Is the Double Ballot a Cynical & Desperate move by Union

[chewi]

It was explained at the Bounemouth national briefing and every other meeting that there would be two ballots one on the agreement and one on the MTSF , that why ROMEC Reps , ADMIN reps , Post office counters reps , cash handling reps , parcel force reps and quadrant reps were invited to the national briefing.

The changes to MTSF does effect them , for example the number of post offices including crown offices have declined over the year and the changes to excess fares is important, there is a quadrant review being untaken nationally and other changes. The changes from October in terms of the criteria for VR will effect everyone too as the Post Office new retirement age will be 65. In the past it has been 60 with the possibility of being retained after this period on a rolling basis.

If as some have argued on here that those who vote on the agreement will also be voting on the MTSF is wrong as the numbers in Royal Mail letters outnumber those in the minority grades who number appoxmately 20 000 in total whereas Royal Mail letters have 135 000 staff .

I dont think anyone should read to much into this if you believe people in deliveries will vote this agreement out then they outnumber those in mail centres , RDCs , Network and all the other miniority grades put together.

The ballot will decide whether the agreement is accepted and the MTSF ballot will decide whether the MTSF part of agreement is accepted. Equally I have heard some on here saying the changes to mtsf effect only mail centre staff that is simply not true as there will be lots of vrs in delvery offices as part of this plan and of course the new criteria for VR from October purely on seniority is a big change to MTSF as the current criteria is ages 55 -65 first in seniority order and then seniority order from Age 54 down but with a cap on those who were 50 -54 . The new inland revenue rules mean that some aged 50 to 55 can no longer opt to take their pension when they leave on VR terms.

So it is only fair that all Royal Mail members vote on these changes as MTSF was endorse by the whole of Royal Mail Group employees in 2001.

And yet, yesterday you were arguing that it was all or nothing.

To use lines from 'Bat out of Hell', "Whats it going to be boy? Yes or No?"

[TrueBlueTerrier]

If I could jump in here I don't think its a cynical move by the Union and I'll explain why.

1. The MTSF agreement affects everyone in the Royal Mail GROUP

2. The 2010 and Beyond Proposal affects only those in Royal Mail LETTERS

Therefore we could not allow RML only to vote on an RMG proposal and in return we could not accept those unaffected by the 2010 to have a say in it. Therefore there has to be 2 ballots.

Now if we are having 2 ballots its a lot cheaper to have them together - it therefore saves the Union money by not having 2 separate ballots.

-------------- However.

I do think the Union and RM have made a mistake making the MTSF agreement dependant on the 2010 vote as if there is a NO vote on 2010 those who voted YES on the MTSF side of the vote will feel disenfranchised and let down.

I don't think there are many cross over issues between the 2 proposals and I think they could have been separated. But we will have to live with the decision just like the CWU will.

[dvbuk55]

I agree that everyone should vote on the MTSF agreement but in no way should they be voting on the transformation issues FFS - why not send it out to TNT as well - hey BT are in the CWU lets give them a poke at it as well - this is an absolute disgrace if this happens. People who are not affected by any of the changes voting to give others a massive pay cut and increased workload.

This will not just be cynical it will be a corrupt vote.

[headscrewedon]

I agree that everyone should vote on the MTSF agreement but in no way should they be voting on the transformation issues FFS - why not send it out to TNT as well - hey BT are in the CWU lets give them a poke at it as well - this is an absolute disgrace if this happens. People who are not affected by any of the changes voting to give others a massive pay cut and increased workload.

This will not just be cynical it will be a corrupt vote.

You do know that people outside of Royal Mail Letters are only getting balloted on the MTSF 2 agreement, don't you ?
They aren't getting a vote on the 2010 Agreement, so I think on this occasion, your criticism is unwarranted dvbuk.

I don't think there are many cross over issues between the 2 proposals and I think they could have been separated.

I think the word you are looking for is 'decoupled', Teebs

[dvbuk55]

I agree that everyone should vote on the MTSF agreement but in no way should they be voting on the transformation issues FFS - why not send it out to TNT as well - hey BT are in the CWU lets give them a poke at it as well - this is an absolute disgrace if this happens. People who are not affected by any of the changes voting to give others a massive pay cut and increased workload.

This will not just be cynical it will be a corrupt vote.

You do know that people outside of Royal Mail Letters are only getting balloted on the MTSF 2 agreement, don't you ?
They aren't getting a vote on the 2010 Agreement, so I think on this occasion, your criticism is unwarranted dvbuk.

I don't think there are many cross over issues between the 2 proposals and I think they could have been separated.

I think the word you are looking for is 'decoupled', Teebs

I'll only believe that when I see the ballot paper and read the wording.

[headscrewedon]

I'll only believe that when I see the ballot paper and read the wording.

But you won't see what the wording is on a non-RML person's ballot paper is, unless you are a non-RML member !

[dvbuk55]

I'll only believe that when I see the ballot paper and read the wording.

But you won't see what the wording is on a non-RML person's ballot paper is, unless you are a non-RML member !

Oh right - we don't actually have non RML people working in our DO then - sorry I didn't realise that!