Seniority and how it works

[GHOSTman]

As a part timer looking to go full time i'm very interested in this topic as we're due a re-sign in the next few months. At the last re-sign 6 years ago it was very simple, you picked a duty in order of overall seniority then you decided if you wanted that duty to be full time or part time. This time there is talk as mentioned above that it could be split in to full time and part time groups. This in my opinion stinks as I've got quite a few more years service than a lot of current full timers. I know that no current full timer would want to be in the unfortunate position of losing out to an AG, but surely seniority is seniority regardless of current grade....simples! If not then all part timers will have to accept that they will never get a full time job in future unless they go down the favourtism route.

Your old way has a flaw,a full timer could be bumped down to part time.There HAS to be 2 lists,like teebs office.

If you could gaurantee that no current full timers would lose their current status would this change things? I'm thinking of this Full time / part time ratio that may or may not come in. In our office there are more AG's than full timers. So if it was decided to increase the full time ratio no current full timer would lose their status. Would an AG then be able to be moved in to the full time group for the re-pick? I must add that I'm not holding my breath on the full time ratio being increased!

Things are going to change so much who knows what is going to happen.Hold tight for the agreement.With regards to the ratio,is it nationwide or individual offices nthat is the question,if it's individual offices RM are in big trouble,if it's nationwide,they will get away with murder.

Should be interesting to say the least. I should add I can see where a current full timer is coming from in regards the possibility of losing their hours, totally un acceptable. My argument is not with them it's with Royalmail for denying part timers a decent future in the company by not replacing full timers when they leave. Over the past 5 years I've lost count of the number of full timers who have left our office...all to be replaced with part timers. I must say I definately made a very costly decision at the last re-sign to remain part-time due to family commitments...Now I'm scratching around for over time on a weekly basis, very demoralising.

[POSTMAN]

Does anyone know what the ratio is likely to be?

RM have said 75/25,now,will that be put in writing?

[Pinky 1]

As a part timer looking to go full time i'm very interested in this topic as we're due a re-sign in the next few months. At the last re-sign 6 years ago it was very simple, you picked a duty in order of overall seniority then you decided if you wanted that duty to be full time or part time. This time there is talk as mentioned above that it could be split in to full time and part time groups. This in my opinion stinks as I've got quite a few more years service than a lot of current full timers. I know that no current full timer would want to be in the unfortunate position of losing out to an AG, but surely seniority is seniority regardless of current grade....simples! If not then all part timers will have to accept that they will never get a full time job in future unless they go down the favourtism route.

Your old way has a flaw,a full timer could be bumped down to part time.There HAS to be 2 lists,like teebs office.

If you could gaurantee that no current full timers would lose their current status would this change things? I'm thinking of this Full time / part time ratio that may or may not come in. In our office there are more AG's than full timers. So if it was decided to increase the full time ratio no current full timer would lose their status. Would an AG then be able to be moved in to the full time group for the re-pick? I must add that I'm not holding my breath on the full time ratio being increased!

In a word ... Yes ..

[GHOSTman]

That was my next question, is there a ratio that is carved into stone and national, so to speak, or is it a question of local agreement.

As postman said, if it is a set ratio at local office then all hell could break loose, as offices with low levels of full timers would need to increase their ratio and offices with a high ratio might have to decrease their ratio (though this is highly unlikely to happen). My gut feeling is that the ratio will be a national one so as long as Royal mail employes 51% full time nationwide they can say they are a predominently full time work force. This would mean nothing would really change locally. As for the figure I'm sure i've heard 75% full time banded about on here. If anyone could shed some light on this I'd be very interested. "The Truth" perhaps....

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Does anyone know what the ratio is likely to be?

RM have said 75/25,now,will that be put in writing?

What is more important is that the CWU get the agreement with the ratio round the right way or we are fecked.

I can see it crozier saying in meeting with billy, "You accepted 75/25 but we did not agree which is which so we went 75% part time"

[clashcityrocker]

I can see it crozier saying in meeting with billy, "You accepted 75/25 but we did not agree which is which so we went 75% part time"

I think they have trialled that in my DO

[GHOSTman]

Does anyone know what the ratio is likely to be?

RM have said 75/25,now,will that be put in writing?

What is more important is that the CWU get the agreement with the ratio round the right way or we are fecked.

I can see it crozier saying in meeting with billy, "You accepted 75/25 but we did not agree which is which so we went 75% part time"

As daft as it sounds you've got me worried now....Billy wouldn't have....would he?

[realitybites]

In order to achieve these ratios, and the fact that seniority is not going to be the be all and end all it once was do you think they might start farming out full timers as they are part timers if there are full timers with no permanent duties.

[REDLETTER]

As a part timer looking to go full time i'm very interested in this topic as we're due a re-sign in the next few months. At the last re-sign 6 years ago it was very simple, you picked a duty in order of overall seniority then you decided if you wanted that duty to be full time or part time. This time there is talk as mentioned above that it could be split in to full time and part time groups. This in my opinion stinks as I've got quite a few more years service than a lot of current full timers. I know that no current full timer would want to be in the unfortunate position of losing out to an AG, but surely seniority is seniority regardless of current grade....simples! If not then all part timers will have to accept that they will never get a full time job in future unless they go down the favourtism route.

As long as the FT keeps his hours there should not be a problem otherwise he stands to loose a lot of money (1/4 of his take home pay) just because someone has now decided he would like full time hours at a repick but did not want them before. But somehow I cant see RM allowing a FT to keep his hours in a PT position and a PT to go FT someone would have to loose out and ultimately what is fairer.

1. Allowing someone to go to FT hours at the expense of another employee loosing hours and wages.

or.

2. Refusing a PT the option of going FT because none of the FT posties are willing to go down in hours.

Now if there is a vacant FT post available to pick then the most senior OPG regardless of contractual hours should have first choice the thing is that unless someone retires or is sacked in a repick there are usually less FT positions available than there are FT posties.


BTW - we are all the same grade now there are no longer PHGs, OPGs, or AGs - apparently we are all now OPGs

If there is a vacant post for Full Time, our office just imports someone from another DO or MC, so us Part Time are never allowed to increase our hours. Nice and fair!

[Ahebban]

DIM DOMs use the 'equally and fairly' clause in Pay & Mod Agmnt to circumvent 'seniority', as and when it suits, stating that seniority is neither equal or fair

[fishtank]

DIM DOMs use the 'equally and fairly' clause in Pay & Mod Agmnt to circumvent 'seniority', as and when it suits, stating that seniority is neither equal or fair

Seniority will always hold the field,not because it is equal and fair but because it is more equal and fair than anything else.

[Ahebban]

I agree, Fishtank .. seniority should always hold sway, be it revisions, annual leave or whatever. We have all seen the consequences of RM's aribtrary use and abuse of the Pay & Mod Agmnt.

Seniority is used for picking duties at our DO. The only change really comes to booking annual leave. First pick of annual leave is done with seniority (top to bottom) - then reverses for second pick etc, until all annual leave is allocated.

There is no perfect system. You are never going to please everyone so best to try and keep it as simple as possible!

[POSTMAN]

That was my next question, is there a ratio that is carved into stone and national, so to speak, or is it a question of local agreement.

As postman said, if it is a set ratio at local office then all hell could break loose, as offices with low levels of full timers would need to increase their ratio and offices with a high ratio might have to decrease their ratio (though this is highly unlikely to happen). My gut feeling is that the ratio will be a national one so as long as Royal mail employes 51% full time nationwide they can say they are a predominently full time work force. This would mean nothing would really change locally. As for the figure I'm sure i've heard 75% full time banded about on here. If anyone could shed some light on this I'd be very interested. "The Truth" perhaps....

It was The Truth that posted it.

[dvbuk55]

The question of full and part time duties with regards to seniority is soon going to be a very dicey issue.

When park and loop was introduced 15 months ago people were moved from full time town rounds to man the park and loop vehicles because it was suggested that only a full time position would suit the duty structure. The delivery is 4.15 plus 15 each way, prepare deliveries, sort out large packets for the two deliveries and load the vehicle et seq, so it was obviously out of the question for 5 and 6 hour duty spans - except as staff were sacked and left part timers now regularly fill the vacancy and book overtime.

Now that deliveries are pretty much all going to be park and loop because anything outside a mile from the DO will be that and the delivery span may be increased for town as well what price a part time duty? Our office is already 60%FT and 40%PT and that ratio, at least in theory, will not sustain park and loop.

[GHOSTman]

That was my next question, is there a ratio that is carved into stone and national, so to speak, or is it a question of local agreement.

As postman said, if it is a set ratio at local office then all hell could break loose, as offices with low levels of full timers would need to increase their ratio and offices with a high ratio might have to decrease their ratio (though this is highly unlikely to happen). My gut feeling is that the ratio will be a national one so as long as Royal mail employes 51% full time nationwide they can say they are a predominently full time work force. This would mean nothing would really change locally. As for the figure I'm sure i've heard 75% full time banded about on here. If anyone could shed some light on this I'd be very interested. "The Truth" perhaps....

It was The Truth that posted it.

Sorry, yes, i remember where i read it now. So does everone think this 75% / 25% ratio is definately going to be in the agreement?