:05

Maybe if the full time staff also stick to their contractual hours with no overtime, scheduled attendance and just working their contractual hours, maybe RM will also employ more staff.

Since the poster works in a mail centre or distribution, I will just shake my head and sigh...

* In this hard times, we expect people to just work 20, 24 and 27 hours (and no OT) and still be able to feed their families.

The irony is that some FT staff are already specifying how long they can last for in a strike (by the way I do understand the issues of big mandate - just ask Theresa May and the Tories... Ha ha ha).

Postman - thank you... I'll watch, wait and see...

Post by **aiden01** » 17 Sep 2017, 18:23

chrisj wrote:Maybe if the full time staff also stick to their contractual hours with no overtime, scheduled attendance and just working their contractual hours, maybe RM will also employ more staff.

Since the poster works in a mail centre or distribution, I will just shake my head and sigh...

* In this hard times, we expect people to just work 20, 24 and 27 hours (and no OT) and still be able to feed their families.

The irony is that some FT staff are already specifying how long they can last for in a strike (by the way I do understand the issues of big mandate - just ask Theresa May and the Tories... Ha ha ha).

Postman - thank you... I'll watch, wait and see...

Work pt myself but will be voting yes and me and my family will get by just not be having sausage chips and beans every night.

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 17 Sep 2017, 18:24

It is not the case so if you work in a delivery office they just shuffle the staff around like cattle a work to whose rule won't work the whole idea of this action is too make respect dignity in the workplace a right and that flows through to retirement too! As for part timers we have a 35 hour working week which would also bump up the hourly wage but more importantly is that pro rata agreements would be closer than they are today but even bigger than that we believe if you work full time hours you should be made full time may happen quicker with a 35 hour working week!

Post by **POSTMAN** » 18 Sep 2017, 00:24

SpacePhoenix wrote:
POSTMAN wrote:I have voted YES for strike action in every ballot we have had and voted NO for every agreement that has come out of said strike action.

For instance I can't rem what agreement it was to screw new starters over the 1st year no sick pay thing, like I said I voted no for every agreement as each agreement was/is, a recipe for disaster and would always be interpreted by managers differently to what was actually in the agreement, the wording of every agreement is s**t.

CWU to this day have not learnt their lesson with that, will they in any new agreements.

I feel for the newbies and part timers, they could be the downfall in this dispute.

CWU to this day seem to have not learnt their lesson with the newbies and part timers, will it now bite them on the arse.

And lets not forget the ignorance of " some if not most " full timers/senior staff ignoring newbies and part timers. troubles.
Aren't the part-timers in a way their own worst enemy? If they all stuck with just their contract hours, RM might have been forced to make more of them upto full time. Why does RM need to make part-timers up to full time when they can get the work covered as needed by part-timers on ot?

It's life in business all over the world now as we all know,shitty little contracts because of sick and holiday pay.
Another industry my boy is on a 10hr contract but works 30+hrs a week and they wont give him a higher contract.
Only today my daughter was talking to a Gravesend (kent) postie who is on a 6hr contract!! but works 50hrs a week.
Most people know how the system works in the world now so they grab what contract they can cause they know they can usually make it up.

My boy is in Argos, my other daughter was on a 15hr contract at ASDA but never worked it.
Every body on here know someone outside of Royal Mail who is in a s**t contract job.

It's life.

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 18 Sep 2017, 09:44

The question isn't where we are or how we got here that's done and dusted. The question is what we do to improve it. I can't see how a no vote is going to help anyone in this industry no matter what contract they're on. It's just a case of petulant self harming.

Like Postman I've voted to reject every agreement shoved under my nose by the union and openly campaigned for a no vote on here and elsewhere ( against the wishes of my branch) primarily because they've let down one section or another of the members but I know that without a strong mandate from the members and the threat of strike action those agreements would have been even weaker and the conditions for new starts and part-time staff would also have been much worse.

Post by **rogersh** » 18 Sep 2017, 10:27

On a similar note I know many feel let down by the union. I have experienced three instances with two Area reps in which I have had to go above them to obtain a resolution. It's ironic therefore Royal mail want to get rid of area reps. However my vote is not influenced by those personal experiences, I voted yes on looking at the bigger picture.

Post by **Nick b** » 18 Sep 2017, 15:55

I wonder how many of you were aware but back in the 1990s the members actually voted no to a strike. So what happened? The union to their eternal credit took it on the chin manned up and went back to the negotiation table. RMG to their credit did not take any advantage of this, and the result (after tough negotiations) on both sides was a good result for the members. I am aware it was different times, and there may/maybe not a political agenda to this one. But a no vote is not necessarily the end of the road.

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 18 Sep 2017, 16:10

Nick b wrote:I wonder how many of you were aware but back in the 1990s the members actually voted no to a strike. So what happened? The union to their eternal credit took it on the chin manned up and went back to the negotiation table. RMG to their credit did not take any advantage of this, and the result (after tough negotiations) on both sides was a good result for the members. I am aware it was different times, and there may/maybe not a political agenda to this one. But a no vote is not necessarily the end of the road.

Do you think it will be a no vote I don't more worried about turnout than anything else so get voting have your real say.

Post by **Lounge Lizard** » 18 Sep 2017, 16:19

Nick b wrote:I wonder how many of you were aware but back in the 1990s the members actually voted no to a strike. So what happened? The union to their eternal credit took it on the chin manned up and went back to the negotiation table. RMG to their credit did not take any advantage of this, and the result (after tough negotiations) on both sides was a good result for the members. I am aware it was different times, and there may/maybe not a political agenda to this one. But a no vote is not necessarily the end of the road.

Nick,
Interesting information there but "it was different times" are the most relevant four words.

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 18 Sep 2017, 19:56

Nick b wrote:I wonder how many of you were aware but back in the 1990s the members actually voted no to a strike. So what happened? The union to their eternal credit took it on the chin manned up and went back to the negotiation table. RMG to their credit did not take any advantage of this, and the result (after tough negotiations) on both sides was a good result for the members. I am aware it was different times, and there may/maybe not a political agenda to this one. But a no vote is not necessarily the end of the road.

That's rewriting history.
What happened in London? How many days were they out to get that "good result"? I think it was around 20.