Ok so lets see what he said ( is he the only source btw? Because this guy is a clown )
''Something that's important to cover off is that we're looking to enhance the commit to deliver principle, whereby if you're allocated some work for a route on a day, we would want that work to be completed. So if we look at our competitors, they wouldn't cut off and return to the Depo. With some work outstanding. What we're looking for within the really flexible hours approach is to have that ability to flex on the day outside of those scheduled hours. So that if there are variations from day to day, we complete that work. And if we go over the scheduled time, we bank those hours.''
So first things first - he says enhance the commit to deliver principal. The word 'enhance' suggests the commitment already exists in some form and principle suggests its not a commitment at all.
The expectation that you complete your duty has always existed.
''We would WANT that work to be completed''
Well, they WANT all work completed now as it is - the question is whether they can FORCE it to be completed. There is a difference.
So really the only thing that is ''enhanced'' to the current system, is that rather than pay overtime to complete they want you to bank the hours instead.
There is nothing about being forced to - not even the word 'commit' means a thing when they have used enhance before it and crucially the word PRINCIPLE after it.
Does the commit to deliver principle exist just now? His words suggest it does.
So the ''commit to deliver principle'' actually means....well not a lot.
He is Grant McPherson : Chief Operating Officer- yes a clown - but a big deal clown.
He is saying exactly what he wants on the tin.
if you're allocated some work for a route on a day, we would want that work to be completed. So if we look at our competitors, they wouldn't cut off and return to the Depo. With some work outstanding.
No he isnt
He's Matthew Lawlor - ''Head of Delivery design''
Sorry-Grant's the top right dude-either way it's not what Matty wants-clown or not-it's what the business wants.
I Wrote-During Covid-Which is still relevant now
It's good to get these types of threads, the ridiculous my manager said bollox, so we can reassure ourselves that while the world is falling apart, Royal Mail managers are still being the low-life C***S they have always been. My BFF Clash The daily grind of having to argue your case with an intellectual pigmy of a line manager is physically and emotionally draining.
If I’m contracted to work x amount of hours in any given week and work exactly x amount of hours then Royal Mail say I have to commit to deliver for whatever reason, then that’s forced overtime and then I’m told I won’t be paid it but will be added to my annual leave which I can never book.
Sound , I’ll see them in court.
All of these contractual changes would have to be agreed in some way.
They can be agreed in two ways.
1. Individually either by accepting a change to your contract or by accepting a completely new contract (fire and rehire).
2. Collectively through an agreement voted in by members of staff (usually through a trade union).
That would be the end of your day in court.
Some of the changes proposed like the parcel hub strategy and later starts and sick pay policy could be imposed upon us without changing contracts, some like annualised hours and flexi-hours and compulsory Sundays would require a change in contract therefore need an agreement of some sorts.
If I’m contracted to work x amount of hours in any given week and work exactly x amount of hours then Royal Mail say I have to commit to deliver for whatever reason, then that’s forced overtime and then I’m told I won’t be paid it but will be added to my annual leave which I can never book.
Sound , I’ll see them in court.
All of these contractual changes would have to be agreed in some way.
They can be agreed in two ways.
1. Individually either by accepting a change to your contract or by accepting a completely new contract (fire and rehire).
2. Collectively through an agreement voted in by members of staff (usually through a trade union).
That would be the end of your day in court.
Some of the changes proposed like the parcel hun strategy and later starts and sick pay policy could be imposed upon us without changing contracts, some like annualised hours and flexi-hours and compulsory Sundays would require a change in contract therefore need an agreement of some sorts.
We will be voting on this collective agreement though if it ever got that far
What it amounts to is collectively agreeing to new contracts with non guaranteed compulsory overtime included ( which is not even paid, but via the banking of hours ) - which, when explained to the membership, would not be acceptable
What cant happen, is the RM board deciding that from October 1st for instance that we must now be forced to work overtime without a change of contract
New starts is another matter....
If you tolerate this, then your paid break will be next
Well maybe, therefore, legal positions need to be spelt out.
However, RM's proposals, whilst (perhaps deliberately) vague, make it hard to know exactly what we're up against.
If I’m contracted to work x amount of hours in any given week and work exactly x amount of hours then Royal Mail say I have to commit to deliver for whatever reason, then that’s forced overtime and then I’m told I won’t be paid it but will be added to my annual leave which I can never book.
Sound , I’ll see them in court.
All of these contractual changes would have to be agreed in some way.
They can be agreed in two ways.
1. Individually either by accepting a change to your contract or by accepting a completely new contract (fire and rehire).
2. Collectively through an agreement voted in by members of staff (usually through a trade union).
That would be the end of your day in court.
Some of the changes proposed like the parcel hub strategy and later starts and sick pay policy could be imposed upon us without changing contracts, some like annualised hours and flexi-hours and compulsory Sundays would require a change in contract therefore need an agreement of some sorts.
Yeah I said similar to you the other day on another thread I think
There’s no way I’d vote for anything like annualised hours and I’d make sure I convinced as many as I could about just how dangerous it is.
On the court thing , I meant I wouldn’t accept it being imposed and I can’t see us voting for it.
If it did come in then I wouldn’t be able to do the job as a chronic illness I have means even a 4 week notice of a change of hours wouldn’t be workable with it.
I am on the same page as you , annualised hours , commit to deliver , working later and changes to the sick pay or what we all need to fight against.
Some members seem to be complacent and think they'll just do the job properly, work their hours and cut off.
If these proposals were to be agreed that would not be a viable option.
I think members need to be aware exactly how dangerous these proposals are.
It would be an end to any control you may have over your working day both in hours and workload.
This was also my point to you earlier, maybe not put the exact way I needed it.
The way they’ve worded it sounds like you start at 10 am for example , contracted to finish at 6 but the workload takes you to 8 pm but you can’t claim the 2 hours over your finish time because they’ll add it to your annual leave.
So what’s to stop them then making your delivery 12 hours long ? Because you have to to it because you’ve got to commit to deliver ?
Some members seem to be complacent and think they'll just do the job properly, work their hours and cut off.
If these proposals were to be agreed that would not be a viable option.
I think members need to be aware exactly how dangerous these proposals are.
It would be an end to any control you may have over your working day both in hours and workload.
This was also my point to you earlier, maybe not put the exact way I needed it.
The way they’ve worded it sounds like you start at 10 am for example , contracted to finish at 6 but the workload takes you to 8 pm but you can’t claim the 2 hours over your finish time because they’ll add it to your annual leave.
So what’s to stop them then making your delivery 12 hours long ? Because you have to to it because you’ve got to commit to deliver ?
If this was ever brought in, which it won’t be, they could only insist you worked a max of 48 hours a week
If you tolerate this, then your paid break will be next
Some members seem to be complacent and think they'll just do the job properly, work their hours and cut off.
If these proposals were to be agreed that would not be a viable option.
I think members need to be aware exactly how dangerous these proposals are.
It would be an end to any control you may have over your working day both in hours and workload.
This was also my point to you earlier, maybe not put the exact way I needed it.
The way they’ve worded it sounds like you start at 10 am for example , contracted to finish at 6 but the workload takes you to 8 pm but you can’t claim the 2 hours over your finish time because they’ll add it to your annual leave.
So what’s to stop them then making your delivery 12 hours long ? Because you have to to it because you’ve got to commit to deliver ?
If this was ever brought in, which it won’t be, they could only insist you worked a max of 48 hours a week
Unless you opted out of the working time directive or the government changes that directive because of BREXIT!
stationary outdoor OPG drop boxes (traffic jam, …and..not many other options);
Is it not an offence to use a handheld device while driving?
Obviously it wouldn’t work like that, they’ll be an option to remove it as an automatically triggered break after the fact and one of the reasons you’ll be allowed to give in the drop box is “traffic jam”.
The point is the PDA is sorely underused if you want to mass control the workforce from a centralised point to save lots of money. That’s what they want.
Unfortunately the PDAs are already struggling under the weight of numerous software updates and additional apps.
The first thing they need to do is split the MC stuff and DO stuff off into separate apps, with maybe the DO stuff being split again into an outdoor app and an indoor app
Some members seem to be complacent and think they'll just do the job properly, work their hours and cut off.
If these proposals were to be agreed that would not be a viable option.
I think members need to be aware exactly how dangerous these proposals are.
It would be an end to any control you may have over your working day both in hours and workload.
This was also my point to you earlier, maybe not put the exact way I needed it.
The way they’ve worded it sounds like you start at 10 am for example , contracted to finish at 6 but the workload takes you to 8 pm but you can’t claim the 2 hours over your finish time because they’ll add it to your annual leave.
So what’s to stop them then making your delivery 12 hours long ? Because you have to to it because you’ve got to commit to deliver ?
If this was ever brought in, which it won’t be, they could only insist you worked a max of 48 hours a week
I thought the tories were getting rid of the maximum 48 hours.
For the record , I can’t see it coming in either because it’s such a ridiculous proposal for many of the reasons people have suggested.
