TrueBlueTerrier wrote: I tend to agree that ignoring the money side of the deal on D2Ds, the operational side of it will be better, but is that worth a cut in what we get paid and an increase in the amount. No,
Here is the thing I don't quite get.
All along it was - it's not about the money, it's about the conditions.
But when an opportunity to improve the conditions presents itself - then it is all about the money.
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.
numan wrote:To the people saying D2D into workload is a good thing, do you not use the time you're currently allowed to prep 20% a day? And if not, why not?
You have mentioned this in another thread,prepping 20% is a lot easier than prepping 100% which when we have to do that gives us more job security.
Nonsense - there is no revision tool agreed and your prep rate has not increased to 100% by anything stated in this agreement - you may assume as much as you like but as in the 2007 agreement the ten ton truck is waiting in the wings to be driven straight through this so called deal.
numan wrote:To the people saying D2D into workload is a good thing, do you not use the time you're currently allowed to prep 20% a day? And if not, why not?
You have mentioned this in another thread,prepping 20% is a lot easier than prepping 100% which when we have to do that gives us more job security.
Nonsense - there is no revision tool agreed and your prep rate has not increased to 100% by anything stated in this agreement - you may assume as much as you like but as in the 2007 agreement the ten ton truck is waiting in the wings to be driven straight through this so called deal.
If there are time/day sensitive D2D's then yes we will get revisions at 100% call rate!
I Wrote-During Covid-Which is still relevant now
It's good to get these types of threads, the ridiculous my manager said bollox, so we can reassure ourselves that while the world is falling apart, Royal Mail managers are still being the low-life C***S they have always been. My BFF Clash The daily grind of having to argue your case with an intellectual pigmy of a line manager is physically and emotionally draining.
im afraid people will vote yes because of the money, when we get to vote the union will send us a couple of sheets of paper dressing it up as a good deal for us, they probably wont mention that the lump sums come from our collegue shares
TrueBlueTerrier wrote: I tend to agree that ignoring the money side of the deal on D2Ds, the operational side of it will be better, but is that worth a cut in what we get paid and an increase in the amount. No,
Here is the thing I don't quite get.
All along it was - it's not about the money, it's about the conditions.
But when an opportunity to improve the conditions presents itself - then it is all about the money.
I'm really intrigued to see where the conditions will be improved one iota by this deal - and although it isn't ALL about money - we weren't exactly asking for a pay cut.
TrueBlueTerrier wrote: I tend to agree that ignoring the money side of the deal on D2Ds, the operational side of it will be better, but is that worth a cut in what we get paid and an increase in the amount. No,
Here is the thing I don't quite get.
All along it was - it's not about the money, it's about the conditions.
But when an opportunity to improve the conditions presents itself - then it is all about the money.
I can ignore no pay rise - I cannot ignore a pay reduction which is what we are getting.
You have to balance everything not just snippets which is what I am trying to do. My honest opinion is that the changes on the operational side of D2D may have been acceptable if I did not get a £20 per week (on average) less for doing more work. Thats the bit that sticks in my craw.
All post by me in Green are Admin Posts. Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility. If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
numan wrote:To the people saying D2D into workload is a good thing, do you not use the time you're currently allowed to prep 20% a day? And if not, why not?
You have mentioned this in another thread,prepping 20% is a lot easier than prepping 100% which when we have to do that gives us more job security.
Nonsense - there is no revision tool agreed and your prep rate has not increased to 100% by anything stated in this agreement - you may assume as much as you like but as in the 2007 agreement the ten ton truck is waiting in the wings to be driven straight through this so called deal.
If there are time/day sensitive D2D's then yes we will get revisions at 100% call rate!
No you won't - it will depend entirely on your traffic figure for the week - that one day will be 100% for that week but what about the following weeks and preceding weeks? Anyone who thinks it IS going to be 100% have a quiet word with a friendly DOM who may impart what HE has been told will be the call rate.
TrueBlueTerrier wrote: I tend to agree that ignoring the money side of the deal on D2Ds, the operational side of it will be better, but is that worth a cut in what we get paid and an increase in the amount. No,
Here is the thing I don't quite get.
All along it was - it's not about the money, it's about the conditions.
But when an opportunity to improve the conditions presents itself - then it is all about the money.
3pm Saturdays (Family Friendly)
No Delivery Span(Workload)
No Cap to D2D (Workload)
Discriminating against Part Time staff (if not strictly illegal Morally wrong for a Union To negotite this)
what opportunity to improve my conditions or others at my office...
TrueBlueTerrier wrote:
You have to balance everything not just snippets which is what I am trying to do. My honest opinion is that the changes on the operational side of D2D may have been acceptable if I did not get a £20 per week (on average) less for doing more work. Thats the bit that sticks in my craw.
But once D2D goes into workload what justification is there for a separate payment?
When the council tax bills go out - the walk with 900 calls doesn't get paid more than the walk with 600 calls.
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.
POSTMAN wrote:dv,where does it say in the agreement that deliverys will be 5.5hrs plus?
In essence, the span will no longer be an objective in itself. Instead office revisions should look to define a set of revision objectives in line with the Delivery Revision Process and then negotiate and agree a duty span/structure that best meets these objectives, taking into account local factors and safety issues in route design.
Take a look at the wording does it say there is a finite limit? Does it offer any advice as to what would be a safe delivery span? What it does say is that the span will no longer be an objective in itself and that the Delivery Revision Process should form the basis of a duty span/structure that best meets these objectives - and just who is going to set the objectives? You think RM is after a shorter delivery span? Now lets just for arguments sake say you have a disagreement - who do you run to? Before you answer that question check the fine print. - to all intents and purposes Daddy won't be home.
Last edited by dvbuk55 on 11 Mar 2010, 18:15, edited 1 time in total.
The CWU didn't negotiate longer Saturdays - they are part of the business plan. If you think voting No will change the business plan I think you are being overoptimistic.
No Delivery Span(Workload
)
The delivery span will be determined by several factors.How can a set span be agreed?.
No Cap to D2D (Workload)
How is turning business away good for anyone?
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.
clashcityrocker could I ask what you understand as into workload, as I see it they are already part of my workload. they are prepped during duty span, and delivered during delivery span. when we had a geo-route revision they were not induced in Pegasus but when the duties were walk tested they were included.
As Pegasus clearly failed it is surely in RM's interest to include them in Pegasus revisions instead of paying a planning team for 18months to come up with crap that don't work.
TrueBlueTerrier wrote:
You have to balance everything not just snippets which is what I am trying to do. My honest opinion is that the changes on the operational side of D2D may have been acceptable if I did not get a £20 per week (on average) less for doing more work. Thats the bit that sticks in my craw.
But once D2D goes into workload what justification is there for a separate payment?
When the council tax bills go out - the walk with 900 calls doesn't get paid more than the walk with 600 calls.
And he didn't get paid more before the deal but he certainly got paid more for D2D - lets not split hairs here - if you are for the deal vote yes but you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
The CWU didn't negotiate longer Saturdays - they are part of the business plan. If you think voting No will change the business plan I think you are being overoptimistic.
No Delivery Span(Workload
)
The delivery span will be determined by several factors.How can a set span be agreed?.
No Cap to D2D (Workload)
How is turning business away good for anyone?
They Might not have initiated the negotiations over Saturday attendance but The CWU did negotiate longer Saturdays
I understand that different Attendance patters will need different Delivery spans but surely it could not have been hard to agree reasonable maximum deliveries for the few options available i.e 4hours for shared vehicles on 5 day week 5 hours for 4 day week etc. it would give local reps something to argue with if their DOM asked for unreasonable workloads.
there needs to be a cap I'm not saying the cap should not have risen but we need a cap to prevent RM from accepting D2D contracts that would mean unreasonable workloads and invite the bulling managers to start picking on the weakest link.
and as far as payment for D2D if Royal Mail can make huge profits after paying out the £52million then if we have 6 D2D they will make even bigger profits even if they payed out the £104 million they would have to under current arrangements. PURE GREED.
