Paid Union Meeting - not a happy chicken!

At the union meeting today, the union told us we had to vote for all or nothing of three points of negotiation.

Why were these points not put down separately so they could be looked at and voted on separately. Where did they come from? Whose idea were they? Who told the union officials that is what we wanted?
Why were we not given any other options? It was those three or nothing. It was also not made clear what would happen if the vote was NO to all three - did that mean they would negotiate the previous claims, or walk away, or make somethig else up? I'm pretty sure the vote was yes, at least at my meeting, but I don't know that that is the best way to go, seeing as we don't know the alternative.

Why is the union telling us what to do and what to vote for? WE ARE the union - the union membership (us) should be telling the union officials what we want them to discuss on our behalf.

The three things they are negotiating on are NOT what we asked them to negotiate on when they were talking with Labour, and I would like to see the negotiators go back to talk about the pay jolt and removing us from the operations grant as discussed to start with. That was the last instruction we gave to the unions, and I object to being instructed to vote for different things by the officials.

The mood of the meeting that I attended was clearly that the pink action day was an absolute waste of time and in fact there was a readiness to take action up to and including strike action in order to get what we want (which is not what the union will be negotiating for next week.)

Any action we take will be for the three recommendations that the officials made us vote on today. This is not what people seemed to want to strike for. We wanted the pay jolt and the other things they promised us, and need to let them know that we don't want what they have changed it to.

I'm pretty sure I am not the only one with this view point. We need to get the officials to listen to their members.
If there is anybody out there who agrees with my sentiments, please reply, and offer support so that we can make the union listen. Why are we paying these people to negotiate something we don't want?