LATEST SWP NO VOTE INFO

lovejoy · Post by **lovejoy** » 13 Nov 2007, 20:14

NOT THAT I AGREE WITH MAJORITY OF VIEWS ALL INFO HELPS DEBATE

Myself and thousands of other postal workers across Britain this week received ballot papers from our CWU union asking us if we are willing to accept a leadership-backed deal to end our long running dispute.

But the deal that is being recommended is a poor one. We should send back our papers with a big cross in the no column â€“ and ask all our colleagues to do the same.

On the key issues of flexible working, pay and pensions our negotiators have handed management most of what it wanted, extracting only limited concessions for the union.

Under the deal some flexible working is to be brought in by agreement with the union at a local level.

Trust

Other changes, including â€œlongs and shortsâ€

Post by **mdecwu** » 13 Nov 2007, 22:32

You can add North West Central Amal to your list of branches that have overwhelmingly/Unanimously rejected this deal and are actively campaigning for a NO vote!! :cfo :cfo :cfo :cfo :cfo :cfo

Razzamadazz · Post by **Razzamadazz** » 13 Nov 2007, 22:55

My Branch is one of the branches actively campaigning for a NO vote and I whole heartedly agree with their recommendation.

As the PROPOSED Pay & Modernisation Agreement stands:

Section 1: Employee Pay and Benefits

Most members will tell you that the strike action we took wasnâ€™t really about the pay issue, however to offer us Â£175 funded by the ESOS pot is an absolute slap in the face. Thatâ€™s our money away, earned through savings made in each office. As for the rest, will the pay increase really be worth it to our delivery members if we canâ€™t secure the Â£25 - Â£30 earned through delivering D2Dâ€™s each week? What they giveth with one hand they taketh away with the other.

Section 2: Delivering Change and Flexibility

Start times and Network 2007, which is all based on a lie over the 56mph legislation.

So we get to review the changes at Local Level that were implemented via executive action, big deal. A lot of our members actually enjoy starting later, OK, so we can help with peopleâ€™s individual circumstances but to quote a phrase Iâ€™ve heard a lot recently â€œthe words are the wordsâ€

tenpole tudorsack · Post by **tenpole tudorsack** » 14 Nov 2007, 05:27

"NO" "NO" "NO"

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bOrW7z6rtfY

gary1122 · Post by **gary1122** » 14 Nov 2007, 08:39

You can add Gwent Amal as recommending a No vote

strangler · Post by **strangler** » 14 Nov 2007, 16:19

Does anyone know roughly how many CWU branches there are. It`d be interesting to see via this thread what percentage of the branches are recommending a NO vote.

rathbonepostie · Post by **rathbonepostie** » 14 Nov 2007, 16:32

Couple of points:

The SWP article mentions a postworker poster. I've not seen it and it doesn't seem to be on the postworker site. Anyone know where it is?

On the pay incrase, the more I think about, the more I realise its actually a lot worse than most of us have said:

The lump sum is simply money RM owes us, so we have 0 pay increase between April and October this year. The 5.4% covering the next two years. So, in effect 5.4% covering 30 months - the equivalent of less than 2.2% per year.
Just in case anyone tries saying the Â£175 lump sum makes up for the lack of a pay increase, remember a pay increase goes on your basic, pensionable pay and the Â£175 doesn't.

On flexibility, local management are already touting revision proposals to give us a 9 1/2 hour Friday.

lovejoy · Post by **lovejoy** » 14 Nov 2007, 16:39

rathbonepostie wrote:Couple of points:

The SWP article mentions a postworker poster. I've not seen it and it doesn't seem to be on the postworker site. Anyone know where it is?

On the pay incrase, the more I think about, the more I realise its actually a lot worse than most of us have said:

The lump sum is simply money RM owes us, so we have 0 pay increase between April and October this year. The 5.4% covering the next two years. So, in effect 5.4% covering 30 months - the equivalent of less than 2.2% per year.
Just in case anyone tries saying the Â£175 lump sum makes up for the lack of a pay increase, remember a pay increase goes on your basic, pensionable pay and the Â£175 doesn't.

On flexibility, local management are already touting revision proposals to give us a 9 1/2 hour Friday.

i think they mean this one mate
http://cwurankandfile.files.wordpress.c ... eaflet.pdf

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 14 Nov 2007, 16:40

rathbonepostie wrote:Couple of points:

The SWP article mentions a postworker poster. I've not seen it and it doesn't seem to be on the postworker site. Anyone know where it is?

On the pay incrase, the more I think about, the more I realise its actually a lot worse than most of us have said:

The lump sum is simply money RM owes us, so we have 0 pay increase between April and October this year. The 5.4% covering the next two years. So, in effect 5.4% covering 30 months - the equivalent of less than 2.2% per year.
Just in case anyone tries saying the Â£175 lump sum makes up for the lack of a pay increase, remember a pay increase goes on your basic, pensionable pay and the Â£175 doesn't.

On flexibility, local management are already touting revision proposals to give us a 9 1/2 hour Friday.

I know one of the guys personally I will contact him on Thursday when I back in and see if I can get some and scan and copy them.

bubbagump · Post by **bubbagump** » 14 Nov 2007, 21:38

I have just come across some literature in my office, from the Belfast CWU which i believe says it all about this deal. Even Royal Mail are openly touting what its means to posties in Northern Ireland. No wonder all our Branches are rejecting it.

Even Forest has the sense not to vote for this - he's NO Turkey

BELFAST DELIVERY NEWS
SPECIAL PAY DEAL ISSUE

Pay Deal Exclusiveâ€”Michael says
â€œlike Turkeys voting for Christmasâ€

chayoliver · Post by **chayoliver** » 15 Nov 2007, 15:37

I have voted no, but can some one tell me because im a bit miffed after receiving my what i call propaganda from the CWU on about what an achievement they have done, yes ok i gree they got some where but when we went out for the four day strike im sure id already read the agreement because RM circulated it in our offices before we went out, so what had changed after the four day stike F*ck all but cwu keep spouting off about the 5.4% that they have got us but that was already on the table before the four days, so i would like to know what was achieved after the four days ?????? as it all looked the same to me

rathbonepostie · Post by **rathbonepostie** » 16 Nov 2007, 19:58

Lovejoy, I don't think they mean the poster at http://cwurankandfile.files.wordpress.c ... eaflet.pdf , that's not a postworker one.

lovejoy wrote:
rathbonepostie wrote:Couple of points:

The SWP article mentions a postworker poster. I've not seen it and it doesn't seem to be on the postworker site. Anyone know where it is?

On the pay incrase, the more I think about, the more I realise its actually a lot worse than most of us have said:

The lump sum is simply money RM owes us, so we have 0 pay increase between April and October this year. The 5.4% covering the next two years. So, in effect 5.4% covering 30 months - the equivalent of less than 2.2% per year.
Just in case anyone tries saying the Â£175 lump sum makes up for the lack of a pay increase, remember a pay increase goes on your basic, pensionable pay and the Â£175 doesn't.

On flexibility, local management are already touting revision proposals to give us a 9 1/2 hour Friday.
i think they mean this one mate
http://cwurankandfile.files.wordpress.c ... eaflet.pdf

lovejoy · Post by **lovejoy** » 16 Nov 2007, 20:06

rathbonepostie wrote:Lovejoy, I don't think they mean the poster at http://cwurankandfile.files.wordpress.c ... eaflet.pdf , that's not a postworker one.

lovejoy wrote:
rathbonepostie wrote:Couple of points:

The SWP article mentions a postworker poster. I've not seen it and it doesn't seem to be on the postworker site. Anyone know where it is?

On the pay incrase, the more I think about, the more I realise its actually a lot worse than most of us have said:

The lump sum is simply money RM owes us, so we have 0 pay increase between April and October this year. The 5.4% covering the next two years. So, in effect 5.4% covering 30 months - the equivalent of less than 2.2% per year.
Just in case anyone tries saying the Â£175 lump sum makes up for the lack of a pay increase, remember a pay increase goes on your basic, pensionable pay and the Â£175 doesn't.

On flexibility, local management are already touting revision proposals to give us a 9 1/2 hour Friday.
i think they mean this one mate
http://cwurankandfile.files.wordpress.c ... eaflet.pdf

I thought that mate but apparently it was written by postworker people

DGP1 · Post by **DGP1** » 16 Nov 2007, 22:16

[quote="bubbagump"]

I have just come across some literature in my office, from the Belfast CWU which i believe says it all about this deal. Even Royal Mail are openly touting what its means to posties in Northern Ireland. No wonder all our Branches are rejecting it.

Even Forest has the sense not to vote for this - he's NO Turkey

BELFAST DELIVERY NEWS
SPECIAL PAY DEAL ISSUE

Pay Deal Exclusiveâ€”Michael says
â€œlike Turkeys voting for Christmasâ€

Tamsky · Post by **Tamsky** » 16 Nov 2007, 23:53

I know the postie who wrote the article and he meant the CWU rank and file poster.

I voted No and do the job properly

ROYALMAILCHAT