Local CWU branch to recommend NO vote

billypants · Post by **billypants** » 24 Oct 2007, 20:04

perhaps I didn't explain myself very well, my suggestion is not that we are all sheep that will blindly follow our branch requests, but that there are many members out there, who are not as well informed as us on this site, who would accept the advice of their branch because they trust their judgement . . . . . . . this being true we must encourage our branch reps to recommend a NO vote and hopefully get the result we so desperately need .

L Tommo · Post by **L Tommo** » 24 Oct 2007, 20:13

elmo wrote:
L Tommo wrote:Mate you lot being shafted from the HQ MIGHT have a benefit??? It will make many of the waverers vote a BIG NO!!!!

Well i would vote no For the reasons of the deal in place but i would also vote NO because of the way HQ AND PEC have treated you NI boys n girls.... FECKING MURDER..... :lfo :cfo Its a crime...

OUT

NO
L Tommo, as Amy Winehouse sort of said, they want to me to say yes I say no, no,no

Lad... I know old Amy is a bit of a two n eight at the mo but a good old wash n a few bevvies will sort the bastard-haired-one out....

"ALL TOGETHER NOW.."" BILLY WANTS US TO SAY YES BUT WE SAY NO NO NO!!!"

Billypants mate Not you... Ohh and i make you right about the posties that DONT come on this site and dont know as much of the deal... WE ALL NEED TO GET AROUND TO THESE PEOPLE AND LET THEM KNOW THE TRUE FACTS AND THE FACT THAT THERE JOBS WILL BE NOTHING LIKE THEY THINK IT WILL BE AGAIN IF WE DONT SAY NO NO NO!!!

OUT LAD.....

PS ELMO TOP COOKING THE BANGERS N BURGERS LAD...

pilsbury · Post by **pilsbury** » 24 Oct 2007, 20:23

I won't be voting no,i will be voting Fu ck off and stick it up your arse.

billypants · Post by **billypants** » 24 Oct 2007, 20:30

pilsbury wrote:I won't be voting no,i will be voting Fu ck off and stick it up your arse.

wouldn't it be lovely to see that option on the ballot paper

meweavy · Post by **meweavy** » 24 Oct 2007, 20:37

billypants wrote:perhaps I didn't explain myself very well, my suggestion is not that we are all sheep that will blindly follow our branch requests, but that there are many members out there, who are not as well informed as us on this site, who would accept the advice of their branch because they trust their judgement . . . . . . . this being true we must encourage our branch reps to recommend a NO vote and hopefully get the result we so desperately need .

the problem is the office i work at,the reps actually think that this deal is the best we,re going to get..so if my union rep thinks that what chance has the rest of our office got of signing no..

NickiKitten · Post by **NickiKitten** » 24 Oct 2007, 20:49

billypants wrote:
pilsbury wrote:I won't be voting no,i will be voting Fu ck off and stick it up your arse.
wouldn't it be lovely to see that option on the ballot paper

I might go to the liberty of adding it to mine!

elal1963 · Post by **elal1963** » 24 Oct 2007, 22:40

I'll will also be voting "NO" , whatever my branch recommends.

goinpostal · Post by **goinpostal** » 24 Oct 2007, 22:45

billypants wrote:perhaps I didn't explain myself very well, my suggestion is not that we are all sheep that will blindly follow our branch requests, but that there are many members out there, who are not as well informed as us on this site, who would accept the advice of their branch because they trust their judgement . . . . . . . this being true we must encourage our branch reps to recommend a NO vote and hopefully get the result we so desperately need .

true billypants. I won't vote yes if my branch recommends it but the point is that this deal is s**t and if a branch campaigns to show these flaws (ie doesn't just send out a big sheet of paper saying VOTE NO with nothing else) then it is doing a service to the members by informing them since the national leadership will spin the deal and try to paper over the cracks. The no isnt a command it is a recomendation, and really that is just part of a campaign to inform the members. THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE!

Leyton Crozier · Post by **Leyton Crozier** » 25 Oct 2007, 08:59

We've got a branch meeting next week to discuss this deal and I use that word with caution. Apart from the obvious of what it says I'm concerned about the working parties and what it actually implies but doesn't yet say and won't for a few months.

Like you I think it's crap but I'll listen to what the great and powerful have to say.

Then vote NO

johnnyp · Post by **johnnyp** » 25 Oct 2007, 09:15

Leyton Crozier wrote:We've got a branch meeting next week to discuss this deal and I use that word with caution. Apart from the obvious of what it says I'm concerned about the working parties and what it actually implies but doesn't yet say and won't for a few months. Like you I think it's crap but I'll listen to what the great and powerful have to say. Then vote NO

Same here ,next Tuesday and allthough we dont have a rep at our office i shall attend and look forward to what our branch is gonna recommend.It should be interesting as Dave Ward is from our branch and along with Liverpool and East London we were out on Unofficial I/A sticking our necks on the block big time.

Leyton Crozier · Post by **Leyton Crozier** » 25 Oct 2007, 10:10

johnnypick wrote:
Leyton Crozier wrote:We've got a branch meeting next week to discuss this deal and I use that word with caution. Apart from the obvious of what it says I'm concerned about the working parties and what it actually implies but doesn't yet say and won't for a few months. Like you I think it's crap but I'll listen to what the great and powerful have to say. Then vote NO
Same here ,next Tuesday and allthough we dont have a rep at our office i shall attend and look forward to what our branch is gonna recommend.It should be interesting as Dave Ward is from our branch and along with Liverpool and East London we were out on Unofficial I/A sticking our necks on the block big time.

I'll see you there John

buzzer · Post by **buzzer** » 25 Oct 2007, 15:13

What people don't seem to understand is that if we vote NO and the deal is rejected, that doesn't mean we will be going on strike the next day. It just means that Billy and Dave will have to get their fat arses back to old street and work out something better! We would have to have another ballot for strike action. Anyway it would be no good striking soon because we have lost the momentum, and striking at Christmas is a stupid idea. We should have a nice long strike after Christmas. We will need a rest after the turkey and pudding anyway.

tenpole tudorsack · Post by **tenpole tudorsack** » 25 Oct 2007, 15:18

buzzer wrote:What people don't seem to understand is that if we vote NO and the deal is rejected, that doesn't mean we will be going on strike the next day. It just means that Billy and Dave will have to get their fat arses back to old street and work out something better! We would have to have another ballot for strike action. Anyway it would be no good striking soon because we have lost the momentum, and striking at Christmas is a stupid idea. We should have a nice long strike after Christmas. We will need a rest after the turkey and pudding anyway.

Good point Buzzer! If people were to "withdraw their goodwill" from now til Xmas, there'd be a hell of a lot o sh*te built up if we wanted to resume strike action

strangler · Post by **strangler** » 25 Oct 2007, 16:19

I`ll be voting NO simply because I don`t believe it`s a good deal.
However I wonder about the implications for the union in the aftermath of a successful no vote as effectively it`s also a vote of no confidence in BH and DW. This would be obvious to all including RM. One possible scenario...
They would have zero bargaining power with RM who could simply sit there and say "Why should we listen to you when you`re obviously out of touch with your members". They`d then sit back and watch the CWU infighting and self-destruct.

billypants · Post by **billypants** » 25 Oct 2007, 20:21

buzzer wrote:What people don't seem to understand is that if we vote NO and the deal is rejected, that doesn't mean we will be going on strike the next day. We would have to have another ballot for strike action.

Not so sure that's correct. . . . . we haven't accepted the offer so we are still in the same period of industrial action and therefore the mandate for strike action remains in force . . . . . . perhaps someone with a deeper understanding of the legalities could answer this one ?

ROYALMAILCHAT

Local CWU branch to recommend NO vote

would you be swayed by the advice of your branch on which way to vote

Re: Irishstaff...

Yes/No

Re: Yes/No

Re: Yes/No