not on facebook
ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (UPDATED 2017)... HERE




Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool:Abuse of IWT

22 Jul 2011, 16:28

Just to make it clear, I received this from my Branch Sec and the first bit below is what he sent out. The rest is the original E-Mail
POSTMAN EDIT:Added another email.
Please can you report back asap to your Area Rep or myself if you become aware of this initiaitve. Also, please seek clarification around the issue of performance management generally from your Area Rep as it is the case that more and more members are being pushed to go faster and/or being tested over and over again. Such actions could constitute B&H.

Your Area rep or the Branch will have details of the national position on "testing" members. Don't let RM get away with bullying our members.

Thanks

****


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent: Friday, 22 July 2011, 15:51
Subject: Pareto

Branch Secretaries
Area Delivery Representatives
Divisional Representatives


Dear Colleagues,

Please find attached a note from Bob Gibson, CWU Assistant Secretary, concerning Pareto.

Please can ADRs bring this to the attention of all local reps.

Thanks.

Hayley Nutley
Secretary to Bob Gibson
Outdoor Postal Dept
CWU HQ


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool


It has been brought to the attention of the Outdoor Dept that Royal Mail managers are attempting to use an unagreed performance tool to measure the performance of individuals. They are stating that this tool/approach has been agreed with the CWU which is completely untrue.

Our understanding is that they are extracting information from the IWT (which is an agreed tool) to determine what the throughputs (IPS/Prep) should be on an individual basis. However the IWT is a tool to measure office/unit performance not individual performance and there has been no discussion with the CWU at national level at all on this unagreed approach. The only agreement that exists between the CWU and Royal Mail on the subject of individual performance is the Individual Performance Standards Agreement and no other.

Branches and Representatives should make it clear to managers that we will not participate in the unagreed process and register disagreement where necessary.

This should then be raised in the first instance with CWU Divisional representatives ASAP and subsequently with the Outdoor Dept if the problem is not resolved at Divisional level.

This will be raised at a meeting with Royal Mail on Monday 25th July and the outcome reported in due course.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Colleagues

Please see the email from Bob Gibson below on this matter.

Reps will recall that I sent out previously hard copies of info on this issue. Please remain vigilant and challenge all and any unagreed testing methods . Remember that only the IPS agreement holds the field and if anyone would like a copy please let me know. The concern is that as traffic volumes increase in the Autumn that management will start to pressure and bully members in the absence of putting in enough hours into delivery offices.

Keep in touch with your Area Rep for advice.

####

================================================================================================================================================================================================================

From: Bobby Gibson [mailto:BGibson@cwu.org]


Billy

I spoke with Rob Jenson this morning regarding Pareto following his visit to N. Ireland. He confirmed that the only process to be used is the National Agreement - Individual Performance Standards (IPS) and this will be dealt with sensitively. There will be no displaying of any information relating to any individuals performance. If performance issues are identified in line with IPS then this will dealt with through counselling and where necessary training. We also discussed IWT and he confirmed that the IWT is an office based performance measure and not a measure of individual performance.

I anticipate that this should resolve the problem. However if this proves not to be the case then let me know ASAP and also advise our members not to participate.

Regards

Bob Gibson CWU Assistant Secretary - Outdoor

Outdoor Postal Dept CWU HQ 150 The Broadway
Wimbledon London SW19 1RX
Tel: 0208 971 7276 Fax: 0208 254 8577
CWU Website: http://www.cwu.org/

IPS agreement...
https://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communi ... 36&t=52955

================================================================================================================================================================================================================
Last edited by Geezer on 22 Jul 2011, 17:53, edited 4 times in total.

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

22 Jul 2011, 16:32

At feckin last. :roll:
Apologies for the language Geezer but i've been waiting for the union to wake up on this since last July. :cuppa

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

22 Jul 2011, 16:47

Fish i swear like a trooper, so no prob's with the language.
I'm with you on this and have posted a Letter to Branches ( viewtopic.php?f=15&t=37810 ) in the Union Room about the CWU Phoning people and asking for their Views on the Problems we face so maybe just maybe HQ will finally pull their Heads out of their arses and do something about it.
I LIVE IN HOPE :wave

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

22 Jul 2011, 16:52

stickied thread as I think its an important one

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

22 Jul 2011, 17:38

It hasn't gone out as a LTB yet has it?

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

22 Jul 2011, 17:42

Hi geezer,
IWT does have a page for individual performance.
The planner/DOM should have set it up with each individual walk
On this page is number of redirects, percentage of traffic
Based on the number of W/S items that the walk gets divided by
The total number of items for that office, it then adds the same
Percentage of manual, d2d contracts for the week, then comes
up with a prep time. Whether agreed is a different matter, but
The measure is there.

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

22 Jul 2011, 17:46

Steviea
I think what HQ and my Branch are saying is, It should not be used as a performance Tool. :wave

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

22 Jul 2011, 17:51

That's not individual performance stevie.....it's individual duty resourcing.
It's purely a "should take" measurement not a target that members have to meet.
It was never designed to measure performance.

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

22 Jul 2011, 17:57

fishtank wrote:That's not individual performance stevie.....it's individual duty resourcing.
It's purely a "should take" measurement not a target that members have to meet.
It was never designed to measure performance.


I am not saying it's right or wrong, but we all know if they have
incorporated it into the programme, it will be for a reason

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

22 Jul 2011, 18:00

fishtank wrote:That's not individual performance stevie.....it's individual duty resourcing.
It's purely a "should take" measurement not a target that members have to meet.
It was never designed to measure performance.



Sorry fishtank, but what is the difference between
" should take time" and a performance measure.

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

22 Jul 2011, 18:02

fishtank wrote:At feckin last. :roll:
Apologies for the language Geezer but i've been waiting for the union to wake up on this since last July. :cuppa

Everything comes to he who waits
Think I will book the summer holiday for 2020, with me CS & WS payments :chuckle

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

22 Jul 2011, 18:04

Steviea34 wrote:
fishtank wrote:That's not individual performance stevie.....it's individual duty resourcing.
It's purely a "should take" measurement not a target that members have to meet.
It was never designed to measure performance.



Sorry fishtank, but what is the difference between
" should take time" and a performance measure.

One is a conduct issue, the other isn't.

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

22 Jul 2011, 18:09

Steviea34 wrote:
fishtank wrote:That's not individual performance stevie.....it's individual duty resourcing.
It's purely a "should take" measurement not a target that members have to meet.
It was never designed to measure performance.


I am not saying it's right or wrong, but we all know if they have
incorporated it into the programme, it will be for a reason


The main reason it's in there is to allow for individual duty micro-planning.
If my prep shows up as 1hr34mins and yours as 1hr41mins i can do 7mins more IPS.
A bit pointless....until WCM hits the D.O.'s. :nervous

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

22 Jul 2011, 18:13

Based on the number of W/S items that the walk gets divided by
The total number of items for that office

We all know how 'their' figures work,impossible to calculate unless every single item is individually categorised and counted.
And what would the BSI be?

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

22 Jul 2011, 18:15

POSTMAN wrote:And what would the BSI be?


Unagreed. :cuppa

Previous page Next page


Page 1 of 5   1, 2, 3, 4, 5