Part timers. How is the SWW affecting you

[Crowseer]

Cant find much info on how the shorter working week is affecting PT staff. I know what im being TOLD but im not seeing much evidence. Without writing an essay ill try and summarise as much as I can...

Most PT staff in our office are having their contracts reduced "in line with the new duty structure". As FT staff are having their week reduced by 1 hour. we're being told our contracts need to reflect this. A few problems with this. 1) the day off cover attendance is 3 days a week so we have to absorb the 1 hour reduction over 3 days. 2) in many cases our new hours are 2-3 hours less than they are at the moment. Partially due to the managers dishing out random hour contracts over the past few years but thats another story. The 3 day cover jobs are losing more than 1 hour PW. 3) the union are saying this drop is why we're getting a 2.6% pay rise to compensate but thats not close to losing 2 hours pay PW.

I would stress were not being FORCED to drop our hours. The other option is coming in on a 4th day to make up remaining hours. Not a fantastic option but it gives RM the chance to play the CHOICE card. Again.

There are a few variants to the above situation and I accept someone on 27 hours can't expect to be paid to cover a FT member over 3 days but currently the 3 day cover rotations are 23.5 hours. Dropping to around 21.30 hours. For the exact same job. Makes no sense to me. Just wondering if this is just our office or its a national con. Who would negotiate something like that?

[AlbertHerbertHawkins]

Maybe I'm not understanding correctly but this sounds incredibly dodgy. As far as I'm aware you can't have your contracted hours reduced unless you agree to it, and presumably sign a new contract. The reason the SWW is a pay rise is that full timers go from 38 to 37hrs for the same pay so get an increase in hourly rate; all part timers get the same increase in hourly rate (2.6%). As far as I'm aware, where the SWW is implemented full timers drop an hour but part timers keep the same hours, and in some cases get an increase. You say you're not being forced to drop hours by doing an extra day, but the company can tell you how many days to work and increase them from 3 to 4, and maybe have done this as part of the revision. Of course by doing this you work less each day (which will mean moving you to a smaller round for example). If your contracted hours have been forcibly reduced from 23.5 to 21.5 then that's a big issue in my book.

[theotherone]

No PT contracts should be reduced in-line with the Duty as far as I aware.If they did they did they would need to compensated more then the 2.6%.
Sounds dodgy as to me....no national agreement on anything like this,or maybe I'm missing something.

[yubin282]

My office has a similar problem (forced through revision with help from CWU).

None of us are actually working 37 hours per week, we are working 38+ but we get a long weekend in the 5th week instead of 6th.

We get 2 days off (friday and saturday) in the 5th week.

So we aren't working shorter days.

[Crowseer]

Maybe I'm not understanding correctly but this sounds incredibly dodgy. As far as I'm aware you can't have your contracted hours reduced unless you agree to it, and presumably sign a new contract. The reason the SWW is a pay rise is that full timers go from 38 to 37hrs for the same pay so get an increase in hourly rate; all part timers get the same increase in hourly rate (2.6%). As far as I'm aware, where the SWW is implemented full timers drop an hour but part timers keep the same hours, and in some cases get an increase. You say you're not being forced to drop hours by doing an extra day, but the company can tell you how many days to work and increase them from 3 to 4, and maybe have done this as part of the revision. Of course by doing this you work less each day (which will mean moving you to a smaller round for example). If your contracted hours have been forcibly reduced from 23.5 to 21.5 then that's a big issue in my book.

The DOM is fairly crafty. Hes not actually FORCING people down to shorter hours. Hes in effect saying "if you want to continue working your rotation you drop your hours, otherwise you get moved to another office or make up the time on a day of our choosing". At one point they were going the other way and moving everyone to 5 day attendance pattern. 23.5 hours over 5 days would mean a full delivery and all the associated hassle with the daily grind of not being able to complete. Hes making the options so bad that everyone will roll over and take the pay cut. No letter from HR yet though so maybe hes trying it on. Wouldn't be the first time.

Its not just PT staff that are getting a beating in this revision either. Some have had several roads added to their deliveries and been told "theres your shorter week". This, like all other revisions is following the same chaotic pattern. The planners have handed their work over to the posties to try and make sense of it.

[Crowseer]

My office has a similar problem (forced through revision with help from CWU).

None of us are actually working 37 hours per week, we are working 38+ but we get a long weekend in the 5th week instead of 6th.

We get 2 days off (friday and saturday) in the 5th week.

So we aren't working shorter days.

This is common throughout offices in my area. Its a theoretical shorter working week. All theyre saying is "get your job done and finish earlier, oh, before you go, here's two more roads". With our office, even the manager is having concerns about the geo routing. I think the union need to mount a post early for Christmas campaign. Last posting dates for Christmas delivery, 20th October. Our office already fails several walks every day but thats the norm nowadays.

[AlbertHerbertHawkins]

Maybe I'm not understanding correctly but this sounds incredibly dodgy. As far as I'm aware you can't have your contracted hours reduced unless you agree to it, and presumably sign a new contract. The reason the SWW is a pay rise is that full timers go from 38 to 37hrs for the same pay so get an increase in hourly rate; all part timers get the same increase in hourly rate (2.6%). As far as I'm aware, where the SWW is implemented full timers drop an hour but part timers keep the same hours, and in some cases get an increase. You say you're not being forced to drop hours by doing an extra day, but the company can tell you how many days to work and increase them from 3 to 4, and maybe have done this as part of the revision. Of course by doing this you work less each day (which will mean moving you to a smaller round for example). If your contracted hours have been forcibly reduced from 23.5 to 21.5 then that's a big issue in my book.

The DOM is fairly crafty. Hes not actually FORCING people down to shorter hours. Hes in effect saying "if you want to continue working your rotation you drop your hours, otherwise you get moved to another office or make up the time on a day of our choosing". At one point they were going the other way and moving everyone to 5 day attendance pattern. 23.5 hours over 5 days would mean a full delivery and all the associated hassle with the daily grind of not being able to complete. Hes making the options so bad that everyone will roll over and take the pay cut. No letter from HR yet though so maybe hes trying it on. Wouldn't be the first time.

Its not just PT staff that are getting a beating in this revision either. Some have had several roads added to their deliveries and been told "theres your shorter week". This, like all other revisions is following the same chaotic pattern. The planners have handed their work over to the posties to try and make sense of it.

Sounds like you've been put in a tough spot by this ****, I don't know what your circumstances are but I'd definitely call his bluff, ask him how he wants you to work your contracted hours, over three days or four (or five), then if he follows through with it, do the job to the letter and work your hours exactly, bring back or leave in what you need to and generally make it as awkward as possible. Similarly if he says you have to go to another office make him find you a van for transport, start on start time at your own office etc etc. Whatever happens the union needs to be involved.

[ninja]

This would be a buy down situation and covered by mtsf agreement. So you could receive up to 2 years pay on your current contract.

So 35hr buys down to 30 but could receive 35hrs pay or lump sum for a maximum of 2years.

Look up mtsf agreement

[Crowseer]

Thanks very much for this. I did mention this a few weeks back but was told that option is no longer available. I think a few people in our office just dropped their hours from FT to 25 hours with no buy down. It wasn’t until a few months later that they realised there was a buy down scheme in operation. I’ll look into this and update accordingly. Might help someone else out as well.

[Crowseer]

Bumping this thread to see if it attracts anyone else with this issue. The case is on going and the manager has now changed the options? Questions were asked about wether his options were legal/acceptable and he withdrew them. This, has in effect, ruled out everything but a voluntary reduction in hours so round we go again. Im still going to persist but its not looking good. Has anyone heard of a "contract re alignment" form. I certainly havent.

[jessicarabbit]

Not sure if you are in the neighbouring office I have heard about. This is a huge issue now. These 'stranded hours' have been flagged up very high. It has been all the way through the IR process and now sits with HQ and the CEOs office with neither wanting to blink first. Although on the face of it a part timer getting paid 23 1/2 hours for doing 21 or so isn't much to the individual, multiplied up across the business it is huge. So I'm expecting a decision soon on how it's to be progressed.

[Crowseer]

Not sure if you are in the neighbouring office I have heard about. This is a huge issue now. These 'stranded hours' have been flagged up very high. It has been all the way through the IR process and now sits with HQ and the CEOs office with neither wanting to blink first. Although on the face of it a part timer getting paid 23 1/2 hours for doing 21 or so isn't much to the individual, multiplied up across the business it is huge. So I'm expecting a decision soon on how it's to be progressed.

Thanks for the response.

Im assuming youre a union rep and you're referring to union HQ. Interesting that its been flagged up high. Any idea how long this has been flagged up or if its a recent thing? Its clear something is going on but we never get updates. When you say its huge across the business are you saying that this "pay cut" thing is happening across the business? From the replies here and from colleagues in other offices it seems this this is only happening in our office and possibly one other in our region. I would have thought if it WAS national then there would be many more posts about it.

[jessicarabbit]

Yes union HQ. I guess every office has different set ups and structures. Some offices possibly don't have part timers covering days off. Some possibly only have a small difference in contract mis match. If for example the long days hours were not adjusted in the drop to SWW then the PT contract would barely change. The office I am aware of has long recruited people on 25 hour contracts with the original idea of using them for 5 hours a day for 5 days but when this became unworkable they were asked to change to 3 days with the understanding that they would be asked on an adhoc basis to make up the shortfall in hours. With the revision the new 3 day weeks were found to add up to 21:40 a week so hence the request to drop their hours. Like clash said in his other post on this subject if local agreements can be made that suits both parties on how to make up the hours it prob doesn't need to get raised higher. If however the DOM and Rep cannot agree and the individuals refuses to take the drop in hours to preserve their 3 day duty structure then the IR process is used. My understanding was that it was resolved at stage 3 but someone from the CEO office got involved and stopped the potential agreement and hence union HQ became aware. This is also now stopping the PIR being signed off.

[Crowseer]

Yes union HQ. I guess every office has different set ups and structures. Some offices possibly don't have part timers covering days off. Some possibly only have a small difference in contract mis match. If for example the long days hours were not adjusted in the drop to SWW then the PT contract would barely change. The office I am aware of has long recruited people on 25 hour contracts with the original idea of using them for 5 hours a day for 5 days but when this became unworkable they were asked to change to 3 days with the understanding that they would be asked on an adhoc basis to make up the shortfall in hours. With the revision the new 3 day weeks were found to add up to 21:40 a week so hence the request to drop their hours. Like clash said in his other post on this subject if local agreements can be made that suits both parties on how to make up the hours it prob doesn't need to get raised higher. If however the DOM and Rep cannot agree and the individuals refuses to take the drop in hours to preserve their 3 day duty structure then the IR process is used. My understanding was that it was resolved at stage 3 but someone from the CEO office got involved and stopped the potential agreement and hence union HQ became aware. This is also now stopping the PIR being signed off.

Thanks once again for the response. I don’t even know what the IR process and PIR? Is the ceo intervention a recent thing? Any idea of the next step. It’s just Chinese whispers in our office. Someone on this forum mentioned MTSF applying in this case

[jessicarabbit]

IR is industrial relations the IR process is when your CWU will register disagreements to formalise the fact that they can't agree on something. It gets moved higher through a stage process which usually ends up with someone higher up than the DOM making a decision on the matter. CWU HQ usually get notified when it gets to a stage 3 and has to decide if they want to get involved or to push it back down the line for decisions to made independently or on a branch by branch basis.
PIR is the Post Implementation Review after a revison has been deployed. The PIR must be signed off by both management and the CWU to agree that 'it works' in the current state.
Having a chat with your local Rep or if not available the Area CWU rep is where you should probably go next.
MTSF does not apply in this instance as far as I understand the processes involved.
Essentially if you are personally affected I would suggest not signing a new contract or agreeing to a new duty structure until this is resolved nationally.