Royal Mail Dispute

BoGoF

tomdickharry wrote: »

why even mention the general election?
it is absolutely 100% totally irrelevant to the case heard over the last two days
i've already said that i think the nature of the ballot was legally wrong, but i abhor anyone who thinks it morally wrong,
but for a top judge to even mention a forthcoming forced general election just goes to show the contempt on the average UK worker who wants to stand up and fight for their futures.

if he'd have just said to the cwu reps there "you have cocked up big style" and not mentioned a GE i would have accepted his outcome without questioning

Well blame your union, the reps, your colleagues. The idiots who thought they were clever who totally voided the result. Any other argument is an unneccessary distraction. If you want to 'stand up and fight' make sure you are doing it legally. If your union cannot conduct a simple ballot do you really want to be a member. How much a month do you pay to line the union chiefs pockets.

Pollycat

tomdickharry wrote: »

why even mention the general election?
it is absolutely 100% totally irrelevant to the case heard over the last two days
i've already said that i think the nature of the ballot was legally wrong, but i abhor anyone who thinks it morally wrong
but for a top judge to even mention a forthcoming forced general election just goes to show the contempt on the average UK worker who wants to stand up and fight for their futures.

if he'd have just said to the cwu reps there "you have cocked up big style" and not mentioned a GE i would have accepted his outcome without questioning

But as soon as your bonkers union encouraged its members to open ballot papers in their work environment and film it, it was only ever going to end up in court and any 'moral wrong' went out of the window.
What were they (your union) thinking?
How could they ever have thought it would end well?

tomdickharry

BoGoF wrote: »

Well blame your union, the reps, your colleagues. The idiots who thought they were clever who totally voided the result. Any other argument is an unneccessary distraction. If you want to 'stand up and fight' make sure you are doing it legally. If your union cannot conduct a simple ballot do you really want to be a member. How much a month do you pay to line the union chiefs pockets.

well blame RMG for reneging on an agreed deal then? how far you going to go backwards?

BoGoF

tomdickharry wrote: »

well blame RMG for reneging on an agreed deal then? how far you going to go backwards?

We are talking about the reason why your strike was ruled invalid. You may have legitimate reasons to strike but your union wasn't capable of serving it's members. A leader with a police assualt to his name and £120,000 a year for doing what.

tomdickharry

BoGoF wrote: »

We are talking about the reason why your strike was ruled invalid. You may have legitimate reasons to strike but your union wasn't capable of serving it's members. A leader with a police assualt to his name and £120,000 a year for doing what.

well if you bothered to read my first post, my first argument, the original topic was about why we have balloted about IA and not about the why and how it failed
i have had 2 speeding offences in 23 years of driving, how dare royal mail employ me to drive for them

Pollycat

tomdickharry wrote: »

well blame RMG for reneging on an agreed deal then? how far you going to go backwards?

It doesn't matter how far back anyone wants to go.
I'm not disputing RM's workforce's reasons for voting to strike.
But point the finger of blame at the people who are to blame for the fact that a strike voted for overwhelmingly by that workforce is not going to go ahead.
And that is not RM management.
It's the organisation that you and thousands of your colleagues pay to support and fight for them.
And they failed you all.
Spectacularly.

BoGoF

tomdickharry wrote: »

well if you bothered to read my first post, my first argument, the original topic was about why we have balloted about IA and not about the why and how it failed
i have had 2 speeding offences in 23 years of driving, how dare royal mail employ me to drive for them

The lack of responses (bar one person) suggests nobody is that interested in the reasons. A lot of us are disgruntled employees who feel hard done by so get over yourself. Difference is most of us can't hold the country to ransom. But your union screwed that up big time.

Never mind, you keep lining big Dave's pockets.

tomdickharry

Pollycat wrote: »

It doesn't matter how far back anyone wants to go.
I'm not disputing RM's workforce's reasons for voting to strike.
But point the finger of blame at the people who are to blame for the fact that a strike voted for overwhelmingly by that workforce is not going to go ahead.
And that is not RM management.
It's the organisation that you and thousands of your colleagues pay to support and fight for them.
And they failed you all.
Spectacularly.

ok, going round in circles now, but as you know,
one of the arguments was the cwu encouraging people to show their votes online, yes what a balls up that was, but definitely had no bearing on the ballot result,

but then to say our union were wrong to encourage a yes vote when we received numerous letters and memos to our PDA's
and regular videos forced on us to watch?
where's the difference ?
added to that, the judge in question says the general election may have influenced his outcome?

BoGoF

It's totally irrelevant if it had no effect on the overall result (it actually makes some of the brain dead decisions even more incredulous). As soon as there was any evidence of impropriety the vote was null and void.

Although the judge mentioned the GE he could not grant an injunction without the invalid vote. So a red herring.

Pollycat

tomdickharry wrote: »

ok, going round in circles now, but as you know,
one of the arguments was the cwu encouraging people to show their votes online, yes what a balls up that was, but definitely had no bearing on the ballot result,

Yes, we are going round in circles, partly I think due to your inability or unwillingness to accept your union was to blame for the ballot being ruled invalid.
IMHO, the ballot would have had the same result (overwhelming agreement for strike action) if the CWU hadn't encouraged members to 'show their votes online'.
But what that ill-conceived advice/encouragement from CWU did was get your ballot result ruled invalid.

tomdickharry wrote: »

but then to say our union were wrong to encourage a yes vote when we received numerous letters and memos to our PDA's
and regular videos forced on us to watch?
where's the difference ?

Who says your union was wrong to encourage a 'yes' vote.
This is an extract from a BBC article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50409317

This included, the company said, union members "being encouraged to open their ballot papers on site, mark them as 'yes', with their colleagues present and filming or photographing them doing so, before posting their ballots together at their workplace postboxes".

Royal Mail's procedures state that employees cannot open their mail at delivery offices without the prior authorisation of their manager.

But CWU lawyers argued there was no evidence of interference with the ballot and that "legitimate partisan campaigning" by the union in favour of a "yes" vote did not violate the rules.

I don't think it's a case of the union being wrong to encourage a 'yes' vote but more a case of them encouraging their members to open their ballot papers in the office (instead of having them delivered to their home address) and filming themselves voting.

tomdickharry wrote: »

added to that, the judge in question says the general election may have influenced his outcome?

Hasn't this been addressed up thread by this post?:

Altarf wrote: »

Try re-reading what Mr Justice Swift said in relation to the improper ballot which meant the result should be ignored - "In this case, in respect of the conduct of the general election and the part played in that election by postal votes, there is a relevant wider public interest that is material to my conclusion that an injunction should be granted."