DM26

[qwerty2]

Yes that’s right 1 person doing 2 walks in a van. Apparently they will be a resign but not for a while

So they'll get rid of half the staff then!!!

[ted_e_bear]

Yes that’s right 1 person doing 2 walks in a van. Apparently they will be a resign but not for a while

What so either you haven't been informed correctly/haven't quite grasped it (no offence) or your office is ignoring the fundamentals of DM26 and going 'rogue'

[tbowyer]

Most of the walks are being put into pods but not all of them

[clashcityrocker]

For gods sake. Have you not heard of indirect discrimination? RM have done it before with overtime bans that consequently impacted a particular group.

Yes I have heard of indirect discrimination.
For example if I was friends with a homosexual and I was assaulted because of that friendship, even though I wasn't homosexual that would be indirect discrimination.

But indirect discrimination still requires a protected characteristic and not being able to drive is not a protected characteristic so it isn't discrimination.

So if an overtime ban impacted women it would be discrimination. (Direct discrimination)
If it impacted Chelsea supporters or non drivers it wouldn't be indirect discrimination. No protected characteristic.

[yellowbelly]

Yes I have heard of indirect discrimination.
For example if I was friends with a homosexual and I was assaulted because of that friendship, even though I wasn't homosexual that would be indirect discrimination.

But indirect discrimination still requires a protected characteristic and not being able to drive is not a protected characteristic so it isn't discrimination.

So if an overtime ban impacted women it would be discrimination. (Direct discrimination)
If it impacted Chelsea supporters or non drivers it wouldn't be indirect discrimination. No protected characteristic.

The discrimination because of your friendship and say it happened in the workplace
(another member of staff assaulted you for being the friend) - wouldn't be indirect discrimination it would be 'Direct discrimination - by association'

[Barnacle]

For gods sake. Have you not heard of indirect discrimination? RM have done it before with overtime bans that consequently impacted a particular group.

Yes I have heard of indirect discrimination.
For example if I was friends with a homosexual and I was assaulted because of that friendship, even though I wasn't homosexual that would be indirect discrimination.

But indirect discrimination still requires a protected characteristic and not being able to drive is not a protected characteristic so it isn't discrimination.

So if an overtime ban impacted women it would be discrimination. (Direct discrimination)
If it impacted Chelsea supporters or non drivers it wouldn't be indirect discrimination. No protected characteristic.

What if all the non-drivers who happened to be the only people displaced in the office, also happened to all be over 60? What if they were all disabled in some way? What if they were all Black?

So being a non-driver becomes the indirect way of discriminating.

[funkflex55]

Is making walks bigger and bigger and making delivery spans longer and longer discrimination against people that are older or less able than others? What if someone had an underlying health condition that meant that the extra work affected them more? Would that be discrimination against disability? If someone had to leave because they were becoming physically unwell due to the extra workload could they claim constructive dismissal?

Genuine questions BTW,. I'm not sure I'll be able to cope with the new spans.

[Barnacle]

Is making walks bigger and bigger and making delivery spans longer and longer discrimination against people that are older or less able than others? What if someone had an underlying health condition that meant that the extra work affected them more? Would that be discrimination against disability? If someone had to leave because they were becoming physically unwell due to the extra workload could they claim constructive dismissal?

Genuine questions BTW,. I'm not sure I'll be able to cope with the new spans.

It’s not discrimination in general because they’re being horrible to everyone, but anyone with health conditions or a disability that they have managed so far, should have reasonable adjustments made so that they aren’t indirectly discriminated against by a blanket expectation of increased workload.

[funkflex55]

Is making walks bigger and bigger and making delivery spans longer and longer discrimination against people that are older or less able than others? What if someone had an underlying health condition that meant that the extra work affected them more? Would that be discrimination against disability? If someone had to leave because they were becoming physically unwell due to the extra workload could they claim constructive dismissal?

Genuine questions BTW,. I'm not sure I'll be able to cope with the new spans.

It’s not discrimination in general because they’re being horrible to everyone, but anyone with health conditions or a disability that they have managed so far, should have reasonable adjustments made so that they aren’t indirectly discriminated against by a blanket expectation of increased workload.

Thanks Barnacle.

[yellowbelly]

For gods sake. Have you not heard of indirect discrimination? RM have done it before with overtime bans that consequently impacted a particular group.

Yes I have heard of indirect discrimination.
For example if I was friends with a homosexual and I was assaulted because of that friendship, even though I wasn't homosexual that would be indirect discrimination.

But indirect discrimination still requires a protected characteristic and not being able to drive is not a protected characteristic so it isn't discrimination.

So if an overtime ban impacted women it would be discrimination. (Direct discrimination)
If it impacted Chelsea supporters or non drivers it wouldn't be indirect discrimination. No protected characteristic.

What if all the non-drivers who happened to be the only people displaced in the office, also happened to all be over 60? What if they were all disabled in some way? What if they were all Black?

So being a non-driver becomes the indirect way of discriminating.

But are they? You're trying to prove a hypothetical. Also objective justification.

[Barnacle]

For gods sake. Have you not heard of indirect discrimination? RM have done it before with overtime bans that consequently impacted a particular group.

Yes I have heard of indirect discrimination.
For example if I was friends with a homosexual and I was assaulted because of that friendship, even though I wasn't homosexual that would be indirect discrimination.

But indirect discrimination still requires a protected characteristic and not being able to drive is not a protected characteristic so it isn't discrimination.

So if an overtime ban impacted women it would be discrimination. (Direct discrimination)
If it impacted Chelsea supporters or non drivers it wouldn't be indirect discrimination. No protected characteristic.

What if all the non-drivers who happened to be the only people displaced in the office, also happened to all be over 60? What if they were all disabled in some way? What if they were all Black?

So being a non-driver becomes the indirect way of discriminating.

But are they? You're trying to prove a hypothetical. Also objective justification.

We don’t know the answer to any of those questions - I’m not trying to prove anything, I’m just showing how indirect discrimination could arise from a management decision to squeeze out non-drivers.

I’m not going to ask for further details from the original poster because that might identify where they work.