You can't get me I'm part of the Union........ - Page 11

BenMcr · 22-11-2012, 21:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_

Remember Ben you are not the only person who will read your post or mine so I just used yours for that link you posted.

Not sure why you need to use my post when the link is freely available on the Guardian's website, but hey ho

22-11-2012, 21:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenMcr

What grin, I was simply linking to the result.

However, if the rest of the members of CWU have the same 'them and us' attitude as comes across in your post, I am glad I am not part of them.

Clearly the CWU can't accept that people have a right to vote on how they feel

Thankfully the guardian have posted a balanced view of the world rather than the bitter rantings of a union that charges people to have a voice

Peter_ · 22-11-2012, 21:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Top banana

Clearly the CWU can't accept that people have a right to vote on how they feel

Thankfully the guardian have posted a balanced view of the world rather than the bitter rantings of a union that charges people to have a voice

So you still believe the way the vote was set out and done was legal, no surprise there then.

If a vote such as this is to be taken out then you use someone on the lines of the Electoral Reform Society as they can be trusted to run the vote legally and not in an underhand way this vote was run by the company which done in this way can and will always be manipulated to go the companies way.

A vote with such serious implications should never be run in this way as the is no way a company or even a union run vote can ever be trusted to be correct it should always be independently scrutinised to ensure no bias.

Do read the letter I posted above.

Skie · 22-11-2012, 22:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_

Remember Ben you are not the only person who will read your post or mine so I just used yours for that link you posted.

You can't quote someone else's post, say something sarcy and then claim you were just using it to show the link again and meant the sarcasm for those invisible bogey men who might be reading this.

But then again half the stuff you say makes no sense and the other half contradicts everything else anyway so I guess this isn't exactly unusual.

Peter_ · 22-11-2012, 22:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skie

You can't quote someone else's post, say something sarcy and then claim you were just using it to show the link again and meant the sarcasm for those invisible bogey men who might be reading this.

But then again half the stuff you say makes no sense and the other half contradicts everything else anyway so I guess this isn't exactly unusual.

A bit like yourself I see.

22-11-2012, 22:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_

So you still believe the way the vote was set out and done was legal, no surprise there then.

If a vote such as this is to be taken out then you use someone on the lines of the Electoral Reform Society as they can be trusted to run the vote legally and not in an underhand way this vote was run by the company which done in this way can and will always be manipulated to go the companies way.

A vote with such serious implications should never be run in this way as the is no way a company or even a union run vote can ever be trusted to be correct it should always be independently scrutinised to ensure no bias.

Do read the letter I posted above.

The blind spot you appear to have Peter is the FACT that the original agreement was a voluntary agreement. They did not have to ask their people but did so as its how the company chooses to do things.

So the union response is irrelevant

Peter_ · 22-11-2012, 22:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Top banana

The blind spot you appear to have Peter is the FACT that the original agreement was a voluntary agreement. They did not have to ask their people but did so as its how the company chooses to do things.

So the union response is irrelevant

A vote not done legally is not binding in anyway as you will find out soon but you could have googled that for yourself but as it seems that it is a victory against the union you would not think to do that, laws are in place for a reason as the company will soon be finding out.

22-11-2012, 22:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_

A vote not done legally is not binding in anyway as you will find out soon but you could have googled that for yourself but as it seems that it is a victory against the union you would not think to do that, laws are in place for a reason as the company will soon be finding out.

I will try and make it a bit more clear for you.

The agreements in place were VOLUNTARY so they could have just written to the union telling them they were ending the VOLUNTARY agreement without asking for the views of their people.

However they chose to ask their people and THEY chose to agree to end it

I really do not understand what your problem is with this

Peter_ · 23-11-2012, 06:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Top banana

I will try and make it a bit more clear for you.

The agreements in place were VOLUNTARY so they could have just written to the union telling them they were ending the VOLUNTARY agreement without asking for the views of their people.

However they chose to ask their people and THEY chose to agree to end it

I really do not understand what your problem is with this

You again fail to understand any vote done in an underhand way such as this with no independent scrutineers is to all intents and purposes illegal.

All you see is union bashing which makes you happy rather than illegal activity try and get realistic rather than being foolish.

The laws put in place to cover this were also intended to prevent wildcat strikes, do not for one second think this is over.

23-11-2012, 06:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_

You again fail to understand any vote done in an underhand way such as this with no independent scrutineers is to all intents and purposes illegal.

All you see is union bashing which makes you happy rather than illegal activity try and get realistic rather than being foolish.

The laws put in place to cover this were also intended to prevent wildcat strikes, do not for one second think this is over.

Ok, so what would you be saying if they simply wrote to the union and said, we are ending our voluntary bargaining agreement?

MaverickJesus · 23-11-2012, 08:04

So you have been proven completely wrong about them winning the vote (even after everyone said there was no chance of that happening) and now you are pinning your hopes to some magical legal situation to come and save the day?

This is all very entertaining in an egg-on-your-face sort of way.

Peter_ · 23-11-2012, 08:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaverickJesus

So you have been proven completely wrong about them winning the vote (even after everyone said there was no chance of that happening) and now you are pinning your hopes to some magical legal situation to come and save the day?

This is all very entertaining in an egg-on-your-face sort of way.

Oh my we do not understand that this was illegal vote with only the word of the company with regards the result, do try to keep up or you will look a fool.

23-11-2012, 08:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_

Oh my we do not understand that this was illegal vote with only the word of the company with regards the result, do try to keep up or you will look a fool.

Read my post above, they didn't need to have a vote so they could say sorry the vote was illegal (according to you) and the say by the way we are ending the agreement.

Get it now?

Btw I am not union bashing I am simply giving the facts

Pierre · 23-11-2012, 11:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_

You again fail to understand any vote done in an underhand way such as this with no independent scrutineers is to all intents and purposes illegal.

So what? there didn't have to be a vote.

The vote is just a bit of showboating to make it look like the VM staff made the decision to end the agreement.

I don't know if they did or didn't, it's totally irrelevant to the outcome, which was always going to be that VM were going to end the voluntary agreement.

Quote:

The laws put in place to cover this were also intended to prevent wildcat strikes, do not for one second think this is over.

The union can do whatever they want, but it is over.

It was always going to be over.

TheDaddy · 24-11-2012, 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

So what? there didn't have to be a vote.

The vote is just a bit of showboating to make it look like the VM staff made the decision to end the agreement.

I don't know if they did or didn't, it's totally irrelevant to the outcome, which was always going to be that VM were going to end the voluntary agreement.

The union can do whatever they want, but it is over.

It was always going to be over.

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