Why cant we have an increase in numbers, say 5 items ( what RM want )
Included in workload ( what CWU want )
Paid by the item ( what posties want )
That would be fair to the posties that are actually doing the work
If your doing the work, you get paid for it
Any system of payment for D2D's that rewards people unfairly ( eg. same payment for 400 drops as for 700 drops or indeed 0 drops ) will get a NO vote from me, and I suspect many others in delivery.
How come that doesn't apply to letters? Some posties deliver far more letters than others because their duties are compact. Surely everybody should get paid for the time they work for the company. As long as time is built into your duty to accomodate any extra prep of D2D, then what is so wrong with it?
Why cant we have an increase in numbers, say 5 items ( what RM want )
Included in workload ( what CWU want )
Paid by the item ( what posties want )
That would be fair to the posties that are actually doing the work
If your doing the work, you get paid for it
Any system of payment for D2D's that rewards people unfairly ( eg. same payment for 400 drops as for 700 drops or indeed 0 drops ) will get a NO vote from me, and I suspect many others in delivery.
Well maybe if delivery is to share the D2D pie around we could look for some of the other benefits others receive and share those also.
How much is the night shift allowance anyway.
Why cant we have an increase in numbers, say 5 items ( what RM want )
Included in workload ( what CWU want )
Paid by the item ( what posties want )
That would be fair to the posties that are actually doing the work
If your doing the work, you get paid for it
Any system of payment for D2D's that rewards people unfairly ( eg. same payment for 400 drops as for 700 drops or indeed 0 drops ) will get a NO vote from me, and I suspect many others in delivery.
Well maybe if delivery is to share the D2D pie around we could look for some of the other benefits others receive and share those also.
How much is the night shift allowance anyway.
Then of course there is the early shift allowance, the late shift allowance and then there is the Lo ... dare I say it?
First priority should be to get all door to doors shrink wrapped in 1 wrapper, so whether you get 3 or 6 you only have to prep 1 item per slot. We know this is being considered and would gain big support in my opinion.
next, door to door truely into workload, not like we have now, walks must be made smaller or more prep time to accomadate the work. (can't see it happening but would be nice)
Thirdly, floaters, reserves and people splitting a walk on overtime would have to take door to doors. Not like now where only the duty holder takes them. So if you have a day off in the week + an AL day off you are Shafted. Also when you go sick for a couple of days door to doors havent been touched when yopu return. Management would have to ensure 20% go each day.
As for price, if all of the above were to happen, taking in to account the weekly supplement would be paid when on leave and sick leave I would think you need to be looking at .....hmmmm...£35 per week minimum,
If all of the above happened would people accept a weekly supplement? Even for people who didn't do door to door?
MinisterofCucumber wrote:Nice one Wranglered, you seem to have rattled Dingo's cage.
Dingo said, "If you are not being treated fairly now its nothing to do with CWU HQ or any agreement it is either down to your DOM or the local rep."
So this local agreement crap means the union can pass the buck and there is no accountability.
Does anyone trust Dingo, or Squealer, or whatever his name is?
Your having a laugh if you think anyone could wind me up on here. Not in my nature !!
Look what Wranglered has said in regards to what he wants from the deal he might get what he wants. Lets just wait but if things go to plan I hope he supports the deal if it comes out the way we hope.
Plus pensions is not a dead issue , and its not a deal with Royal Mail that we need its a deal with the Government.
Now Mr Cucumber I could not care less if you trust me or not. There are plenty who do and I always like to think I have never let the members down.
Plus if you like to quote me what I was saying in that response was about the fact that reserves should not be disadvantage by not having long weekend etc. Which is true . Now if your from London and you want to be an area rep then any member can stand for any postion providing your nominated and seconded by another 2 members. Then you have an election .
A Supplement for those holding a delivery duty only would be the most sensible way, if we are too swop pence per paymnet for supplement. Move to a non delivery duty you lose the cash, move from a non delivery duty to a delivery duty you gain cash. Every delivery duty gets the average weekly payment for that duty.
In terms of d to d into workload, the most important thing is to ensure that all work no matter what work it is can be done with the hours of attendance working at a achiveable and fair rate. If the CWU top bods can get this then the only issue is the d to d payment structure/payment amounts. Basically the CWU policy should be to ensure delivery workers are not worse off in payment amounts for D to D. Surley they will achive that? Anything less just wont be worth putting out into the field as it will attract a large no vote from delivery workers.
MinisterofCucumber wrote:Nice one Wranglered, you seem to have rattled Dingo's cage.
Dingo said, "If you are not being treated fairly now its nothing to do with CWU HQ or any agreement it is either down to your DOM or the local rep."
So this local agreement crap means the union can pass the buck and there is no accountability.
Does anyone trust Dingo, or Squealer, or whatever his name is?
I trust dingo and the cwu.Its people like you that i dnt trust.Management are trying their hardest to turn posties against each other,so why slag off people who are only trying to help.
Big Daz wrote:A Supplement for those holding a delivery duty only would be the most sensible way, if we are too swop pence per paymnet for supplement. Move to a non delivery duty you lose the cash, move from a non delivery duty to a delivery duty you gain cash. Every delivery duty gets the average weekly payment for that duty.
In terms of d to d into workload, the most important thing is to ensure that all work no matter what work it is can be done with the hours of attendance working at a achiveable and fair rate. If the CWU top bods can get this then the only issue is the d to d payment structure/payment amounts. Basically the CWU policy should be to ensure delivery workers are not worse off in payment amounts for D to D. Surley they will achive that? Anything less just wont be worth putting out into the field as it will attract a large no vote from delivery workers.
Is the election material also going to be put into workload and consequently will we also lose the payment for that?
If so, could I request that the talks continue for another couple of months so we can at least get one more payment secured before the change.
claretandblue wrote:the reason we can deliver more on a sat than a tue is because we run round like mad men too get finished at a decent time so we have some weekend left to enjoy, i.e going on football match. With how busy it is on a sat now you dont gain much over a week day.
A man after my own heart. But just because your finish time will be later on paper will that stop you rushing around in order to finish early ?? Bearing in mind the only difference will be that some walks will recieve their work later on Saturday but the latest would be 10
Plus you will also be able to introduce an attendance pattern which gives you maybe one in three Saturdays off instead of one in six so you may work 50% less saturdays then you do now.
and the reserves get screwed again because we don't get Saturdays off for 'operational' reasons ie. face don't fit
Wrong again reserves will be entitled to the same benefits. In fact they are now. If you are not being treated fairly now its nothing to do with CWU HQ or any agreement it is either down to your DOM or the local rep. You need to appoach them. Reserves in most London offices enjoy the same time off beneits as anyone else otherwise it is not fair.
Rubbish!!!!! I (along with the majority of reserves) can count the number of Saturdays off on one hand, you really need to get out of London and come to offices that have been well and truely done over and you'd then see the anger and the fact that we argue that reserves should have the same benefits but we always get hit with the 'operational needs'. I'm not to sure how many more letters my rep has to write (it's in the hundreds now) but we never get anywhere.
I have absoultely no confidence in anything that is coming out of the CWU leadership right now, I think they'll sell us down the river just so they can keep their benefits (and from your postings.............Londons' benefits).
I'm preparing myself for the zombie invasion, rule number 1 - Cardio
Big Daz wrote:A Supplement for those holding a delivery duty only would be the most sensible way, if we are too swop pence per paymnet for supplement. Move to a non delivery duty you lose the cash, move from a non delivery duty to a delivery duty you gain cash. Every delivery duty gets the average weekly payment for that duty.
In terms of d to d into workload, the most important thing is to ensure that all work no matter what work it is can be done with the hours of attendance working at a achiveable and fair rate. If the CWU top bods can get this then the only issue is the d to d payment structure/payment amounts. Basically the CWU policy should be to ensure delivery workers are not worse off in payment amounts for D to D. Surley they will achive that? Anything less just wont be worth putting out into the field as it will attract a large no vote from delivery workers.
Where you say each duty holder gets the average weekly payment for that walk, how do you see this working for floaters? As, for d 2 d in to workload to truely work, floaters would have to start taking them. that would complicate things. How about a daily claim sheet for 20% a day?
Just a thought, if floaters, reserves and people splitting a walk do claim their 20% could people on a 4 day week or people with a rotating day off in the week actually be worse off under this system? as they'd only get 80% of the d 2 d money for a walk. Maybe a flat rate would be better. In an ideal world, If we're all finishing on time, and not being expected to run around does it matter who does or doesn't do d 2 d, as long as we all only work our hours. Me personally I hate prepping them and delivering them, getting a weekly supplement would suit me fine, as long as floaters took their share and they were wrapped in 1 wrapper.
ow many on the pec are from the london area at present moment closed shop it is not all about london and ow hard done by the are we need to change the structure of the pec there is too many cronies on it up pete keenylside
Hang on a minute ghostman, you're talking details here and all we are being fed are generalities that add up to zilch until the paperwork is there for us all to read and I sincerely hope EVERYONE reads it and doesn't take anyone else's' opinion or recommendation but their own.
dvbuk55 wrote:Hang on a minute ghostman, you're talking details here and all we are being fed are generalities that add up to zilch until the paperwork is there for us all to read and I sincerely hope EVERYONE reads it and doesn't take anyone else's' opinion or recommendation but their own.
lets just hope its a good deaL; or we avent got a leg to stand on
GHOSTman wrote:My personal opinion on door to doors...
As for price, if all of the above were to happen, taking in to account the weekly supplement would be paid when on leave and sick leave I would think you need to be looking at .....hmmmm...£35 per week minimum,
If all of the above happened would people accept a weekly supplement? Even for people who didn't do door to door?
Am already on £30 a week for my d2d's, so your saying a minimum of £35... i'd be saying NO WAY - simple reason being i'd be getting an extra £5 for taking out the extra d2d's that RM want to add to 600+ doors means i'd be getting bumped.. No Thanks
