Later starts!!

[Marshamp11]

I believe that if redundancies did happen (which I doubt), it would be voluntary because if it was compulsory that normally equats to last in first out, which is the cheaper option. Unfortunately RM I believe see long serving older OPGs to be their thorn in the side, so although VR is the more expensive route short term it could have massive savings long term.
Someone might have a better view on this but thats how I see it.

[jbo5066]

Barrow

LOL! Up here slang for hct - weird I know, considering a barrow is generally a two-wheeled cart; nearly as weird as Simon Thompson thinking we are JUST a parcels company

[mjd24]

Barrow

LOL! Up here slang for hct - weird I know, considering a barrow is generally a two-wheeled cart; nearly as weird as Simon Thompson thinking we are JUST a parcels company

I thought it must be HCT but its not something ive come across during my time

[clashcityrocker]

We used to use barrows.

[qwerty2]

We used to use barrows.

In the olden days they walked around with just a sack over their shoulders

[Kenfandango]

Last Christmas I was sticking the kids in after school club til 6 and working until 5.30 just to clear. Worked out that by doing that I was losing 30p a day. Later starts can get in the bin

[olilew]

They had us round on the day the redundancies were announced. The question will it be last in first out was asked. The manager replied 'No. It will be the long timers that will be going, hopefully through attrition but then voluntarily and ultimately compulsory'.

[pieoftheday]

Your manager is a fukwit

[mjd24]

We used to use barrows.

In the olden days they walked around with just a sack over their shoulders

Probably just one bundle back then.

[qwerty2]

We used to use barrows.

In the olden days they walked around with just a sack over their shoulders

Probably just one bundle back then.

https://media.gettyimages.com/illustrat ... d647030454

[mjd24]

We used to use barrows.

In the olden days they walked around with just a sack over their shoulders

Probably just one bundle back then.

https://media.gettyimages.com/illustrat ... d647030454

Thats everyones bundles in there

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Scumbag - get rid of idiots like you

Just to point out that breaks that rules and you, yes you, have made it easier to sack you if anyone has identified your real identity.

We keep warning members but some just seem willing to destroy RoyalMailChat and their own employment.

[qwerty2]

Scumbag - get rid of idiots like you

Just to point out that breaks that rules and you, yes you, have made it easier to sack you if anyone has identified your real identity.

We keep warning members but some just seem willing to destroy RoyalMailChat and their own employment.

So it’s alright for someone to say “hopefully” that they get rid of non-drivers first!
Been in this job 20+ years and don’t drive

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Scumbag - get rid of idiots like you

Just to point out that breaks that rules and you, yes you, have made it easier to sack you if anyone has identified your real identity.

We keep warning members but some just seem willing to destroy RoyalMailChat and their own employment.

So it’s alright for someone to say “hopefully” that they get rid of non-drivers first!
Been in this job 20+ years and don’t drive

Its not "right" but its not against the rules.

Calling him a scumbag is against the rules as it can be considered bullying and harassment, and is name-calling.

I notice you ignored the part about why the rules are there to protect you from Royal Mail sacking you and to stop Royal Mail from closing RMC down.

If you don't think Royal mail can sack you then check the early days of this forum, about 20 people were sacked for posting on here, and I was suspended for a few weeks when they tried to close RMC down.

You can disagree with whoever you want as long as it does not break the rules.

[priority102]

It is completely wrong to call non drivers any form of name, they are the same grade and pay as drivers.

BUT, facts are facts - non drivers do not fit into the way the postal delivery service is performed now. It might have been the norm 20 years ago, but things change and as we all know it is a very different postal delivery service we have now.

Both drivers and the company have to work around non drivers - either by giving them reasonably local walks, or by covering large parcels on their behalf, finding another driver (sometimes by moving a driver from their own duty) to accompany them on a van share if the regular driver is sick or on annual leave, etc.

Non drivers have no responsibility of vehicles, risk of personal insurance increases if they have a bump in an RM van, no signing vans in or out, no vehicle checks, no being held legally responsible if a vehicle with an illegal defect is caught on the road.

Hence why I have always said that extra responsibility should carry extra remuneration.

Very surprised that this has gone over the heads of the CWU!