See what happens!

[calpsy]

I will give you a laugh . The other morning we were short staffed . Posties lining up to be taken out . 6 posties were then left with only 5 spaces in the crew bus .

The manager comes up to me and asks can I take the last guy out ? I say no bother ..... what van will I use and he says there arent any available ..... Can i take him out in my car ??

Thats how it is in my office ... they dont care about us using cars .

And by admitting that, you have blown out the water all the argument's you made that using you private car has no effect on the business or your workmates

And just WHAT does that mean ?? What effect DID it have on the business ?????


Clutching and straws spring to mind .

Give up

[postghost]

If everyone who used their cars in a DO was to come in one day without them, there would be a delay in conveyance and bags getting dropped off at pouch boxes. Furthermore, there would be an increase in overtime. Management would be up to their necks in it.

Very simple really.

[andy2007]

And your insurance wouldn't cover you for that so you willingly broke the law !! and the dom's as gulity as you if i was the postie i'd have stuck up two fingers to the both of you a** w*** ...........

Again someone who cant communicate without name calling . Where will it end ??? Mods should ban these people . Ticking off doesnt work .

Or maybe they are friends of the mods ........ nothing will be done AGAIN ! !

What exactly, makes you think that we're favouring those who disagree with you, and aren't doing anything?
They have been treated exactly the same as you were, when you tried to provoke the Members you don't like, into doing something that would warrant a Ban.

I'm sorry I've had to resort to explaining this publically to you. But the fact is, that simply PMing you, seems to have no effect. And you're going out of your way to wind people up, while portraying yourself as a victim. The fact is, that you're more than capable of looking after yourself.

You have been the victim of some atrocious comments, not so long ago. But I dealt with that for you. And what happened next?
You began a campaign to wind up your opponents as much as possible, in a bit to have them banned. You've even openly demanded that we ban them! There have been people on BOTH sides of this argument, who've gone too far. And contrary to what you seem to think: Some of them HAVE been dealt with severely.

And quite frankly, I find your accusations about myself, the other Mods, and Admin, offensive. What happened when someone asked for your opinion in this thread?
Well, this was your opening post:
Sherpas Rule wrote:
Over to you Calpsy...

Glad you all find it funny a guy losing his job . I bet his family find it funny too .


As for me .... YES we all know I use my car ........... NEVER as a pouch drop .......... ONLY to start my shift early .


Over to you Sherpa
Where did Sherpa claim it was in any way funny?
He only asked your opinion.

And things deteriorated from there.

[johnsouthwales]

the only conclusions achieved in this matter is that your co-worker has lost his job because he was using his own vehicle. No ifs, not buts about it, he has lost his job. It is not funny as it was mentioned in the beginning, his family aren't laughing.
He has lost his job because the cwu do not do anything about it. I can't see how cwu can represent him if it went to appeal. What is the point of getting somebody off the hook for something they condone? That wouldn't make sense. Rules are, if mail goes missing for whatever reason whether it is in control or outside control, that person is out. No ifs, no buts. No mitigating circumstances. However, if the correct procedure was taken up in the first place by supplying the correct apparatus ie royal mail livery, the vehicle would not have been taken away and the postman would not have lost his job. That is the reality. And this debate and arguement would not be going on and splitting opinions and causing mayhem. The reality is, a royal mail worker has lost his livelyhood and it is royal mail's responsibility that caused this situation to arise in the first place.

[andy2007]

I think you're labouring under a misconception John. If someone has been treated unfairly, which I think most of us agree, is what happened here. Then there's nothing stopping the CWU representing him in an IT. There's a major difference between defending someone who's been treated too harshly for a breach of procedure. And condoning his actions.

For example: There was a case a few years ago, where one of my Collegues was hurt in an accident. He hadn't followed the SSOW. But then again, the vast majority of his Collegues, were routinely doing the same thing. The CWU supported him in his claim for compensation. Because although he hadn't followed the SSOW, the accident wasn't his fault. Even the HSE agreed, that he hadn't caused the accident. So things were quite rightly tightened up considerably, and we're a damn sight safer as a result! It's amazing how fast people start taking procedures more seriously, after something like that!

My point is: No-one condoned his breach of procedure. Least of all HSE. BUT both the Union AND the HSE contributed to his case against RM, for ALLOWING such breaches to become routine.

[johnsouthwales]

andy, i agree with your last paragraph - allowing the circumstances to exist in the first place.

i did say earlier there were mitigating circumstances in this case - at least two. but from rm point of view and as far as they are concerned, there are no mitigating circumstances and from this angle i was referring to in the last post.

from my own point of view. someone has lost his job and to put it mildly, it should not have happened if rm had been doing their job properly in the first place and supplying their own livery. it is totally unacceptable that people lose their jobs because of rm practices..

rm are the cause of people losing their own jobs. and i do hope cwu will bring up the full facts at an appeal. it's worth trying to argue over the cause of the vehicle being removed, and mention that the dismissal was harsh and attempt to reinstate. that is secondary and just as important.

like i said earlier, the driver may not known he was in a payzone. it could well be down to poorly signed. maybe it is a problem that rm were too quick to dismiss and if that is the case, that will be recognised straight away at a tribunal. RM are going to stick to their guns no matter what. According to rm rules, rm had no choice but to dismiss, and they are acting on their own guidelines.

the primary cause of this problem is rm. if that doesn't get addressed, then that is a bigger problem.

someone mentioned at the beginning if the driver was already on stage 2. that is debatable as we do not know. and even if he was on stage 2, he would not have been on stage 3 if rm were doing their job. there is no doubt about it, this would not have happened if rm livery was supplied.

[krussel]

this is a bit of a dilemna. When other members have been sacked for something, other offices have a walkout or protest. There are plenty of threads mentioning walkouts in support for someone.
To walkout on this issue would be awkward..the anti using car faction can't walk out as it would make them look that they support the use. The pro using a car side will walkout and that will reaffirm the use of a car.. If the anti car users walkout, it would only end up as an anticar protest overtaking the importance of the dismissal. And it looks that the car users won't walk out in support as it would give the impression of double standards, as it's down to tough luck it happened in the first place. And when pro car users are seemed to be doing nothing in support, rm will be rubbing their hands in glee. So a walkout in protest may not be valid as there would be no doubt that a common ground can't be achieved. And if a walkout can't be achieved, then that would be sad as it would look like no support for the member. Lose lose situation.

Glad you brought this point up John. When my car got broken into the first question i was asked: where had the mail been taken from ?. The second question: was i using the car around my delivery ? The mail was out of sight and locked in the boot but i WAS using it around the delivery and thus got a written 5 year warning, fair enough

The guy i mentioned earlier was delivering from the boot of his car but had put down his rear seats to get all the bags in. He sadly was sacked . The CWU tried to raise support for him within the office (this was 6 months after mine and i was still pissed off about my treatment) and i started a petition but i quickly found there was very little interest in helping him, even from other car users . He was a nice bloke and it was a shame to see him go like that. He only had about a years service but seemed to get on with everyone but they all stood back and watched him walk

[TrueBlueTerrier]

do the cwu support the use of a car?

No

Card CWU 1 001.jpg

Card 2.jpg

[johnsouthwales]

The guy i mentioned earlier was delivering from the boot of his car but had put down his rear seats to get all the bags in. He sadly was sacked . The CWU tried to raise support for him within the office (this was 6 months after mine and i was still pissed off about my treatment) and i started a petition but i quickly found there was very little interest in helping him, even from other car users . He was a nice bloke and it was a shame to see him go like that. He only had about a years service but seemed to get on with everyone but they all stood back and watched him walk

sad. car users don't give a damn about their fellow workers

[savo]

Where can you get those " Do the job properly " posters from ?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Where can you get those " Do the job properly " posters from ?

They are business card sized and the union sent them out in 2007 just before the strikes I think.

[krussel]

The guy i mentioned earlier was delivering from the boot of his car but had put down his rear seats to get all the bags in. He sadly was sacked . The CWU tried to raise support for him within the office (this was 6 months after mine and i was still pissed off about my treatment) and i started a petition but i quickly found there was very little interest in helping him, even from other car users . He was a nice bloke and it was a shame to see him go like that. He only had about a years service but seemed to get on with everyone but they all stood back and watched him walk

sad. car users don't give a damn about their fellow workers

Err well not really true in this case to be honest the guy who got sacked was not non caring Thing was we were all doing it back then as you could really save time. The guy in question just followed the pack and like the rest of us did nt think it would ever happen to him. Way back then (1999 my car got done) the managers acted as if you really helping them and doing them a personal favour, pat on the back and "top man" kind of stuff. Then when something went wrong they were shaking thier heads at me and telling me i was lucky to keep my job. It was as if all of a sudden they had no idea i was using my car at all. I learned the hard way with costs and the other guy sadly even harder.