POSTMAN wrote:As much as i deffo don't trust RM,i really can't see 5hr CDV walks,then packets,reg and tracked being forced in through EA.
Its dosnt have to be forced in.Its in the agreement-no max delivery span.In the next couple of years im sure we can avoid it until indoor work dictates that delivery has to be increased.
Meantime for part timers in our office to get full time hours they would have to except a five hour walk.
Probably around the time these much talked about D2Ds in 1 envelope arrive.
I can hear the "to protect full-time jobs you will need to increase outdoor workload again" argument already.
The only argument I want to hear at that point is SWW, 35 hour week remains CWU policy so should continue to be pursued.
Judging by the pace it's taken them to get 1 hr taken off the working week, how long do you think it'll take them to get the other 4 hrs removed Daz?
And considering 3hrs20mins of that 4hrs will be achieved by removing paid breaks it will not save you from increased outdoor workload.
Big Daz wrote:The only argument I want to hear at that point is SWW, 35 hour week remains CWU policy so should continue to be pursued.
35 hour week CWU policy for 35 hour week Don't think that will be RM policy, the argument you are likely to hear will be RM will do what they want but it will be better if we accept it.
Among other things, he's been preparing for the new "Fit Notes" (LTB 213/10)
Trying to get as much support as possible for the Directors Health & Safety Duties campaign (LTB 216/10)
Improving Yard safety, to prevent more fatal accidents like the one that killed Colin Smith (LTB 217/10)
Trying to fight plans to reduce HSE inspectors rights to surprise inspections at "low risk" sites (LTB 225/10)
The list goes on. I'm not claiming that he's too busy to deal with the delivery spans. Personally, I think he should have made time. But to insinuate that he's not pulling his weight, is very unfair!
Don't knock Insanity
it's just another outlook on Reality!
POSTMAN wrote:As much as i deffo don't trust RM,i really can't see 5hr CDV walks,then packets,reg and tracked being forced in through EA.
I don't see it happening.......this year!
Under the unsequenced revision there will undoubtedly be moves afoot to increase delivery time with the carrot of more full time jobs available, however I would advise caution when making decisions on what hours should be increased, because, and this is only my opinion, when it comes to the sequenced revision next year they will be looking to take those hours back and that is when the wording of the agreement may well come back to haunt us.
andy2007 wrote:Among other things, he's been preparing for the new "Fit Notes" (LTB 213/10)
Trying to get as much support as possible for the Directors Health & Safety Duties campaign (LTB 216/10)
Improving Yard safety, to prevent more fatal accidents like the one that killed Colin Smith (LTB 217/10)
Trying to fight plans to reduce HSE inspectors rights to surprise inspections at "low risk" sites (LTB 225/10)
The list goes on. I'm not claiming that he's too busy to deal with the delivery spans. Personally, I think he should have made time. But to insinuate that he's not pulling his weight, is very unfair!
I never said he wasnt pulling his weight,i was suggesting that with his good record on H&S he was left out of the negotiating team involved in the putting together the agreement,hence 5 hour delivery span.
POSTMAN wrote:As much as i deffo don't trust RM,i really can't see 5hr CDV walks,then packets,reg and tracked being forced in through EA.
I don't see it happening.......this year!
Under the unsequenced revision there will undoubtedly be moves afoot to increase delivery time with the carrot of more full time jobs available, however I would advise caution when making decisions on what hours should be increased, because, and this is only my opinion, when it comes to the sequenced revision next year they will be looking to take those hours back and that is when the wording of the agreement may well come back to haunt us.
You mean spans will be increased further with the sequenced revision.....I agree, and it will be wether you agree locally or not!
POSTMAN wrote:As much as i deffo don't trust RM,i really can't see 5hr CDV walks,then packets,reg and tracked being forced in through EA.
I don't see it happening.......this year!
Under the unsequenced revision there will undoubtedly be moves afoot to increase delivery time with the carrot of more full time jobs available, however I would advise caution when making decisions on what hours should be increased, because, and this is only my opinion, when it comes to the sequenced revision next year they will be looking to take those hours back and that is when the wording of the agreement may well come back to haunt us.
You mean spans will be increased further with the sequenced revision.....I agree, and it will be wether you agree locally or not!
Well I would imagine that next year they WILL be after more hours to take up the slack on sequenced mail, so I would imagine it will be longer deliveries or shorter hours and despite the assurances with regard to FT/PT split you have to look at the logic and say who is going to challenge the agreement in this regard, the CWU or ACAS - well my guess is neither.
dvbuk55 wrote:Well I would imagine that next year they WILL be after more hours to take up the slack on sequenced mail, so I would imagine it will be longer deliveries or shorter hours and despite the assurances with regard to FT/PT split you have to look at the logic and say who is going to challenge the agreement in this regard, the CWU or ACAS - well my guess is neither.
With regard to delivery spans there will be nothing to challenge, The FT/PT split is in the agreement and delivery spans don't have an upper limit, if they need to be increase to 'enable' the FT/PT split, then they will be thats the agreement.
dvbuk55 wrote:Well I would imagine that next year they WILL be after more hours to take up the slack on sequenced mail, so I would imagine it will be longer deliveries or shorter hours and despite the assurances with regard to FT/PT split you have to look at the logic and say who is going to challenge the agreement in this regard, the CWU or ACAS - well my guess is neither.
With regard to delivery spans there will be nothing to challenge, The FT/PT split is in the agreement and delivery spans don't have an upper limit, if they need to be increase to 'enable' the FT/PT split, then they will be thats the agreement.
Well I don't want to sound negative but what the AGREEMENT DOES SAY is FT/PT split of AROUND 75/25 - so I will ask the question again WHO is going to monitor it bearing in mind it is a national figure albeit not as precise as some would imagine so if it is 74/26. 70/30. 60/40 who is going to monitor the figure? Not all employees are union members particularly part timers so are Royal Mail going to voluntarily admit a figure?
dvbuk55 wrote:Well I would imagine that next year they WILL be after more hours to take up the slack on sequenced mail, so I would imagine it will be longer deliveries or shorter hours and despite the assurances with regard to FT/PT split you have to look at the logic and say who is going to challenge the agreement in this regard, the CWU or ACAS - well my guess is neither.
With regard to delivery spans there will be nothing to challenge, The FT/PT split is in the agreement and delivery spans don't have an upper limit, if they need to be increase to 'enable' the FT/PT split, then they will be thats the agreement.
Well I don't want to sound negative but what the AGREEMENT DOES SAY is FT/PT split of AROUND 75/25 - so I will ask the question again WHO is going to monitor it bearing in mind it is a national figure albeit not as precise as some would imagine so if it is 74/26. 70/30. 60/40 who is going to monitor the figure? Not all employees are union members particularly part timers so are Royal Mail going to voluntarily admit a figure?
Does that include managers and lower executives by the way!.
andy2007 wrote:Among other things, he's been preparing for the new "Fit Notes" (LTB 213/10)
Trying to get as much support as possible for the Directors Health & Safety Duties campaign (LTB 216/10)
Improving Yard safety, to prevent more fatal accidents like the one that killed Colin Smith (LTB 217/10)
Trying to fight plans to reduce HSE inspectors rights to surprise inspections at "low risk" sites (LTB 225/10)
The list goes on. I'm not claiming that he's too busy to deal with the delivery spans. Personally, I think he should have made time. But to insinuate that he's not pulling his weight, is very unfair!
I never said he wasnt pulling his weight,i was suggesting that with his good record on H&S he was left out of the negotiating team involved in the putting together the agreement,hence 5 hour delivery span.
Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought that from the title of the thread, and the tongue in cheek suggestion that he'd been sent to Outer Mongolia, you thought he wasn't pulling his weight.
I'm sorry if I caused any offence.
Don't knock Insanity
it's just another outlook on Reality!
andy2007 wrote:
Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought that from the title of the thread, and the tongue in cheek suggestion that he'd been sent to Outer Mongolia, you thought he wasn't pulling his weight.
I'm sorry if I caused any offence.
No offence taken pal,we are all in this together.I never made my point very clear.
CWU policy for 35 hour week 
