It doesn't have to be like that though. All that has to happen is that contract variations are taken into account when planning the changes. If more singleton duties have to come in so be it.
You're ignoring the reality of the situation.
This USO reform is about one thing, saving money.
If this version of USO reform doesn't bring the savings they will go for something else, most likely something more draconian and more brutal and cost more jobs.
You might not like that reality, I might not like that reality but this isn't a student forum dealing with a hypothetical situation. I'm not particularly a fan of this version of the CWU and have made that clear on many occasions but I do understand that Royal Mail will continue to cut costs with or without union involvement and there is little appetite amongst the majority of the members for another poorly led dispute so you can talk all day long about how corrupt the CWU is and it will achieve absolutely zero, nothing, not a thing.
.Martin Walsh said it had to be right. Being right means taking contractual variations into account. The reality is that's not a massive amount of workers even by Martin's calculations. As has been pointed out existing singleton duties will have a different delivery model. If a workplace creates more singleton duties it's not going to impact the cost of the changes. The other option is that those with contractual variations that don't fit Martin's delivery model get 'thrown under the bus'.
USO Reform is about one thing - having a method of delivering mail that makes a profit as the regulator is demanding. That's because the regulator is going beyond it's remit which is to protect the consumer. The regulator is the pimp in this industrial scenario.
The doomsday scenario you describe requires a change in the law. Parliament does what the electorate want not what the postal industry and regulator want. The CWU should get out of the bed it's in with both and start campaigning for parliament to get involved and get ready to make MP's help us.
Debating and agitating for something different is the right thing to do. Challenging Martin and the executive is exactly what we need to do. The absolutely reality is that 7 billion letters is a huge amount of work that won't simply deliver itself. Dont sell the job short.
"The leadership will sabotage the fight and only make the slightest move under fear of powerful working class action" - Des Warren
You're ignoring the reality of the situation.
This USO reform is about one thing, saving money.
If this version of USO reform doesn't bring the savings they will go for something else, most likely something more draconian and more brutal and cost more jobs.
You might not like that reality, I might not like that reality but this isn't a student forum dealing with a hypothetical situation. I'm not particularly a fan of this version of the CWU and have made that clear on many occasions but I do understand that Royal Mail will continue to cut costs with or without union involvement and there is little appetite amongst the majority of the members for another poorly led dispute so you can talk all day long about how corrupt the CWU is and it will achieve absolutely zero, nothing, not a thing.
^^^
This....
We make this work or the USO is cut to 3 days a week. As much as I hate the 'think how bad it could have been' rhetoric around dispute resolution we are at the crossroads of the greatest paradigm shift in the way we work since the invention of the motor vehicles. We either go with it and try and get the best outcome for all members (drivers and non drivers and non driving drivers) or we face the total decimation of the workforce and the race to the Denmark model of a 0 day USO.
It's not up to us to make it work. It's up to the CWU to get it right from the start, like Martin said he would. Any further changes to the USO outside of the regulators remit are a matter of parliament. The CWU needs to get out of bed with the regulator and industry and start fighting back.
Workers know full well to that martin's delivery method doesn't, isn't and won't work. As we're about to see just a bank holiday weekend breaks the model. If that's all it takes then it's dead in the water.
We can look right back across the history of the working class and see we have always been at a crossroads. Our biggest paradigm shift was bring forced to sell our labour. Workers have not always lost and we certainly don't have to lose now. 7 billion letters dont simply deliver themselves. We should be shouting that from the rooftops.
"The leadership will sabotage the fight and only make the slightest move under fear of powerful working class action" - Des Warren
There's no mail at all and walkers are stealing a living. Unfortunately walkers get thrown under bus on new plans but they've been loving life since covid
Workers know full well that you're lying.
"The leadership will sabotage the fight and only make the slightest move under fear of powerful working class action" - Des Warren
As far as driving and contracts are concerned it's not as black and white as "it wasn't in my contract so I don't have to drive."
Contracts have both explicit terms and implied terms. You can accept a change in contract simply by submitting to it for a period of time without raising an objection.
If you do not tell your employer that you are unhappy with the change and start to work under the new terms and conditions, your employer may take this as your agreement to the change.
If you have driven for Royal Mail for years, especially if you accepted the driving allowance (remember that?) and then you suddenly decide you don't want to drive it would likely be seen as a breach of contract even if your original contract didn't specify driving.
What I would say to anyone is take some proper legal advice before going down this route, don't listen to some anonymous poster on the internet (including me) when it's your mortgage on the line not theirs.
I get what you’re saying here and that could apply to those that have done what was called the changeover but driving isn’t in my contract, I haven’t ever done a changeover and have never driven a Royal Mail vehicle.
Then you are currently a non driver surely ( doesnt matter if you have a license ) so this isnt applying to you
Yeah that’s my point.
What’s your point?
If you tolerate this, then your paid break will be next
I get what you’re saying here and that could apply to those that have done what was called the changeover but driving isn’t in my contract, I haven’t ever done a changeover and have never driven a Royal Mail vehicle.
If you've never driven for Royal Mail or submitted your licence for checks the reality is Royal Mail don't know one way or the other whether you have a licence even if you show up in a Ferrari in the morning, it's none of their business.
You haven't accepted driving as part of your contract, explicitly or otherwise.
As far as driving and contracts are concerned it's not as black and white as "it wasn't in my contract so I don't have to drive."
Contracts have both explicit terms and implied terms. You can accept a change in contract simply by submitting to it for a period of time without raising an objection.
If you do not tell your employer that you are unhappy with the change and start to work under the new terms and conditions, your employer may take this as your agreement to the change.
If you have driven for Royal Mail for years, especially if you accepted the driving allowance (remember that?) and then you suddenly decide you don't want to drive it would likely be seen as a breach of contract even if your original contract didn't specify driving.
What I would say to anyone is take some proper legal advice before going down this route, don't listen to some anonymous poster on the internet (including me) when it's your mortgage on the line not theirs.
I get what you’re saying here and that could apply to those that have done what was called the changeover but driving isn’t in my contract, I haven’t ever done a changeover and have never driven a Royal Mail vehicle.
Then you are currently a non driver surely ( doesnt matter if you have a license ) so this isnt applying to you
Yeah that’s my point.
What’s your point?
That those who have submitted a license couldn’t really come off driving if they’ve done a changeover and driven for royal Mail before.
But if you do have a driving license but have never driven for royal mail or done the changeover then there’s nothing they can do to make you.
Probably should’ve made it clearer what I was getting at.
As far as driving and contracts are concerned it's not as black and white as "it wasn't in my contract so I don't have to drive."
Contracts have both explicit terms and implied terms. You can accept a change in contract simply by submitting to it for a period of time without raising an objection.
If you do not tell your employer that you are unhappy with the change and start to work under the new terms and conditions, your employer may take this as your agreement to the change.
If you have driven for Royal Mail for years, especially if you accepted the driving allowance (remember that?) and then you suddenly decide you don't want to drive it would likely be seen as a breach of contract even if your original contract didn't specify driving.
What I would say to anyone is take some proper legal advice before going down this route, don't listen to some anonymous poster on the internet (including me) when it's your mortgage on the line not theirs.
I get what you’re saying here and that could apply to those that have done what was called the changeover but driving isn’t in my contract, I haven’t ever done a changeover and have never driven a Royal Mail vehicle.
Then you are currently a non driver surely ( doesnt matter if you have a license ) so this isnt applying to you
Yeah that’s my point.
What’s your point?
That those who have submitted a license couldn’t really come off driving if they’ve done a changeover and driven for royal Mail before.
But if you do have a driving license but have never driven for royal mail or done the changeover then there’s nothing they can do to make you.
Probably should’ve made it clearer what I was getting at.
Yeah but like i said those that have never driven for Royal Mail before aren’t the topic of the conversation
If you tolerate this, then your paid break will be next
As far as driving and contracts are concerned it's not as black and white as "it wasn't in my contract so I don't have to drive."
Contracts have both explicit terms and implied terms. You can accept a change in contract simply by submitting to it for a period of time without raising an objection.
If you do not tell your employer that you are unhappy with the change and start to work under the new terms and conditions, your employer may take this as your agreement to the change.
If you have driven for Royal Mail for years, especially if you accepted the driving allowance (remember that?) and then you suddenly decide you don't want to drive it would likely be seen as a breach of contract even if your original contract didn't specify driving.
What I would say to anyone is take some proper legal advice before going down this route, don't listen to some anonymous poster on the internet (including me) when it's your mortgage on the line not theirs.
I get what you’re saying here and that could apply to those that have done what was called the changeover but driving isn’t in my contract, I haven’t ever done a changeover and have never driven a Royal Mail vehicle.
Then you are currently a non driver surely ( doesnt matter if you have a license ) so this isnt applying to you
Yeah that’s my point.
What’s your point?
That those who have submitted a license couldn’t really come off driving if they’ve done a changeover and driven for royal Mail before.
But if you do have a driving license but have never driven for royal mail or done the changeover then there’s nothing they can do to make you.
Probably should’ve made it clearer what I was getting at.
Yeah but like i said those that have never driven for Royal Mail before aren’t the topic of the conversation
Any chance this post can be locked and put out of its misery, it's supposed to be about anything that's relevant to an update on the pilot sites as opposed to a load of guff discussing the ins and outs of whether someone should have to drive or not.
Any chance this post can be locked and put out of its misery, it's supposed to be about anything that's relevant to an update on the pilot sites as opposed to a load of guff discussing the ins and outs of whether someone should have to drive or not.
Don’t wish to be rude but you don’t have to engage with this thread if you find it annoying. I find it a bit strange that because you don’t like the direction it’s gone nobody should be able to post on it because you want it locked. If we’re gonna go down that route then the forum won’t exist as anybody could demand a thread is locked if they don’t like or agree with it.
Any chance this post can be locked and put out of its misery, it's supposed to be about anything that's relevant to an update on the pilot sites as opposed to a load of guff discussing the ins and outs of whether someone should have to drive or not.
Don’t wish to be rude but you don’t have to engage with this thread if you find it annoying. I find it a bit strange that because you don’t like the direction it’s gone nobody should be able to post on it because you want it locked. If we’re gonna go down that route then the forum won’t exist as anybody could demand a thread is locked if they don’t like or agree with it.
Got to agree with ted it has moved away from what the post was all about. Think there was a long discussion in a previous post about driving/ non driving it seems to be a bit of a bug bear with some posters.
I am part-time and not interested in going full-time.... but I'd happily increase the length of my working day in exchange of reducing my working week from 5 days to 4....
No idea if that would work as part of the USO plans.
In no comment up to this one, has anyone addressed the part timers role in these trials. Unless they are planning pt start 6 hours before the ft finishes and don’t do any indoor work (for a 30 hour contract), but later start and finish takes away any flexibility
I am part-time and not interested in going full-time.... but I'd happily increase the length of my working day in exchange of reducing my working week from 5 days to 4....
No idea if that would work as part of the USO plans.
In no comment up to this one, has anyone addressed the part timers role in these trials. Unless they are planning pt start 6 hours before the ft finishes and don’t do any indoor work (for a 30 hour contract), but later start and finish takes away any flexibility
It seems that the CWU and Royal Mail are keen to move part timers to full time hours so that the sorting/prep can get us out the door quicker....
Some PT will not want to go FT, so I'm interested in what plans they have for those part timers. Would they just have to live with the fact that some part timers won't be coming in until later in the morning and accept that will mean the office won't be able to get out on delivery as early as they'd hope....
or do they get the part timers to come in earlier but work 1 day less per week? or would that cause problems as they'd have to find a setup that would cover the part timers extra day off?
Can anyone at the CWU or anyone on the trials answer this?