our REPS changed his tune !!

[dvbuk55]

Was that a yes?????
and we currently do 17.5 of those delivering we will do more than this under this agreement, if your saying that the ips or prep is just the same as delivering then your having a laugh!!! and i think we will just have to agree to disagree.

It wasn't a yes. Obviously delivery is physically more strenuous than IPS. But mentally I think most posties are happier out on delivery.
I currently do 20 hrs/week out on delivery.( I'm looking forward to doing them without a bag over my shoulder.)
But that was a choice we had to make. If the indoor work isn't there what do you do?

Well somehow we seem to have lost track of the system of D2D, on the "old" scheme the D2D should have been prepped and delivered in normal duty time for which an additional payment was made dependent on size weight etc - now is that market going away - No, is it likely to increase - Yes, why? because Royal Mail want it uncapped, now if there was no market what would be the point - especially as they say they are turning £40 million of product away - so why not agree an uncapped limit, same payment per item and remove the voluntary element of delivering?

That way the market can be fulfilled, the delivery officer (he's the one who does the work, for those in any doubt) gets the reward for the increase, for which he agrees to compulsory delivery, which it will be anyway. The ESA is left alone as was agreed.

You have to question the veracity of the negotiators when the best they can come up with is this new deal whereby the limit is uncapped people who never see a D2D profits and the man who does the work delivers them for NOT just nothing but for less and is compelled to do so. And you have reps saying it is a good deal well it's not what I and thousands of delivery officers particularly part timers would call a good deal.

[belle smith]

I was refering to automating and having X amount in one envelope which RM would class as one item. As soon as automating looks set to go go nationwide as the norm, then current pence per item system (if we were to keep it) would I say be in urgent need of beeing looked at to reflect the the reality of DTD in the 2nd decade of the 21st century. A new system would need a new agreement? You appear to suggest that DTD in one envelope is in breach of a agreement.

I'd be astonished, as you say your self thats a big if, for one thing customer don't want them deliverd like that, and i'd imagine that they would be in breach of the existing agreement.

Okay i missunderstood your point.
On the point you did make, i didn't say it with certainty Daz i said "i imagine", i accept that that might be wrong, as i don't know for certain, do you?
I maintain that customers don't want them delivered like that.
This whole argument about RM taking away our d2d payments if we don't vote for the supplement, is counterfactual anyway!

[Big Daz]

What is certain is RML think renumeration and DTD into workload is paying twice.

From a economic view point, the time needed to prep DTD once we start seeing significant inceases will be expensive, thats why the all in one idea is appealing to RML. Its all about money!!!

On my 6 hour day my pegasus designed delivery duty would need adjusting with increased DTD, especially if I end up with a trolley. All in one would eliminate the need for adjustments.

If all in one happens, CWU should respond with request for SWW.

[dvbuk55]

What is certain is RML think renumeration and DTD into workload is paying twice.

From a economic view point, the time needed to prep DTD once we start seeing significant inceases will be expensive, thats why the all in one idea is appealing to RML. Its all about money!!!

On my 6 hour day my pegasus designed delivery duty would need adjusting with increased DTD, especially if I end up with a trolley. All in one would eliminate the need for adjustments.

If all in one happens, CWU should respond with request for SWW.

Well RML would think it was paying twice, now they aren't even paying once.

But let's revisit the idea of several in one packet - not that is a compatible theory with saving jobs, but what would be wrong with a single payment for a single envelope, which was equivalent to a %age of the current overall market and leave the ESA alone, they wouldn't be increasing the outlay but they would be targeting the personnel who are actually doing the work and not discriminating against part time members.

There would be no need to increase time into duty, not that that is necessarily the case even though some may think it will, the delivery span is unspecified and the prep time will be expected to be in the top 10% not what anyone else considers it should be.

So lets not say there is no plan B, there is always another way to look at things.

[pickaname]

If youve changed your mind from a No vote to a YES vote you have been brain washed.

Well done. You can now officially let someone else think for you.

[saga]

Seems to me that once the snake oil salesmen from the union headquarters pay you a visit, a miracle occurs and you all see the light - alleluya!
Do not convert - see it for what it is - a poor deal for the walking postie - vote no.

[BELIAL]

But they told me a pay cut;increased workload and longer spans was all good for me. I am so confused :mfo