Royal Mail "attempt" divide and rule over later st

[sadlersbitch]

dated 11 August 2007 | issue 2063






| email article | comment on article | printable version

Posted: 7.58pm Wednesday 8 August 2007

Post strikes

This article should be read after: » Step up the action to win this crucial battle

Royal Mail attempt divide and rule over start times
Royal Mail management is pushing ahead with the introduction of a change in start times for delivery workers.

But, fearful of the prospect of more strike action in response to the imposed change, management has put back the introduction to 17 September.

The heads of Royal Mail have long suggested that they would like to move to a start time of 6am across all

delivery offices, without negotiating the change with the postal workers’ CWU union.

Whenever it is introduced, the new start time will force many post workers to work until later in the day, causing disruption for those who have built family life and other commitments around shifts that generally begin one hour earlier.

In particular, many delivery workers will have to work later on a Saturday, making it harder to spend quality time with their families.

In what appears to be a concession, Royal Mail has now guaranteed to continue with the exisiting £12.50 weekly shift allowance as a result of the later start.

Importantly however this will only be for existing workers.

This creates the possibility of creating a two-tier work force in deliveries.

So for instance for the new workers, the lack of the £12.50 allowance would wipe out the miserly 2.5 percent pay offer.

Prior to the latest offer Bob Gibson, the CWU assistant secretary, told Socialist Worker that management was attempting to create confusion.

He said, “It was telling some areas of the country that it plans to implement this change, and put up notices on boards to this effect. But in other places, there is no mention of it at all.â€

[BELIAL]

later starts are purelly designed as a cost cutting measure. 1 allowance will vanish. 2 many workers have commitments incompatible with later finishes.

[ianpostie]

whay about my nights sadlers bitch?reckon our dom will keep them?

[robd]

The savings for me are immaterial,over the last 18 months in our D.O. we have effectively replaced nearly 30 people
(only about 68 in the office)on 40 hours previously,to 30/25 hour contracts.
at present they are asked to start at a time which suits the business,however contractually their start time is 9.00am
and eventually that day will come.
i feel many people have been very naive,like that classic gameshow 321,confusion reigned,and the answers may well have been ultimately obvious,but amongst a raft of changes,the key issue for messrs leighton and crozier,is to mobilise a part-time workforce.
and after weeks of confusion and disruption it is the issue of later starts that has come to the fore.
So we all agree "i don't mind starting later as long as i get the same money"while the union claim a hollow victory,but it
will be you know who that have got what they always set out to achieve.

[davepat]

i would not mind if we start at 06.00 keep the money and have a 35 hour week, what do u reckon my friends?
the 35 hr week has been a policy of the Union for years now and about time we had it

:lfo :cfo

[damo]

i would not mind if we start at 06.00 keep the money and have a 35 hour week, what do u reckon my friends?
the 35 hr week has been a policy of the Union for years now and about time we had it

:lfo :cfo

All they will do is not pay you for your breaks,and you have your 35hr week.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

i would not mind if we start at 06.00 keep the money and have a 35 hour week, what do u reckon my friends?
the 35 hr week has been a policy of the Union for years now and about time we had it

:lfo :cfo

All they will do is not pay you for your breaks,and you have your 35hr week.

Careful you'll give them more ideas. However is does not quiet make 5 hours difference breaks are 40minutes - working week 5 days so total breaks are 200minutes or 3 hrs 20 minutes.

[evilc]

i would not mind if we start at 06.00 keep the money and have a 35 hour week, what do u reckon my friends?
the 35 hr week has been a policy of the Union for years now and about time we had it

:lfo :cfo

All they will do is not pay you for your breaks,and you have your 35hr week.

Careful you'll give them more ideas. However is does not quiet make 5 hours difference breaks are 40minutes - working week 5 days so total breaks are 200minutes or 3 hrs 20 minutes.

This already happens at mdec, no paid meal breaks amounts to 36hrs 40 mins working week.

[smokerjim]

Just a thought, but out of the 40,000 that Leighton wants rid of, how many FTs will go willingly, simply cos they can't or won't start at 6 - 6:30am? How much EVR money would be saved? Even having to take on an equivelent number of replacements, they will be PTs & they won't get the early shift allowance - and how many jobs simply won't be replaced?

Just a shame that :lfo & :cfo don't realise all this pain & sacrifice could be averted by the loss of only two employees - them!

[norbet colon]

Just a thought, but out of the 40,000 that Leighton wants rid of, how many FTs will go willingly, simply cos they can't or won't start at 6 - 6:30am? How much EVR money would be saved? Even having to take on an equivelent number of replacements, they will be PTs & they won't get the early shift allowance - and how many jobs simply won't be replaced?

Just a shame that :lfo & :cfo don't realise all this pain & sacrifice could be averted by the loss of only two employees - them!

-they call it "managing " out of the business .To quote a RM Senior Mgr Mod on a infamous forum " It will & it must be 60/40% " , RM didn't study TNT in Holland for nothing .