You can't get me I'm part of the Union........ - Page 12

24-11-2012, 17:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Why bother having a vote then, why bother trying so hard to win it, why bother rigging it, got a horrible feeling a majority of vm staff will endure negative ramifications from this down the line

In case the union decide to seek statutory recognition ? ,a vote against the union would effectively stop that

Sirius · 24-11-2012, 18:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

In case the union decide to seek statutory recognition ? ,a vote against the union would effectively stop that

Considering there was moves a foot for just that

papa smurf · 24-11-2012, 18:20

EVIDENCE

thats the big thing at virgin "bring evidence to your 1-2-1s etc "

well where exactly is the evidence of this alleged fair vote ? i haven't seen any i've just been told it went virgin managements way ,and we now have to take virgin managements word that this was a fair and unbiased vote ,well based on past evidence of managements integrity and honesty i and many others smell a rat
and if 48% of voters is a true representation of the cwu membership then expect a fight, no one is planing on lying down and taking this quietly .

Sirius · 24-11-2012, 18:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf

EVIDENCE

thats the big thing at virgin "bring evidence to your 1-2-1s etc "

well where exactly is the evidence of this alleged fair vote ? i haven't seen any i've just been told it went virgin managements way ,and we now have to take virgin managements word that this was a fair and unbiased vote ,well based on past evidence of managements integrity and honesty i and many others smell a rat
and if 48% of voters is a true representation of the cwu membership then expect a fight, no one is planing on lying down and taking this quietly .

The conversations around the office coffee machine were interesting and at times colorful on Friday

papa smurf · 24-11-2012, 18:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirius

The conversations around the office coffee machine were interesting and at times colorful on Friday

there's a lot going on behind the scenes ,its not as if we didn't expect treachery and lets face it mo and his minions didn't disappoint on that front .

24-11-2012, 18:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf

EVIDENCE

thats the big thing at virgin "bring evidence to your 1-2-1s etc "

well where exactly is the evidence of this alleged fair vote ? i haven't seen any i've just been told it went virgin managements way ,and we now have to take virgin managements word that this was a fair and unbiased vote ,well based on past evidence of managements integrity and honesty i and many others smell a rat
and if 48% of voters is a true representation of the cwu membership then expect a fight, no one is planing on lying down and taking this quietly .

What a model employee you are, they pay your wages and yo talk about not taking this lying down etc. 52 percent voted yes in a vote they didn't even need to haven so you don't give a crap about their views eh.

papa smurf · 24-11-2012, 18:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Top banana

What a model employee you are, they pay your wages and yo talk about not taking this lying down etc. 52 percent voted yes in a vote they didn't even need to haven so you don't give a crap about their views eh.

do you have any evidence of that
and by evidence i mean something fairly run and properly documented ? not your third hand he /she said so so its true type of evidence .

24-11-2012, 18:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf

[/COLOR]

do you have any evidence of that
and by evidence i mean something fairly run and properly documented ? not your third hand he /she said so so its true type of evidence .

I am sure they have but why does it matter. They could have just ended the agreement without a vote, so why are you so upset?

papa smurf · 24-11-2012, 18:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Top banana

I am sure they have but why does it matter. They could have just ended the agreement without a vote, so why are you so upset?

why are you sure they have -have you seen it because if you have your doing better than those involved on both sides of the "vote" .

24-11-2012, 19:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf

why are you sure they have -have you seen it because if you have your doing better than those involved on both sides of the "vote" .

Of course not but they appear to be a decent business who look after their people, so why lie.

As I keep saying they didn't have to let you vote and could have just ended the agreement - why do you not see that

Sirius · 24-11-2012, 20:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Top banana

Of course not but they appear to be a decent business who look after their people, so why lie.

As I keep saying they didn't have to let you vote and could have just ended the agreement - why do you not see that

I think you will find that the main complaint now is the complete lack of transparency and the use of what should have been a totally independent company to count the votes, which many now feel was not so independent ?.

Great point is being made that they did not have to have the vote, however as they decided to have that vote then they must be seen to be squeaky clean and to have followed the process legitimately. Now i am not here to say if that process was or was not followed, however if there is not full disclosure of the vote then it will fuel the conspiracy theorists no end.

**Maggy** · 24-11-2012, 20:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Top banana

I am sure they have but why does it matter. They could have just ended the agreement without a vote, so why are you so upset?

Do you work for VM? I'm sort of wondering why you have such a particular interest unless it closely concerns you?

24-11-2012, 20:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Do you work for VM? I'm sort of wondering why you have such a particular interest unless it closely concerns you?

My interest is from a shareholder perspective. When their main man Neil Berkett holds analyst sessions as he did this past week, he always talks about the great people at VM and how they are the driving force for their great performance and therefore their share price.

His view seems at odds with some of the posts on here and I am intigued to as why that should be.

It appears from outside looking in that they simply wanted to move one area onto the same approach as the rest of his business - so I am struggling as to why there is so much suspicion?

I also think the union have an agenda and are trying to damage their brand and drive up membership with scaremongering hence my comments to try an balance the argument

**Maggy** · 24-11-2012, 22:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Top banana

My interest is from a shareholder perspective. When their main man Neil Berkett holds analyst sessions as he did this past week, he always talks about the great people at VM and how they are the driving force for their great performance and therefore their share price.

His view seems at odds with some of the posts on here and I am intigued to as why that should be.

It appears from outside looking in that they simply wanted to move one area onto the same approach as the rest of his business - so I am struggling as to why there is so much suspicion?

I also think the union have an agenda and are trying to damage their brand and drive up membership with scaremongering hence my comments to try an balance the argument

You do realise though that some CF members were made redundant by VM and therefore may have a different perspective to yours.
Also if you haven't actually been on the inside as an employee then your experiences are perhaps not going to be the same as those employed by directly by VM.

Shareholders may not perhaps be the best judge of a companies working conditions unless they are VM employees.

Sirius · 24-11-2012, 22:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Top banana

My interest is from a shareholder perspective. When their main man Neil Berkett holds analyst sessions as he did this past week, he always talks about the great people at VM and how they are the driving force for their great performance and therefore their share price.

His view seems at odds with some of the posts on here and I am intigued to as why that should be.

It appears from outside looking in that they simply wanted to move one area onto the same approach as the rest of his business - so I am struggling as to why there is so much suspicion?

I also think the union have an agenda and are trying to damage their brand and drive up membership with scaremongering hence my comments to try an balance the argument

So what we have here is that members of staff are worried about there employment, working conditions and wages, your interested in your dividend as a share holder ?