https://www.facebook.com/10006346615408 ... 992892665/
Some of his claims and my thoughts about it now
This model must also ensure that the change to the USO also addresses the impact which causes the later starts. This must mean that under the new USO that if you post in the most remote areas this work must connect with the Wave 1 traffic and if not then it will be due next day delivery. This will significantly reduce the need for later starts
If USO reform was supposed to significantly reduce the need for later starts, why are start times still being reviewed at all? Why would start times be moved later if mail is being deferred anyway?
As part of our strategy on the USO we must make sure our members benefit. More 4 day weeks. More 9 day fortnights. More time off....It is essential that we achieve a share in the savings which are available and protect jobs in the future......We must reach our policy of a 35-hour gross working week.
Where are those benefits in DM26? If USO reform is delivering savings for the business, when are we going to see some of those benefits?
I will make it a priority that we resolve the crisis in Delivery Units...it is now the norm for work not to be delivered and there has never been more pressure on the workforce. I believe that Royal Mail have been underestimating the true productivity of our delivery members for years. The unfair productivity measures are allowing Royal Mail to apply further pressure on revisions, delivery spans and attacking attendance patterns.
What's changed? If RM have been underestimating productivity for years, why are we now moving towards models that rely on 3 staff trying to do 4 duties which appear to rely on even greater productivity assumptions?
I will also seek an independent review of productivity and quality of service in delivery units as I believe Royal Mail are underestimating the productivity of our members and are also understating the current USO and Quality problems.
What happened to this independent review? If RM were understating the quality problems in 2023, are we now solving those problems, or are we simply redefining what counts as acceptable performance?
I believe we made a mistake advising members not to sign for a duty when Royal Mail imposed the revisions. We need to find a trigger to resolving
the resign issue to ensure that our members can participate in a resign.
There are duties in my office that people have been sitting on for years which have never been signed for following all the revisions and changes. And there are some select duties that got advertised as part-time and somehow became full-time almost immediately once certain people applied for them.
The real issue isn't how duties get redesigned but whether everybody gets a fair crack of the whip to bid for those duties. Imho I don't see how a resign can be avoided if duties are being put in and RM are expecting pods of 3 people to do 4 duties. Otherwise, many staff will be feeling that others are just benefitting from these arrangements.
Longer term, we must now ensure that there is no agency in mail centres or RDCs and we find innovative duty patterns which cover the seven-day service.
Fortunately, we haven't had any agency staff in since the strikes
If elected I will ensure the CWU enter every national negotiation looking to improve the current positon, remove statutory sick pay and gain back what we have lost.
So what's been achieved on sick pay then?
If elected, I will lead the call for the reversion of new entrants terms and conditions to the previous position. I believe this is achievable.
Reversion? That word soon changed to "equalisation" and our offices is still being flooded with new entrants so that 2-tier workforce is growing and workers are still being played off against each other.