An Email I recieved recently

Attached is a statement from a disgruntled MailOfficer.
I forward it for your information.

Vote NO to EBA6!
Vote NO to EBA6!
Vote NO to EBA6!
Vote NO to EBA6!

I have just read through the latest EBA 6 update from Australia Post. It is quite an interesting piece of propaganda. So lets have a look at it.
It starts off with some useful information about how they have reached an in principle agreement with the unions and we all must now vote.
Next we get these two short paragraphs
"A YES vote not only provides benefits to employees, but also provides a mechanism that will allow the business to continue to move forward. In doing so, it will help create a more secure environment for everyone at Post."
"A NO vote will only mean more delays and an uncertain future for the corporation. Inevitably, this will impact on future job security."

This EBA is a great win for Post, so of course they are going to advocate a yes vote. What I find interesting is the way they have chosen to encourage the no vote. They have done this by using a statement that is supposed to put the 'fear' into all of us.
I would go further and even say they are threatening us to not vote no.
Lets look at it again shall we?

A no vote will only mean more delays and an uncertain future for the corporation.
It's funny how all of a sudden the delay factor is important to Post. They didn't seem to care much about that before.
In fact they were quite happy to delay. They only had negotiation meetings every two weeks. They were happy to not have real discussions with the union until after we went out on strike. hmmm.
Then theres the 'fear' factor. An uncertain future for the corporation. This is designed to get everyone thinking that bad things will happen if we vote no. Then we come to the threat part of the statement.
Inevitably, this will impact on future job security.
What does this mean? Are they saying that they have no control over their business? Are they saying that a NO vote will send the business into a decline and they'll be forced to shed jobs?
Maybe this is a plea to us from the high-ups at Post. You see if the NO vote gets up, maybe it will impact on their future job security. I fail to see how it would impact on the average Post workers job security.
Ok next we get to a long paragraph about how there are certain elements (small factions) that will seek to undermine the agreement and not to pay any attention to these elements because they are irrational and crazy people. (well words to that affect)
If these 'factions' are small, why even mention them. Obviously Post is worried about these small factions.
Could it be that they are exposing certain truths about are fantastic new EBA that don't fit in with the 'this is great for everyone' mantra.
Hell, these people might even be making sense, so we'll say something about it so that if anyone is approached by one of these people they will turn and run from them because they are a menace to all good Post employees.
Also I'm thinking that one of the reasons that Post mentions these 'small factions' is because they are probably not all that small. Post would like us to think they are small so that if we are thinking that this EBA contains little in the way of real advancement in conditions and pay, we are in the minority.
The last paragraph show us how high and mighty Post is feeling about this EBA. I highlight this small but significant pointer to Post's arrogance
Once we have majority support.....
Are they trying to take the vote away from you by declaring a win for the YES vote bofore the ballot has been conducted? Seems like it. Do they know something we don't? Probably not. They are just showing us how arrogant (and
cocky?) they are feeling. Maybe even smug, because they have an EBA on the way that does a hell of a lot for the future of the corporation, but little for the workers who make the corporation the success it is.
One last thing to go over before I get off my high horse. There is an agreement time in this EBA update which I feel the need to point out.
28 months
Where does this figure come from? I know I'm absolutley correct on this when I tell you that this agreement is 34 months long. I know this because I can count (I can hear the gasps of surprise). EBA 5 finished in february 2004. EBA 6 finishes in december 2006.
Now everbody try this. Get a calender if you want and count how many months there are from february 2004 to december 2006. Its 34 not 28.
POST IS LYING TO US (AGAIN) ABOUT OUR EBA.
If they feel they can lie to us so blatantly about something which anyone with some basic math ability can figure out is wrong. Then what else are they lying to us about. How good really is this EBA?
Don't believe Post. Don't believe our Union. They have both told us lies about this EBA
VOTE NO TO EBA 6