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.

[hans solo]

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.

Reasonable adjustments in RM f**k off and look at it in reality
If they could get rid off all the older legacy non drivers legally they would have done
It is discrimination
And will be top of their agenda when the protected 5 years promise runs out

[Benson97]

Some years ago, about 2019, our office had a visit from the head of HR, or someone very high up in HR. She told the staff at a kitchen meeting that in the future the job will become harder and more physically demanding and probably won't be suitable for people in their 50s. She didn't exactly word it like that but it was words to that effect. Everybody got up and walked out of the meeting. Seven years later she wasn't wrong.

[clashcityrocker]

The problem is twofold.
Letters are down and automation is up.

Delivery spans have gone from 2h 30 to 4h 30+ in the past 20 years.
It isn't sustainable. You cannot continually extend the delivery span.
At some point somebody is going to have to accept that "mail carrier" is a part time job and the union are going to have to stop sacrificing its members joints on the altar of protecting full time jobs.

[Mr Rush]

The problem is twofold.
Letters are down and automation is up.

Delivery spans have gone from 2h 30 to 4h 30+ in the past 20 years.
It isn't sustainable. You cannot continually extend the delivery span.
At some point somebody is going to have to accept that "mail carrier" is a part time job and the union are going to have to stop sacrificing its members joints on the altar of protecting full time jobs.

That's what the Shorter Working Week was all about. Trying to fill 40 hours with more and more lapsing or revisions creating ever larger duties could not go on. Seasonal Variation didn't work either.

There's two problems with making the job part time in whole. Firstly, everyone who is PT is clamouring for more hours. Always have. Secondly, PT do the same outdoor hours. If that outdoor span is unsustainable then it would have to be decreased. If you decrease it, you're back to the first problem. Then PT are doing two duties to make a living. It's the road to this article, which 13 years ago seemed like a nightmarish vision of the future but now I see the upsides. They're just delivering the letters in peace, for starters.

I'd love to know what the job was like in the 70s when letter volumes contracted from ~12bn in 1970 to ~9bn in 1978 (before the 24 year explosion started in 1982). It's the only other time volumes have declined outside of the world wars, though I'm guessing the impact was limited on account of the UPW being comparatively stronger than the CWU in the present and a nationally-owned money-no-object vital service not engaging in knee-jerk slashing.