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




Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool

11 Apr 2013, 20:34

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


No. :left:

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool:Abuse of IWT

17 Oct 2015, 23:14

Hello geezer,

Would you pass me the the Individual Performance Standards Agreement please

Many Thanks

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool:Abuse of IWT

18 Oct 2015, 06:50

sharktc wrote:Hello geezer,

Would you pass me the the Individual Performance Standards Agreement please

Many Thanks



its in the link at the bottom of Geezers first post in the thread :Very Happy

Re: Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool:Abuse of IWT

18 Oct 2015, 08:46

Thank you

Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool:Abuse of IWT

11 Aug 2016, 17:38

Hey guys, I don't know if maybe I've gotten confused by this, but is this what the managers are talking about when they say traffic is lowest it's ever been and you should be finished early?

I've been double prepping a walk that the duty holder often claims overtime on, I should know as it worked with him for a while! The first day I was double prepping a manager kept overlooking me and writing on his notepad. I questioned this and they said that they were comparing me to the duty holder, first of all is that o.k? I felt extremely shocked and intimidated to be used as bait in a witch hunt against a guy who does the job as it should be done. I was told that my prepping time is faster and that this would be used against the duty holder, I come in on my time too and just do the prepping at a speed that I do it at.

But the my main question, I went over that first day and claimed the OT and as soon as I arrived the next morning I got the 'Why did you claim 15 minutes, the traffic was the lowest it's been in years'. They then said that they would show me the IWT in his office this morning to prove that traffic was low. They never did show me. Is this what this agreement is about, using traffic and IWT to monitor individual performances or have I been mistaken? Could I use this in my defence when the next harassment comes about?

Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool:Abuse of IWT

11 Aug 2016, 18:03

yes you have it spot on

Don't forget to use the rep as well




Image

Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool:Abuse of IWT

13 Aug 2016, 14:39

TrueBlueTerrier wrote:yes you have it spot on

Don't forget to use the rep as well




Image

Thanks TBT. I already spoke to the rep that day and I've not heard a word from that manager since, but I will certainly use this if I ever hear about traffic and IWT again.

Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool:Abuse of IWT

16 Sep 2016, 17:20

The IWT gets abused all the time... every... single... day



For example, we got one guy who only ever gets set to prep his own frame whilst someone else who starts/finishes at the same time is having to prep nearly 2 frames. When you consider the fact that the deliveries are about the same in terms of number of calls/loops etc. then where is the fairness in that??

Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool:Abuse of IWT

10 Oct 2016, 15:20

Did this go out as LTB, in my office the jobs that complete are having the IWT thrown at them and blaming the indoor and not outdoor element. I keep telling them it cannot be used to measure an individuals performance at their prep fitting. I would like to print out the Bob Gibson email but would like a more professional copy ie. LTB.

Also, one of the boys in work got hauled in the office because according to the DOM he only sorted 7 items of mail per minute in the time he was at his fitting in total. The DOM said he was at his fitting for 110 minutes and based on the total items he received it equated to 7 a minute. They counted all of his items for this day (mech, manual, flats , d2ds and packets) to get to this 7 per minute figure. The DOM reckons the standard is 13-14 per minute? How did he get this figure? I think he must have used the IWT and divided the total items he received by the time the IWT said he should take to prep, to get this average.

Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool:Abuse of IWT

25 Oct 2016, 22:53

No LTB, but if wanted, copy/paste it to uncle Bob (he luv's a copy/paste) to get an official answer from a CWU email address.

Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool:Abuse of IWT

26 Oct 2016, 15:31

postman_jack wrote:Did this go out as LTB, in my office the jobs that complete are having the IWT thrown at them and blaming the indoor and not outdoor element. I keep telling them it cannot be used to measure an individuals performance at their prep fitting. I would like to print out the Bob Gibson email but would like a more professional copy ie. LTB.

Also, one of the boys in work got hauled in the office because according to the DOM he only sorted 7 items of mail per minute in the time he was at his fitting in total. The DOM said he was at his fitting for 110 minutes and based on the total items he received it equated to 7 a minute. They counted all of his items for this day (mech, manual, flats , d2ds and packets) to get to this 7 per minute figure. The DOM reckons the standard is 13-14 per minute? How did he get this figure? I think he must have used the IWT and divided the total items he received by the time the IWT said he should take to prep, to get this average.

But work comes in drib's and drab's and he may have to go find the work "boxes empty them and carry them it is an arbitrary figure by someone who deals in figures all day"

Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool:Abuse of IWT

26 Oct 2016, 15:50

Like all IWT driven figures it's a "should take" time, shooda, wooda, cooda....
It should only take me 30 seconds when I go for that first piss in the morning...ahh those were the days.

Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool:Abuse of IWT

01 Feb 2017, 17:13

Bump for hampshire....

Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool:Abuse of IWT

10 May 2018, 20:58

The link at the bottom of Geezer's post is dead, is it possible to get an update on this?

Unagreed Pareto/Performance Tool:Abuse of IWT

09 Jun 2018, 11:01

Alexei wrote:The link at the bottom of Geezer's post is dead, is it possible to get an update on this?

Added IPS agreement.

Previous page Next page


Page 4 of 5   1, 2, 3, 4, 5