Two questions regarding the 'securing our future' brochure??

Supermac0151 · Post by **Supermac0151** » 04 May 2017, 16:48

If anyone has any info or opinion of my questions I'd be grateful to hear from you,

Firstly, it says within the brochure that 'ownership of a delivery route given back to the postie' either I'm stupid or just a lack of knowledge but I thought when we sign for our duty that is like ownership??

Secondly, if successful with the new shorter week, how would that apply to part time staff? They won't get a reduction so would it be in the form of higher wages?

There's a lot for us all to digest, the pension plans are baffling enough but just wanted some clarification on my questions if anyone can shed light, thanks.

Post by **SpacePhoenix** » 04 May 2017, 17:09

Don't know about DOs but for MCs a shorter week would mean that RM would have to employ more staff as generally it goes to the wire every shift, every day

Celtic Postman · Post by **Celtic Postman** » 04 May 2017, 17:18

Supermac0151 wrote:If anyone has any info or opinion of my questions I'd be grateful to hear from you,

Firstly, it says within the brochure that 'ownership of a delivery route given back to the postie' either I'm stupid or just a lack of knowledge but I thought when we sign for our duty that is like ownership??
What they are proposing is that by taking ownership of a delivery route is that they want us as the workers to cover sickness, holidays and any other leave by ourselves.
We would as a collective unit would be grouped into groups and the postmen / women in that group would have to cover any absence within the group.

Secondly, if successful with the new shorter week, how would that apply to part time staff? They won't get a reduction so would it be in the form of higher wages?

With the introduction of a shorter working week the hourly rate that staff are paid would go up.
This therefor would lead to a wage increase for part time staff rather than a reduction in their hours.

There's a lot for us all to digest, the pension plans are baffling enough but just wanted some clarification on my questions if anyone can shed light, thanks.

Hope this helps.

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 04 May 2017, 17:20

Supermac0151 wrote:Firstly, it says within the brochure that 'ownership of a delivery route given back to the postie' either I'm stupid or just a lack of knowledge but I thought when we sign for our duty that is like ownership??

Royal Mail are starting to realise that lapsing is expensive in complaints, that the residents on a lapsed round don't have a connection with the random posties that turn up, and that the delivery times are very random as well. One of the general public's views of RM posties is that they can rely on their regular postie and they have a personal connection with them. Lapsing was ruining this.

So what they are doing now under the new PDA and pay talks is trying to gain concessions from the Union by giving up lapsing in the most part. Of course to do this they want reduced eligibility for sick pay, reduced pay progression for new starters, and teams covering absences.

Supermac0151 wrote:Secondly, if successful with the new shorter week, how would that apply to part-time staff? They won't get a reduction so would it be in the form of higher wages?

Part-time staff would receive a % increase in pay to match the % reduction in the working week for FT staff. When we went from 40 to 39 with no loss of pay it was converted into a 2.5% rise for everyone else.

rubberbond · Post by **rubberbond** » 04 May 2017, 17:52

Celtic Postman wrote:
Supermac0151 wrote:If anyone has any info or opinion of my questions I'd be grateful to hear from you,

Firstly, it says within the brochure that 'ownership of a delivery route given back to the postie' either I'm stupid or just a lack of knowledge but I thought when we sign for our duty that is like ownership??
What they are proposing is that by taking ownership of a delivery route is that they want us as the workers to cover sickness, holidays and any other leave by ourselves.

We would as a collective unit would be grouped into groups and the postmen / women in that group would have to cover any absence within the group.
Sod that for a game of soldiers.

elteleltel · Post by **elteleltel** » 04 May 2017, 17:56

I thought the " ownership " bit was like a Franchise initiative

Post by **wacko74** » 04 May 2017, 18:52

elteleltel wrote:I thought the " ownership " bit was like a Franchise initiative

Yes I thought it was possibly hinting at that

Newbie001 · Post by **Newbie001** » 04 May 2017, 19:30

Can you imagine getting put in 'team' with the office sick-notes . The ones that have never had serious injury or illness but seem to be off sick all the time, usually busy periods. Sure every office has them, hence why they're trying to make us all suffer.
Also what about paternity leave? All those trainee managers, still classed as post-men, some still with duties. Senior members with extra leave, people who buy leave. Sure there are countless other scenarios.
Team, all I for-see is non-stop arguing and bickering.
Got disaster written all over it.

smileski · Post by **smileski** » 04 May 2017, 20:18

Newbie001 wrote:Can you imagine getting put in 'team' with the office sick-notes . The ones that have never had serious injury or illness but seem to be off sick all the time, usually busy periods. Sure every office has them, hence why they're trying to make us all suffer.
Also what about paternity leave? All those trainee managers, still classed as post-men, some still with duties. Senior members with extra leave, people who buy leave. Sure there are countless other scenarios.
Team, all I for-see is non-stop arguing and bickering.
Got disaster written all over it.

Agreed! Also what happens when 2 or 3 staff in the same group are off?! Not sure they have thought this through, but that does not surprise me.

worktotime · Post by **worktotime** » 04 May 2017, 21:20

1 - there would be early starters in delivery offices prepping 2 or 3 dutys ? hmm how would that work a 2 tier part time workforce comes to mind , 2 - covering dutys for sick and leave with no extra pay , yer right , you want paying for the hours you work ( if you want it ) its not a charity its a company where the top knobs are lining there pockets with stupid wages and massive bonuses for doing nowt , what a load of f***ing bollocks from people who have never been on the streets doing the job , clueless

psyCrowe · Post by **psyCrowe** » 04 May 2017, 21:29

I have no idea how this is supposed to work. Somebody calls in sick, so the group would basically lapse the duty? The only way this would work is if it was a team of six or seven people. Five duty holders, one float, and one reserve. No way are RM going to have a reserve doing nothing, so it would essentially be the same as what we are doing already, unless they want a cull of middle management and for us to do our own staffing and such?

markst1 · Post by **markst1** » 04 May 2017, 21:31

Would part timers be made up to 35 hours across the board or is it just full timers being moved down to 35 hours. Or is that still to be decided ?

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 05 May 2017, 07:45

SpacePhoenix wrote:Don't know about DOs but for MCs a shorter week would mean that RM would have to employ more staff as generally it goes to the wire every shift, every day

I think the answer to that is on page 4:The Working Week.

Some places and individuals are not working at the same high level as the rest of us

That's not meant as a judgment from me, more as an insight as to the mind set of the business, what won't be happening is more staff. What will be happening is that the existing staff will be expected to do more in less time. After all they do state that the cost of handling each item must go down.

bogstandard · Post by **bogstandard** » 05 May 2017, 08:30

This is teamworking by another name, as has been highlighted what happens when one of your "team" is off. Answer the remainder of the team cover it for free until such time that this person is removed entirely and e.g. your team of 5 becomes a team of 4 permanently. yes they'll cover the first person who is off if they have reserves but what are the chances of that, your group will be competing with other groups for a limited, if any, resource.
The "our" in securing our future is those further up the food chain, and certainly not you or me.
Now is the time to reject RM and get 100% behind your union.

Post by **SpacePhoenix** » 05 May 2017, 08:46

fishtank wrote:That's not meant as a judgment from me, more as an insight as to the mind set of the business, what won't be happening is more staff. What will be happening is that the existing staff will be expected to do more in less time. After all they do state that the cost of handling each item must go down.

If RM don't put the extra staff in, they're going to find MCs failing everyday, when often shifts might have half a dozen casuals and people doing ot and it still goes to the wire. Staff already get moved around depending on where the work is