Dismissed for not being in top 10%

[DirtyHarry]

For gawd's sake, even if a DIM threatened to interpret the wording as meaning everyone in the office has to perform to the standard of the top 10% in that office, it wouldn't be difficult to put up a good argument.

All you need are 2 brain cells. (That immediately puts you at a distinct advantage). Then lead the DIM into a debate along lines something like this:

DIM: You are not performing at the same standard as the top 10% of postman in this office.
YOU: Fine. So sack me, then.
DIM: I might just do that.
YOU: Fine. But there are 100 people in this office. Which means, according to you, that there are 89 other individuals who are also not in the top 10%, performance-wise. Are you going to sack them too ?
DIM: Errrmmmm....
YOU: Well you're going to have to, I'm afraid.
DIM (his brain cell getting strained): Why would I do that ? This chat is about your performance, not theirs.
YOU: Well if their performance is equally below-par, and you don't sack them too, I am going to have your @rse on a skewer at an employment tribunal, for blatantly unfair dismissal. And when you lose that case, as you surely will, your career in RM will be down the toilet as you will have lost RM a lot of money fighting a ridiculously flawed case.
DIM (clutching at straws now): Hah, you won't get the union to back you. They signed up to these performance standards !
YOU: Listen, a no-win no-fee lawyer would make mincemeat of RM in these circumstances. 90 people not performing to standard and you sack just one of them ?
DIM: Errrmmmm....
YOU: Listen, can I go back to my frame now ? Much as I would like to stay and continue our battle of wits, it really would not be fair as you are clearly unarmed in that department, and you have 89 other people to chat to

Exactly.

[fishtank]

Big Dave told a audience of reps last friday its not individual, I intend to see him make sure RML dont try it on.

Each and every one of us can now fully expect back up all the way if a DOM trys it on.

The top 10% part wont be individual but this will not save you.
Can you imagine the pressure that will be applied to each DOM to bring their particular office in line with the top 10%.
And what will be the measure used?

Productivity?
Quality?
Budget?

And who do you think will be at the sharp end of this drive towards the top?
But there WILL be individual performance standards that will form an annexe to this agreement.
Fair and achievable?,well that is open to interpretation and until we see them it is difficult to judge.
but in my opinion anything that is used to judge one person against another always ends in the same thing.....the conduct code.

[realmichael]

lets be honest the whole agreement is a joke

[motherhubbard]

I don't know whether some non-comprehending DOM will try it on with some under-performing individual, but isn't the "top 10%" supposed to be a target bench-mark for the others to possibly learn something from, rather than a stick to beat them with?
In the football context, Man U and Chelski are the top 10%, but clearly however much Pompey, Hull and Burnley would like or strive to be like them, it's not possible.
By definition and comparison a top 10% must mean another 90% who aren't top, and that's the way it will always be.
Any worthwhile target should be agreed by prior arrangment at the outset and achievable with effort by all participants, rather than just a nonsensical top vs bottom over-simplistic statement.

Tman is right.

[stokes11eg]

I don't know whether some non-comprehending DOM will try it on with some under-performing individual, but isn't the "top 10%" supposed to be a target bench-mark for the others to possibly learn something from, rather than a stick to beat them with?
In the football context, Man U and Chelski are the top 10%, but clearly however much Pompey, Hull and Burnley would like or strive to be like them, it's not possible.
By definition and comparison a top 10% must mean another 90% who aren't top, and that's the way it will always be.
Any worthwhile target should be agreed by prior arrangment at the outset and achievable with effort by all participants, rather than just a nonsensical top vs bottom over-simplistic statement.

:sad:the problem is they will not use it on underperforming folks--if you look at these threads carefully, there seems to be a deliberate picking out already of long serving, and previously valued staff members--whilst, as usual, the blue eyed, get away with anything boys are protected. And how on earth do they decide who is in the top ten %? Is it based on a number of factors, sickness record speed and accuracy,etc? They would have to clarify what exactly this means, i can only assume that it must be based on a local basis, if it was national, then 90% of offices would have to close!

[MinisterofCucumber]

They are targeting individuals that will cost them money, pure and simple. Someone who has done a lot of years under the old pension scheme will cost them more money in the long run than a new starter in the new, crappy pension scheme.

This ridiculous proposal, that our obese union chiefs are trying to sell to us, is all about trying to get people to leave voluntarily. Postmen like the early finish and having responsibility for their own work. This proposal brings in later finishes and having to work with a partner.

Vote No.

[Steviea34]

Big Dave told a audience of reps last friday its not individual, I intend to see him make sure RML dont try it on.

Each and every one of us can now fully expect back up all the way if a DOM trys it on.

The top 10% part wont be individual but this will not save you.
Can you imagine the pressure that will be applied to each DOM to bring their particular office in line with the top 10%.
And what will be the measure used?

Productivity?
Quality?
Budget?

And who do you think will be at the sharp end of this drive towards the top?
But there WILL be individual performance standards that will form an annexe to this agreement.
Fair and achievable?,well that is open to interpretation and until we see them it is difficult to judge.
but in my opinion anything that is used to judge one person against another always ends in the same thing.....the conduct code.

I will try & answer this question again & hopefully get a couple clarified as well.

The top 10% are similar offices to your own that are consistently delivering a high number of IPWH or items per work hour.
Now in my office, we have persons who consistently meet the minimum standards & pull their weight, & carry the poor performers
or the ones that just cannot be bothered, this just winds people up. So leaving the outdoor issue out of the equation - weather you have been
with the business 3 year or 20 year, i dont believe it unreasonable to expect anyone to achieve the same rate on I.P.S or PREP on indoor
regardless of service/Age. Using IWT / BSI tools will show how efficient your unit is indoors & will help your rep & DOM show you are either
efficient or inefficienT. DPT is supposed to be used to identify " dead time" & utilise where appropriate. The second part to this is where it gets tricky, the make up of your office, i.e DEEP RURAL/SUBURBAN/URBAN etc is harder to compare on outdoors using IPWH obviously, because you may have a deep rural covering 222 drops with 500 items & a town del in
your unit delivering 1200 items to 500 del points, with the same span lengths , obviously one looks more inefficient than the other, thus effecting
your Office IPWH.
The question i have asked on various threads before now & received no response,if you want to convince me CWU to vote yes to this deal, just
tell me the figures used in achieving 100 BSI (unit level) & what speeds are to be agreed using GEO=ROUTE for planning purposes?

[fishtank]

steviea34 wrote
Now in my office, we have persons who consistently meet the minimum standards & pull their weight, & carry the poor performers
or the ones that just cannot be bothered, this just winds people up. So leaving the outdoor issue out of the equation - weather you have been
with the business 3 year or 20 year, i dont believe it unreasonable to expect anyone to achieve the same rate on I.P.S or PREP on indoor
regardless of service/Age.

The only problem with your vision is you are assuming these "tools" will be used to "weed out" underperformers.
It has been my experience that weapons like these in the hands of the kind of managers we have simply lead to petty vendettas against anyone who chooses to stand up to management.
And are you going to tell someone with 20years unblemished and unquestioned service that their performance is suddenly unacceptable simply because the goalposts have been moved.

[clashcityrocker]

The only problem with your vision is you are assuming these "tools" will be used to "weed out" underperformers.
It has been my experience that weapons like these in the hands of the kind of managers we have simply lead to petty vendettas against anyone who chooses to stand up to management.

But we will all be on the same side.
Surely there won't be any petty vendettas after the "burying of the hatchet".
FT if you think there will still be vendettas I would think seriously before casting your vote.

[Steviea34]

steviea34 wrote
Now in my office, we have persons who consistently meet the minimum standards & pull their weight, & carry the poor performers
or the ones that just cannot be bothered, this just winds people up. So leaving the outdoor issue out of the equation - weather you have been
with the business 3 year or 20 year, i dont believe it unreasonable to expect anyone to achieve the same rate on I.P.S or PREP on indoor
regardless of service/Age.

The only problem with your vision is you are assuming these "tools" will be used to "weed out" underperformers.
It has been my experience that weapons like these in the hands of the kind of managers we have simply lead to petty vendettas against anyone who chooses to stand up to management.
And are you going to tell someone with 20years unblemished and unquestioned service that their performance is suddenly unacceptable simply because the goalposts have been moved.

Sorry mate, not my vision, & i dont set geo = route walk speeds, thats why i asked, by the way i dont think it is too much to ask that a more
experienced person sorts & preps at an achievable rate indoors either & as for the ones who just cant/wont be bothered, then they should
be managed properly anyway.

[Stormproof]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1AQaXUC ... r_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Oh we make the standards and we make the rules
And if you don't abide by them you must be a fool
We have the power to control the whole land
You never must question our motives or plans -
'Cause we'll outlaw your voices, do anything we want
We've nothing to fear from the nation
We'll kick you out of your houses if you get too much
If we have to we'll destroy your generation

'Cause we've built up a frontage and we've gained respect
There's no one to endanger our position -

Standards rule OK
Standards rule OK
Standards rule OK
Standards rule OK

And we don't like people who stand in our way
Awareness is gonna be redundant
And ignorance is strength, we have God on our side
Look, you know what happend to Winston

[Lincox]

I totally agree with whoever said that this 10% rule will provide unscrupulous managers with the tools to get rid of all those who have a voice and dont tow the management line. Having worked for several national companies who have gone for restructuring, modernisation, whatever you want to call it, if you have any guts to stand up, you will be an instant target, and they will use any clause they can to dismiss you. As for Tribunals, the younger you are , the less likely you will receive a decent pay out if successful, because the main area that the tribunal will look at is your ability to mitigate any future loss of income. ie your ability to find alternative work. The more I look at this agreement, the more and more positive I am about a No vote, although I am very aware from my own unit, that the majority will not even bother to read the document in full to find all of the pitfalls.