re: why I'm voting no

[Woody Guthrie]

With all the delay i know the union hope it will get them the Yes vote they want

There's very little logic in that, it's just something people who are angry with the union believe.

Delaying the ballot is not improving the chance of a yes vote unless the union can come out of this period of "silence" with something tangible and the longer the delay goes on the more they're going to have to come back to the members with.

If they just rock up in a couple of days with nothing of substance the ballot is doomed.

They have to balance it out, realise they are at a crossroads and decide if nows the time to fight before theres nothing left to fight for.

The problem we have now is that the membership are not solidly against this agreement or solidly behind it, they are split and unless someone can unite them either way we're going to end up in the worst possible position, rejecting this deal but with a membership so split that talk of fighting these changes or further IA is impossible.

Only the members can decide if now is the right time to fight and they could only do that by massively rejecting the deal and that's not going to happen because despite all the noise no one at any senior level in the union has stepped forward and attempted to unite the members behind a rejection with a coherent plan to move forward afterwards.

The no voters are voting in blind faith that something better can be achieved ... with the same people on both sides they have no faith in to do something they haven't been able to do in 12 months with the support of possibly half the membership as opposed to the almost 100% support they had before.

You can see how dangerous a place that would put us in.

[LouBarlow]

The only reason to vote no is if you think it will improve our situation from where we are now.

That's the whole point.

I can't see anything in your post that shows how it might.

They can never answer this question because there is no logical reason to vote no at this point and they know it. That is the reason they tend to respond with hostility when people like Martin Walsh and even myself point this out. I get it. People are frustrated and are lashing out. But to offer advice on contract law, as some on here like to do, that directly contradicts the union’s take, which utilises actual legal experts, doesn’t seem helpful.

[Nickvilla20]

The only reason to vote no is if you think it will improve our situation from where we are now.

That's the whole point.

I can't see anything in your post that shows how it might.

They can never answer this question because there is no logical reason to vote no at this point and they know it. That is the reason they tend to respond with hostility when people like Martin Walsh and even myself point this out. I get it. People are frustrated and are lashing out. But to offer advice on contract law, as some on here like to do, that directly contradicts the union’s take, which utilises actual legal experts, doesn’t seem helpful.

I’m sure Royal Mail and the union would know what they can legally do and not do. Sadly these changes have been coming in for years but what I didn’t expect was a complete mismanagement from of the company from Simon Thompson.

I think for many it will probably be a reluctant yes. That’s where I am at the moment. One thing is for certain we won’t be out on strike again.

[HTPostman]

The only reason to vote no is if you think it will improve our situation from where we are now.

That's the whole point.

I can't see anything in your post that shows how it might.

They can never answer this question because there is no logical reason to vote no at this point and they know it. That is the reason they tend to respond with hostility when people like Martin Walsh and even myself point this out. I get it. People are frustrated and are lashing out. But to offer advice on contract law, as some on here like to do, that directly contradicts the union’s take, which utilises actual legal experts, doesn’t seem helpful.

I’m sure Royal Mail and the union would know what they can legally do and not do. Sadly these changes have been coming in for years but what I didn’t expect was a complete mismanagement from of the company from Simon Thompson.

I think for many it will probably be a reluctant yes. That’s where I am at the moment. One thing is for certain we won’t be out on strike again.

Past form suggests otherwise! Agree about the reluctant yes part though

[smartin1982]

With all the delay i know the union hope it will get them the Yes vote they want

There's very little logic in that, it's just something people who are angry with the union believe.

Delaying the ballot is not improving the chance of a yes vote unless the union can come out of this period of "silence" with something tangible and the longer the delay goes on the more they're going to have to come back to the members with.

If they just rock up in a couple of days with nothing of substance the ballot is doomed.

They have to balance it out, realise they are at a crossroads and decide if nows the time to fight before theres nothing left to fight for.

The problem we have now is that the membership are not solidly against this agreement or solidly behind it, they are split and unless someone can unite them either way we're going to end up in the worst possible position, rejecting this deal but with a membership so split that talk of fighting these changes or further IA is impossible.

Only the members can decide if now is the right time to fight and they could only do that by massively rejecting the deal and that's not going to happen because despite all the noise no one at any senior level in the union has stepped forward and attempted to unite the members behind a rejection with a coherent plan to move forward afterwards.

The no voters are voting in blind faith that something better can be achieved ... with the same people on both sides they have no faith in to do something they haven't been able to do in 12 months with the support of possibly half the membership as opposed to the almost 100% support they had before.

You can see how dangerous a place that would put us in.

Don’t assume you know why people are voting whatever way.
I’m not voting no in blind faith of something better at all. I’m voting no because I know the jobs gone but I won’t just stand here and be shafted without a fight. I’d rather delay it than just take it now. They’ve literally come for us and our lives, mentally, physically and monetarily. It sounds dramatic but it’s true. I loved this job and the lifestyle it afforded but they’re ripping it away from us .

At least When they come again in 2025 and they’ve taken it all, I’ll be able to look myself in the mirror if it’s a yes.
Apathy is how we got here in the first place.

[nutcracker]

With all the delay i know the union hope it will get them the Yes vote they want

There's very little logic in that, it's just something people who are angry with the union believe.

Delaying the ballot is not improving the chance of a yes vote unless the union can come out of this period of "silence" with something tangible and the longer the delay goes on the more they're going to have to come back to the members with.

If they just rock up in a couple of days with nothing of substance the ballot is doomed.

They have to balance it out, realise they are at a crossroads and decide if nows the time to fight before theres nothing left to fight for.

The problem we have now is that the membership are not solidly against this agreement or solidly behind it, they are split and unless someone can unite them either way we're going to end up in the worst possible position, rejecting this deal but with a membership so split that talk of fighting these changes or further IA is impossible.

Only the members can decide if now is the right time to fight and they could only do that by massively rejecting the deal and that's not going to happen because despite all the noise no one at any senior level in the union has stepped forward and attempted to unite the members behind a rejection with a coherent plan to move forward afterwards.

The no voters are voting in blind faith that something better can be achieved ... with the same people on both sides they have no faith in to do something they haven't been able to do in 12 months with the support of possibly half the membership as opposed to the almost 100% support they had before.

You can see how dangerous a place that would put us in.

Don’t assume you know why people are voting whatever way.
I’m not voting no in blind faith of something better at all. I’m voting no because I know the jobs gone but I won’t just stand here and be shafted without a fight. I’d rather delay it than just take it now. They’ve literally come for us and our lives, mentally, physically and monetarily. It sounds dramatic but it’s true. I loved this job and the lifestyle it afforded but they’re ripping it away from us .

At least When they come again in 2025 and they’ve taken it all, I’ll be able to look myself in the mirror if it’s a yes.
Apathy is how we got here in the first place.

Terms, conditions, salaries will all eventually have to align with competitors and other UK plc.

I see our negotiations as a game to kick that can down the road for as long as possible. For me the question is has this agreement got us there too soon?

Certainly the CWU have been extremely amateurish in achieving that aim, especially given the funds they receive from its members. They need serious reform and access to decent forensic accountants/legal advice.

[postslippete]

That's a nice idea but are you a legal expert?

Which changes proposed in the agreement exactly?

You wouldn't be voting no to change, you would at best slow it down slightly in some areas like later starts but increase its pace in others like bench merging, sick absence and flexi-time and potentially bring in more damaging change to places that aren't even in the agreement like compulsory redundancy and owner/drivers.

You would also be voting no to any input from the CWU at both national and local level in any of that change.

Everyone accepts that Royal Mail will make changes regardless of an agreement and we really need someone higher up in the Union to spell out exactly what contractual changes Royal Mail can and can't make.

For example, the practice of fire and re-hire is not illegal in this country but on the point you have just made on compulsory redundancies, well, the company have done a VR exercise and were oversubscribed with staff wanting to leave!! And that is even though we are short-staffed with 10,000 leaving the business last year must have helped with this 'rightsizing'.

As for owner drivers, we used to deliver in our cars years ago. If they got rid of half of these combi vans with posties delivering the mail in their cars with most of the bulky parcels being delivered by larger van drivers; that might work because it did years ago. It's already in this agreement that the company want to do bench merging.

As for the input from the Union don't they still have past agreements to abide by??

[postslippete]

Terms, conditions, salaries will all eventually have to align with competitors and other UK plc.

I see our negotiations as a game to kick that can down the road for as long as possible. For me the question is has this agreement got us there too soon?

Certainly the CWU have been extremely amateurish in achieving that aim, especially given the funds they receive from its members. They need serious reform and access to decent forensic accountants/legal advice.

The irony is that whilst Royal Mail are saying that we are overpaid compared to the rest of the 'industry' (who don't deliver letters and everything else that we do) is that Amazon have had strikes with their GMB union trying to get their workers on £15 an hour. Rather than the company levelling us down towards the gig economy; the rest of the industry needs to be levelling up in protest at multi billion dollar companies making bigger profits at the expense of its workforce.

I certainly believe that this agreement is too much, too soon. And from past performance, the CWU really do need to have a decent legal team and understand how big companies operate financially because its obvious to me that the CWU leadership really don't have a clue.

[scotchy1962]

With all the delay i know the union hope it will get them the Yes vote they want

There's very little logic in that, it's just something people who are angry with the union believe.

Delaying the ballot is not improving the chance of a yes vote unless the union can come out of this period of "silence" with something tangible and the longer the delay goes on the more they're going to have to come back to the members with.

If they just rock up in a couple of days with nothing of substance the ballot is doomed.

They have to balance it out, realise they are at a crossroads and decide if nows the time to fight before theres nothing left to fight for.

The problem we have now is that the membership are not solidly against this agreement or solidly behind it, they are split and unless someone can unite them either way we're going to end up in the worst possible position, rejecting this deal but with a membership so split that talk of fighting these changes or further IA is impossible.

Only the members can decide if now is the right time to fight and they could only do that by massively rejecting the deal and that's not going to happen because despite all the noise no one at any senior level in the union has stepped forward and attempted to unite the members behind a rejection with a coherent plan to move forward afterwards.

The no voters are voting in blind faith that something better can be achieved ... with the same people on both sides they have no faith in to do something they haven't been able to do in 12 months with the support of possibly half the membership as opposed to the almost 100% support they had before.

You can see how dangerous a place that would put us in.

Woody i am not angry at the union and i am not sure what is illogical about what i am saying. I have been working for 45yrs now in a lot of different guises and different unions, i have been a shop steward and i am reasonably intelligent and i know how it works in the private sector.
I know that you believe that the union leadership are not delaying the ballot, i disagree, saying its illogical shows up your naivety and not mine.I know that delaying the vote is a classic way of getting voter apathy and they vote yes because they cant be arsed with all the delay.
I and other people who will vote no are not doing it in "blind faith that something better can be achieved".
We are doing it in protest at what has been put in front of us as a acceptable pay offer.
I cannot and i will not vote for something that i dont agree with. This is a fundamental right in democracy and i find it hard to believe even you would deny somebody that right just because you think we are in a dangerous place and theres no alternative, theres always a alternative because if there isnt why have a vote!!
And before you all ask what the alternative is, NO i dont have it. But then again i do pay into a union who should be able to sort that out. Or if you all divi up into the Scotchy union and give me a wedge of cash i am sure i could figure something out.

[Woody Guthrie]

We are doing it in protest at what has been put in front of us as a acceptable pay offer.

Most members cannot afford the luxury of turning their financial security into a protest vote.

I cannot and i will not vote for something that i dont agree with.

I and other people who will vote no are not doing it in "blind faith that something better can be achieved".

This is the fundamental problem.
Like you I do not agree with the deal but I also do not agree with the alternative so unfortunately I accept that I will have to vote for something I do not agree with.

I'm not sure you do, I'm not sure you fully understand that by voting no to this agreement you are voting for the alternative and since as you've admitted yourself you have no idea what that alternative might be you are obviously voting without knowing the consequences.

And before you all ask what the alternative is, NO i dont have it. But then again i do pay into a union who should be able to sort that out.

That's pretty much the definition of blind faith.

[Basildon Bond]

I do not agree with the deal but I also do not agree with the alternative so unfortunately I accept that I will have to vote for something I do not agree with.

Honest question, if I'm reading it right...you're saying that something bad but known is better than something unknown?

[nuisance]

Like you I do not agree with the deal but I also do not agree with the alternative so unfortunately I accept that I will have to vote for something I do not agree with.

I'm not sure you do, I'm not sure you fully understand that by voting no to this agreement you are voting for the alternative and since as you've admitted yourself you have no idea what that alternative might be you are obviously voting without knowing the consequences.

A vote to reject this agreement is a vote to reject this agreement. So far, there is no proposed alternative agreement or confirmed set of circumstances, to vote for or vote against. I am prepared to address this alternative scenario when it comes to it. It could go a few ways. Either it will turn out acceptable, it will lead to an acceptable agreement being negotiated, or it will be unacceptable, in which case I would be fighting to change the circumstances until it was no longer worth it and I would leave. Exactly the same position I am in now with this proposed agreement and all it's consequences, but at least there is supposed to be a democratic vote on the issue (we'll see). I would never accept and support the unacceptable. That is not naive, it is a basic standard of dignity. I would be ashamed of myself if I had written what you have above. This attitude does not represent me. Why are our union reps such desperate mardies when the membership has been solid throughout this campaign???

[nutcracker]

Terms, conditions, salaries will all eventually have to align with competitors and other UK plc.

I see our negotiations as a game to kick that can down the road for as long as possible. For me the question is has this agreement got us there too soon?

Certainly the CWU have been extremely amateurish in achieving that aim, especially given the funds they receive from its members. They need serious reform and access to decent forensic accountants/legal advice.

The irony is that whilst Royal Mail are saying that we are overpaid compared to the rest of the 'industry' (who don't deliver letters and everything else that we do) is that Amazon have had strikes with their GMB union trying to get their workers on £15 an hour. Rather than the company levelling us down towards the gig economy; the rest of the industry needs to be levelling up in protest at multi billion dollar companies making bigger profits at the expense of its workforce.

I certainly believe that this agreement is too much, too soon. And from past performance, the CWU really do need to have a decent legal team and understand how big companies operate financially because its obvious to me that the CWU leadership really don't have a clue.

Funny you mention the amazon dispute. Amazon bussed in an extra 1500 workers to one of their sites to skew a vote on union representation.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ff-numbers

There is a real surplus of cheap, unskilled labour in the UK, and this is driving the industry conditions and hence our own dispute.

At my mc during the strikes there was an endless supply of desperate people available to do some really shi**y work for crap pay.

Intentionally or not it’s successive government’s policy to create the conditions for the opposite to your wish!

[Woody Guthrie]

Honest question, if I'm reading it right...you're saying that something bad but known is better than something unknown?

I have no idea if you're actually reading it right and simply playing with words to make it sound wrong or actually reading it wrong.

The idea that voting no is a complete unknown is ridiculous, we know enough from the last 12 months and from both side's attitude to this agreement exactly the position we will find ourselves in.

What any intelligent human being should know is exactly how much s**t we will be in. It has been laid bare by both sides in words and deeds over the last 12 months from executive action to the suspension of reps to the response from CWU HQ, eighteen days of largely ineffective strikes, cancelled ballots, legal action, huge losses, inaction by Ofcom, employment of staff on poorer terms and the financial position of Royal Mail all achieved with an almost 100% support of the membership... Ultimately leading to this poor agreement.

From previous behaviour we know what Royal Mail's reaction is likely to be and we also know what the position of the union with a now unfortunately divided membership will be.

What we don't know is how we're going to get out of it.
Nobody has a clue. Do you?

I would rather not vote to put our members in that very dangerous position that nobody has a clue how to get out of and if people want to call me names for that it's up to them.

[scotchy1962]

Honest question, if I'm reading it right...you're saying that something bad but known is better than something unknown?

I have no idea if you're actually reading it right and simply playing with words to make it sound wrong or actually reading it wrong.

The idea that voting no is a complete unknown is ridiculous, we know enough from the last 12 months and from both side's attitude to this agreement exactly the position we will find ourselves in.

What any intelligent human being should know is exactly how much s**t we will be in. It has been laid bare by both sides in words and deeds over the last 12 months from executive action to the suspension of reps to the response from CWU HQ, eighteen days of largely ineffective strikes, cancelled ballots, legal action, huge losses, inaction by Ofcom, employment of staff on poorer terms and the financial position of Royal Mail all achieved with an almost 100% support of the membership... Ultimately leading to this poor agreement.

From previous behaviour we know what Royal Mail's reaction is likely to be and we also know what the position of the union with a now unfortunately divided membership will be.

What we don't know is how we're going to get out of it.
Nobody has a clue. Do you?

I would rather not vote to put our members in that very dangerous position that nobody has a clue how to get out of and if people want to call me names for that it's up to them.

Woody again i understand what it is you are saying, but these are the very reasons to also vote against this.
Perhaps its just one of those questions that has no right answer and we will agree to disagree.
The union at the moment has a real problem, the membership are pretty peeved with them for what a lot of them see as a sell out. When this is done and dusted there will be a price to pay and that might be as dangerous a place as where they are now.
The silence at the moment is not helping and lets face it no matter what joint statement they put out the damage is done.