the 2023 manifesto and NOW

[postslippete]

Martin's 2023 manifesto argued that USO reform would help to create a more sustainable business, protect jobs, improve work-life balance, reduce the pressure for later starts, deliver more time off and help us move towards a 35-hour gross working week. Have a read of it here:


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.

[tramssirhc]

That's not aged well.

[SpacePhoenix]

DM26 changes the pattern of how the mail gets released by the DTS. Currently there's just one day of the week that'll be busier, that day is normally the same each week. Some batches now can be 20-24 trays once autumn pressure kicks in, if you have say 12 trays worth being held over due to it not being a 2C day for half the walks, you've also got on top of that 2C where it's a 2C day but there's no 2C due for release that day (DPs with no 1C or any 2C that has hit the time limit for the product used. They aren't going to be releasing any 2C early so if some 2C has hit the time limit for the product used, if it's not a 2C day for the DP it's going to get rolled over for another day.

Once the batch sizes eventually start hitting 7,000+ items on a regular basis, they are going to take nearly an hour each to run, so the wave 1 will take longer to run, and will likely miss the wave 1 dispatches. The wave 2 will be run later as the CSS machines will still be running wave 1 when the wave 2 would currently start.

[postslippete]

Thanks for your input Space

So deferring mail could actually create larger CSS batches, longer machine runs and potentially push Wave 1 and 2 later into the day.

But If the purpose of USO reform is to reduce delivery pressure, why are we also changing the processing model? Why not continue processing the mail as normal and then defer it at the delivery office instead? If holding some of the traffic in DOs helps keep the processing operation flowing and gets posties out earlier then surely that's something worth considering.

At the moment it feels like we're moving the problems upstream so instead of DOs holding the deferred traffic, Mail centres are holding it. Is the network becoming more efficient or are we simply moving the same problem to a different part of the operation?

[SpacePhoenix]

Thanks for your input Space

So deferring mail could actually create larger CSS batches, longer machine runs and potentially push Wave 1 and 2 later into the day.

But If the purpose of USO reform is to reduce delivery pressure, why are we also changing the processing model? Why not continue processing the mail as normal and then defer it at the delivery office instead? If holding some of the traffic in DOs helps keep the processing operation flowing and gets posties out earlier then surely that's something worth considering.

At the moment it feels like we're moving the problems upstream so instead of DOs holding the deferred traffic, Mail centres are holding it. Is the network becoming more efficient or are we simply moving the same problem to a different part of the operation?

With the mech given how little 1C mail there must be for each walk, why can't they have it prepped into the walk frames as normal but not put the 1C into the frame if it's not a 2C day?

I think we'll all have to wait and see the actual affect is once mech mail naturally increases again in the autumn. If it ends up being as bad as I think it might be, then I think you'll probably be looking at the dispatches being made an hour later. We need RM to confirm what will happen with a 2C or DSA item that has hit the time limit for the product used but it's not a 2C day for the walk, AFAIK they won't be releasing the item a day early.

To give an idea of run times, pre DTS a batch of about 5,700 items was expected to take around 40mins to run.

[Mr Rush]

If it ends up being as bad as I think it might be, then I think you'll probably be looking at the dispatches being made an hour later.

Which would have a knock-on effect for, say, departure times...

• No deterioration in departure times

[tramssirhc]

Thanks for your input Space

So deferring mail could actually create larger CSS batches, longer machine runs and potentially push Wave 1 and 2 later into the day.

But If the purpose of USO reform is to reduce delivery pressure, why are we also changing the processing model? Why not continue processing the mail as normal and then defer it at the delivery office instead? If holding some of the traffic in DOs helps keep the processing operation flowing and gets posties out earlier then surely that's something worth considering.

At the moment it feels like we're moving the problems upstream so instead of DOs holding the deferred traffic, Mail centres are holding it. Is the network becoming more efficient or are we simply moving the same problem to a different part of the operation?

The purpose of the changes to the delivery speed of items is to make the USO cost efficient. DM26 is not about reducing pressure in delivery. Its about a delivery method that fits the delivery speed. The reason the traffic is being deferred is to streamline the whole operation not simply the final mile. Dispatching traffic that does not need to be sent is not efficient. Space maybe able to say if the constant re-running of batches is efficient. The designers of DM26 and ODM obviously think it is.

Ideally we would have an operation that knew when a delivery point had any item that was due delivery and then release everything for that delivery point. It's highly likely that anyone who knows their duty well enough will take everything for that dp.

[tramssirhc]

Thanks for your input Space

So deferring mail could actually create larger CSS batches, longer machine runs and potentially push Wave 1 and 2 later into the day.

But If the purpose of USO reform is to reduce delivery pressure, why are we also changing the processing model? Why not continue processing the mail as normal and then defer it at the delivery office instead? If holding some of the traffic in DOs helps keep the processing operation flowing and gets posties out earlier then surely that's something worth considering.

At the moment it feels like we're moving the problems upstream so instead of DOs holding the deferred traffic, Mail centres are holding it. Is the network becoming more efficient or are we simply moving the same problem to a different part of the operation?

With the mech given how little 1C mail there must be for each walk, why can't they have it prepped into the walk frames as normal but not put the 1C into the frame if it's not a 2C day?

I think we'll all have to wait and see the actual affect is once mech mail naturally increases again in the autumn. If it ends up being as bad as I think it might be, then I think you'll probably be looking at the dispatches being made an hour later. We need RM to confirm what will happen with a 2C or DSA item that has hit the time limit for the product used but it's not a 2C day for the walk, AFAIK they won't be releasing the item a day early.

To give an idea of run times, pre DTS a batch of about 5,700 items was expected to take around 40mins to run.

The changes are about an efficient operation through all its stages. Dispatching traffic that is not required at DO's is not efficient. You maybe able to tell us if the constant re-running of batches is efficient. The designers of DM26 and ODM obviously believed it is.