full time job on the toss of a coin.

jetblack · Post by **jetblack** » 22 Jul 2016, 17:31

That youth needs to wise up :-

world class male · Post by **world class male** » 22 Jul 2016, 18:39

daveyeff wrote:the youngest got it because he called heads. heads it was... he has lost out twice before to the same bloke on a coin toss. once was a floater vacancy, the other was on Saturdays off. 3rd time lucky I suppose. the older one went sick today. must be well pissed off. I know I would be.

so he's accepted the way to decide twice before and didn't query the method used then, because he won?
law of averages says he'll lose eventually.
again, seek advice from a senior union rep for the future if/when it happens again

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 22 Jul 2016, 18:47

according to the reps you can't go on age anymore. I know it used to be this way because a lad at ours got full time before a colleague who had started on the same day as him because he was older. has the agreement changed? I don't know. maybe someone who's in the know could clarify.

rubberbond · Post by **rubberbond** » 22 Jul 2016, 20:24

Rumple wrote:
Vwtouran wrote:Thought is goes by alphabetical order?
That wouldn't ge fair on Zack Zanderfeld.

Or Zoe Zebra and her dad is a postman, er,zebra.

salomon2 · Post by **salomon2** » 22 Jul 2016, 20:26

Why couldn't the hours be shared between the two of them?

UnhappyGremlin · Post by **UnhappyGremlin** » 23 Jul 2016, 00:35

I don't see a problem with this.

There are a couple of people in my unit that started on the same day, and about 20 years difference between them.

We alternate, and each has a turn at being senior.

But as someone else said, the older guy only seems to have a problem because he lost, it was fine when he won.

As far as Way Forward goes, I think it does still hold the field, but if the local agreement is coin toss, which is fair, then where's the problem?

rehabron · Post by **rehabron** » 23 Jul 2016, 13:04

Extract from the Way Forward Agreement 2000 on seniority.
13.9 Where several employees start on the same day the following factors will determine the relative order. Firstly any periods of Post Office service on other grades, secondly date of selection and thirdly date of birth.

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 23 Jul 2016, 21:29

rehabron wrote:Extract from the Way Forward Agreement 2000 on seniority.
13.9 Where several employees start on the same day the following factors will determine the relative order. Firstly any periods of Post Office service on other grades, secondly date of selection and thirdly date of birth.

that was from 2000.. 16 yrs ago. it must have changed since then.....dingo, where are you?

Martin Walsh · Post by **Martin Walsh** » 24 Jul 2016, 10:42

When the Age Discrimination law came in Royal Mail wrote the union amending a number of National Agreements which under their legal department breach the new law.

The first was that in age order between 55-65 could opt for VR first under MTSF

The second was than anyone between 50 and 60 could keep pay protection 60 rather the than 3 year pay protection limit ( when BT2010 agreement came in they increased on certain pay protection to 5 years.

Equally the third one was that could no longer use age when deciding who was more senior.

daveyeff · Post by **daveyeff** » 24 Jul 2016, 19:26

so a coin toss it is then. age discrimination is out.

Post by **IloveMYredTROLLEY!** » 24 Jul 2016, 20:16

If age is out, surely seniority is dead!

Martin Walsh · Post by **Martin Walsh** » 24 Jul 2016, 20:24

Seniority is not based on Age ! It is based on length of service and therefore is a fair system for selecting jobs of a same pay grade.

I am 50 and done 31 years and am senior to lots of people older than myself !

Post by **IloveMYredTROLLEY!** » 25 Jul 2016, 05:59

Show me a 20 year old who has done 31 years to get preferential work treatment.

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 25 Jul 2016, 13:41

dingo wrote:Equally the third one was that could no longer use age when deciding who was more senior.

Actually, I thought Date of Birth can be used as a tiebreaker, but only when all other reasonable avenues have been exhausted.

blacko · Post by **blacko** » 01 Aug 2016, 15:51

It's always a problem now separating two people that started on the same day. The age discrimination act stopped the 'older' person getting it as was previously the agreement. There used to be a rule that the person with the highest scores in the test they take when joining RM was the most senior but nobody could ever find out what they were. They replaced that with the oldest first which was knocked out by the Age Discrimination Act. Now we just do it alphabetically because that's how it comes up on the seniority list using the Manpower Plan. Whichever way you do it somebody's gonna be pissed.