VAN SHARING

[woofwoof]

got sent this today we are next

[Lounge Lizard]

The first word of the 'Background' paragraph gives a clue that 'XXXXXX' in the title just might be 'somewhere'.

Teebs: I think he saw it and is amending the attachment

[DGP1]

Our van shares have been put in by management and nobody knows how they are supposed to work because there has been no involvment of the staff (our problem is that they are putting 2 rural duties together so that make either 10, 9 or 8 1/2 hours depending on what figures the managers uses )

It's all going to go tits up and all I will say is 'I told you so'

[woofwoof]

The first word of the 'Background' paragraph gives a clue that 'XXXXXX' in the title just might be 'somewhere'.

Teebs: I think he saw it and is amending the attachment

well it does say north east ive just taken the delivery office away maybe someone is watching

[dvbuk55]

I had a conversation with a union rep this week and the van share is in and it doesn't matter where you are. An increase to 4.15 has been agreed on these deliveries and so the benefit of trials is totally irrelevant. I haven't seen any official notifiction from HQ or indeed from the branch but I can see the reason behind it.

[postmanx]

Thanks for that bit of info - very helpful - sounds just like our office!!!

[bogstandard]

i quickly read the download and 2 things concern me
1. there is no mention of the IR framework and its application in this document, therefore i can only assume that it has no place and will not be applied nor will the local rep have any real influence.
2. question 8 "compete to keep up" once the questionaire has been filled out and 60% say they do feel pressurised what will management do, i mean, apart from say you shouldn't feel pressurised what will they do. Will they stop it ? No of course not it suits their means.

[postmanx]

i quickly read the download and 2 things concern me
1. there is no mention of the IR framework and its application in this document, therefore i can only assume that it has no place and will not be applied nor will the local rep have any real influence.
2. question 8 "compete to keep up" once the questionaire has been filled out and 60% say they do feel pressurised what will management do, i mean, apart from say you shouldn't feel pressurised what will they do. Will they stop it ? No of course not it suits their means.

correct - that is what has happened in our office - have not seen any agreements like this -(until now) and many others are doing same by looking on here

[TrueBlueTerrier]

1. I think this is a trial scheme so the IR route does not apply - anyone using this as a template would need to add IR details prior to suggesting implementation.

However. my considered advice is - stay away from it.

[postmanx]

1. I think this is a trial scheme so the IR route does not apply - anyone using this as a template would need to add IR details prior to suggesting implementation.

However. my considered advice is - stay away from it.

but if its a so called `TRIAL` - how come they are rolling it out nationwide to many offices as we speak - i thought the whole point of a trial is to see if the plans work? sort out any problems - then roll it out nationwide - and our DOM says not to call it at `TRIAL`.

[POSTMAN]

LTB 386/09 - Royal Mail Delivery Methods - CDV / Shared Vans

To: Branches with POSTAL Members

Dear Colleague

Royal Mail Delivery Methods - CDV / Shared Vans
We have previously put advice out to the field but in view of the number of enquiries being received in the outdoor department it was felt pertinent to restate our position on shared / car derived vans.

In terms of our overall position - We have no in principle objection to the concept, in fact we view it as a method which has the potential to resolve a number of long standing problems, particularly those associated with weight on delivery.

However, we are absolutely clear that deployment must be by way of an agreement.

We were engaged in discussions with Royal Mail on this subject last year. We did in fact reach a point where we had a negotiators agreement on a set of planning guidelines. This would have enabled deployment in a safe, pragmatic and sensible manner. Unfortunately, when the document went to the decision makers within Royal Mail the progress we had made came to a grinding halt.

It would seem that this issue, along with many others, has fallen victim to the Royal Mail dogma which views agreements as a bad thing.

Since then, despite our repeated requests, it would seem that management have attempted to push ahead without the CWU.

The advice therefore is to handle the issue through the IR Framework using the disagreement process when necessary. Additionally, neither H&S reps nor IR reps should work on this issue in isolation. There is clearly an overlap and in view of that delivery reps and ASR’s should work together on this issue.

Further to that, some of the reports we are receiving indicate an approach which is at complete odds to the position taken by Royal Mail during our negotiations.

We have had reports of existing walks bolted together and a van supplied. In some cases the loops are pretty much the whole walk and the van effectively becomes a pouch box on wheels. This is clearly unacceptable. To use this method properly requires an element of detailed planning especially on the loops to be employed. The whole purpose of shared vans is to reduce weight over the shoulder and loops should be as short as reasonably possible.

We have had other reports of all manner of vehicles being used. During our negotiations it was agreed that vehicles with a sliding side door was by far the safest and most preferred vehicle design. In addition all vehicles should have panelled or “blacked out” rear windows and a partitioning bulkhead between the load and passenger carrying areas is an absolute must.

In some areas managers are attempting to use the change in delivery method to bring in longer delivery spans. We would remind branches that the nationally agreed span is 3.5 hours and there is no current agreement to change that.

Finally, whilst we had concluded a planning document we did not have time to cover other areas such guidance for resigns, what to do when an individual no longer wishes / is no longer able to drive etc. We did however agree across the table that holding a driving licence would not be a mandatory requirement when recruiting.



In summary – there is no national agreement in place on this issue but we wish to conclude one.