As usual with RM, it'll come in attached to some pay agreement. Nothing complex legally about it, other firms have been doing it for decades.
Only for overtime? To think it won't be used to see who comes in late, goes early or whatever is pure naivety.
My bad Tman! I read it again and it does say about Royal Mail "seemingly" using SISO data to validate all overtime and Scheduled Attendance pay based on 'recorded/scanned times'. These changes were not agreed in the BLT agreement by the CWU and like you said it could be attached to some pay agreement...or not. The company would then need to update its sick absence procedures because I'm certain that they cannot just make any unlawful deductions due to lateness/staff leaving early from employees pay without going through a fair disciplinary procedure first.
Perhaps each day the manager will get a list of all the scan in/scan out times on PSP and they'll then just have approve or reject the employee is entitled to OT, no idea what happens if your SISO time is 1hr 30mins over but the manager only agreed 1hr OT!!
Well if it's the latter then like I said earlier I'm not convinced that it will improve our productivity as posties will simply refuse to do any overtime and will go through the over-running procedure and bring stuff back. For those that do go the extra mile and work overtime it can be difficult to estimate how much overtime it will take to complete due to many external factors. There is also the fact that if managers agree to pay a postie 1hr 30mins of additional overtime delivering extra parcels and they do it in an hour, does it also mean that they only pay them for just 1 hour instead of 1 hour 30?
On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world.
I maybe wrong but you sense that's the way RM senior management want to go, posties just paid for the time they work and not what their managers have agreed.
I'm not sure RM need to change our contracts to enforce rules around SISO if staff are continually scanning in late or scanning out early?
SISO is obviously for timekeeping but is also just another way to tie us to the PDA.
Pretty sure that in the not too distant future we will be scanning to say what function we are doing whilst in the DO. Prepping a walk? scan the barcode on the frame. Sorting packets? scan the barcode at the drop frame
RM want to account for every minute we work both indoor and outdoor and via the PDA they can do that. Yes this will take time but look how much the job has changed in the last few years
Regardless of what was said in the Select Committee about the PDAs not being introduced to track individuals, for individual performance management or to be used as a disciplinary tool; in the 2nd Committee it was discovered that it had actually been used by RM in 16 such cases. It was then put forward for the Information Commissioner to review the legal basis for the collection and storage of this data and they would provide their findings by the end of 2023. Not sure what they found though?
On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world.
I'm not sure RM need to change our contracts to enforce rules around SISO if staff are continually scanning in late or scanning out early?
They don't need to change our contracts but it depends what you mean about enforcing rules. An employee who repeatedly attends late without an acceptable excuse would usually be dealt with under the disciplinary procedure first and foremost but rather than just automatically dock their pay it could be agreed that the employee who was late may instead be required to make up the lost time. There could also be cases where an employee has simply forgotten to clock in/out. Should they immediately be docked pay even though they were in fact working?
Two years ago, the Union never supported the national rollout of SISO in delivery units or annualised hours. The CWU don't agree that SISO should be used for resourcing, disciplinary purposes or for docking pay; it just seems to me that RM are forcing through these changes as they always do by mentioning it vaguely to the Union what their intentions are and then trialling it in several offices with the purpose for introducing it across the business. But they may need to update their sick absence policy if they want to enforce any new rules regarding SISO.
On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world.
There could also be cases where an employee has simply forgotten to clock in/out. Should they immediately be docked pay even though they were in fact working?
Simple...you forget to clock in or out, they forget to pay you.
It's down to the employee to "prove" he's at work, not the employer to prove that he wasn't.
As usual with RM, it'll come in attached to some pay agreement. Nothing complex legally about it, other firms have been doing it for decades.
Only for overtime? To think it won't be used to see who comes in late, goes early or whatever is pure naivety.
My bad Tman! I read it again and it does say about Royal Mail "seemingly" using SISO data to validate all overtime and Scheduled Attendance pay based on 'recorded/scanned times'. These changes were not agreed in the BLT agreement by the CWU and like you said it could be attached to some pay agreement...or not. The company would then need to update its sick absence procedures because I'm certain that they cannot just make any unlawful deductions due to lateness/staff leaving early from employees pay without going through a fair disciplinary procedure first.
Perhaps each day the manager will get a list of all the scan in/scan out times on PSP and they'll then just have approve or reject the employee is entitled to OT, no idea what happens if your SISO time is 1hr 30mins over but the manager only agreed 1hr OT!!
Well if it's the latter then like I said earlier I'm not convinced that it will improve our productivity as posties will simply refuse to do any overtime and will go through the over-running procedure and bring stuff back. For those that do go the extra mile and work overtime it can be difficult to estimate how much overtime it will take to complete due to many external factors. There is also the fact that if managers agree to pay a postie 1hr 30mins of additional overtime delivering extra parcels and they do it in an hour, does it also mean that they only pay them for just 1 hour instead of 1 hour 30?
It is my understanding that that is exactly what they intend to do ie. If you complete the OT in an hour instead of the agreed 1.30, they will deduct the 30mins from your payment.
’You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new.’
It is my understanding that that is exactly what they intend to do ie. If you complete the OT in an hour instead of the agreed 1.30, they will deduct the 30mins from your payment.
Of course they intend that, but in the case above they'll pay for 60 minutes. Why would they allow employees to claim for O/T they haven't done when there's an accurate time clock system in place showing that they didn't work for the full 90 minutes?
It is my understanding that that is exactly what they intend to do ie. If you complete the OT in an hour instead of the agreed 1.30, they will deduct the 30mins from your payment.
Of course they intend that, but in the case above they'll pay for 60 minutes. Why would they allow employees to claim for O/T they haven't done when there's an accurate time clock system in place showing that they didn't work for the full 90 minutes?
My argument is this, and this supposed you finished your walk at finish time and THEN started the overtime, doing your overtime within your walk time is ridiculous:
Bob and Betty are given an equal amount of overtime work, they are both going to be paid 2hrs. Betty finishes hers in 1.30, Bob takes the full 2hrs.
Both should still be paid 2hrs because it is overtime. Both have carried the same weight and walked the same miles. Betty shouldn’t be penalised for being faster.
’You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new.’
In what world, other than RM, would anyone consider it "right" to expect O/T payments for time when they weren't working?
If they go down the route of paying overtime by actual time taken rather than load/distance, the fastest staff will be penalised. How is that right?
I agree I think it isn't, when these types of conversation come up I've often thought what if they could introduce a different way to pay for overtime or more to the point additional work, obviously it's currently done by time but for example what if they could offer £20 to deliver say 30 parcels or some loops of mail, it would take differing amounts of time but the work carried out would be the same.
In what world, other than RM, would anyone consider it "right" to expect O/T payments for time when they weren't working?
If they go down the route of paying overtime by actual time taken rather than load/distance, the fastest staff will be penalised. How is that right?
I agree I think it isn't, when these types of conversation come up I've often thought what if they could introduce a different way to pay for overtime or more to the point additional work, obviously it's currently done by time but for example what if they could offer £20 to deliver say 30 parcels or some loops of mail, it would take differing amounts of time but the work carried out would be the same.
That’s a good idea actually.
’You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new.’