Why some posties might be voting YES

[postslippete]

Our rep has been round the office in the last few weeks and I have a feeling that some posties will be voting YES. What is being communicated are seniors and those on the singletons/firms staying on their own duties and that there won't be any re-pick. I have concerns that what this will do is create an even bigger two-tier operation with some duties remaining relatively protected and stable while the paired/urban duties become the shock absorbers for lapsing, double mail, staff shortages and daily chaos.

The economics of the model partly rely on those supposedly protected duties "occasionally" being redeployed to support the office. Can I really see this happening or will the burden always fall disproportionately on the paired up delivery duties? Most managers are known for avoiding confrontation and tend to leave those "established" duties untouched. I'm seeing DOM26 as "ODM with softer language" and I have no doubt that the operational pressure will be concentrated on the same group of people.

While reps are supposed to ensure fairness and prevent offices becoming unbalanced, the outcome depends less on any national agreement and more on who holds influence, who gets protected, who gets flexibility imposed on them and whether management has a backbone to redistribute the workload fairly.

[smok3y666]

Speculative ballot so doesn't matter. Don't know why people think it's some kind of legal binding thing that if people vote "no" it won't be happening anyway. And if you think your rep is looking after people or not doing what is right for your office, email CWU explaining what is going and tell them you want to cancel your sub which you won't do.

[postmanplod2026]

its a no from me if theres no repick what a joke thats me decided straight no thatll be enough for me to cancel my subs and all

[Valentina@1]

If it’s 3 into 4 then how do they decide who loses their duty?……somebody has to

[ted_e_bear]

Definitely a no from me, no way am I voting for something that creates an even bigger divide between the piss easy duties and some of the others, most of ours that are hiding in plain site on these duties have already decided they won't have time to assist anyone else.

In theory it's possibly a reasonable idea that the manager can assess and redeploy part of a struggling duty to someone with plenty of scope to accommodate it but at our place absolutely no chance of that happening.

[yellowbelly]

If it’s 3 into 4 then how do they decide who loses their duty?……somebody has to

Manager? Planner?

[postslippete]

In theory it's possibly a reasonable idea that the manager can assess and redeploy part of a struggling duty to someone with plenty of scope to accommodate it but at our place absolutely no chance of that happening.

That’s the problem though because the whole model seems to rely on management actively balancing the workload fairly and consistently in real time. In offices with strong managers and proper staffing, maybe it works on paper. But in offices that are already struggling with vacancies, lapsing and failed revisions, people don’t trust that redistribution will actually happen evenly.

What usually happens is the “flexible” paired duties absorb the pressure while protected singleton/firms/rural duties stay relatively untouched unless things are really desperate. So instead of ending chaos, it risks concentrating it onto certain walks and certain staff every single day.

[yellowbelly]

Definitely a no from me, no way am I voting for something that creates an even bigger divide between the piss easy duties and some of the others, most of ours that are hiding in plain site on these duties have already decided they won't have time to assist anyone else.

In theory it's possibly a reasonable idea that the manager can assess and redeploy part of a struggling duty to someone with plenty of scope to accommodate it but at our place absolutely no chance of that happening.

That's one of the elephants in the room isn't it!

'Support', 'Assist', 'Help' - how vague is that - who's going to decide if someone has the capacity in their workload to do that?

Unless a manager with the cajones to do so says the support act has to do the 'support' element before they go out on their own duty - like we used to do the lapsing in the good old days. But then that'll bring up the issue of Specials out on the rural duties not meeting their spec etc. etc.

It'll be a disaster.

[Bellaber]

Just voted