Van Share!.

[POSTMAN]

There are some on here who already do it,perhaps they could give us the low down on the pro's and cons' of it.

People at my place work at different speeds,i would not want to work with a racer and chaser but at the same time i would not want to work with some of the seriously walking dead!

[gb93]

There are some on here who already do it,perhaps they could give us the low down on the pro's and cons' of it.

People at my place work at different speeds,i would not want to work with a racer and chaser but at the same time i would not want to work with some of the seriously walking dead!

Give the racer & chaser bigger loops to do if they insist on flying that way keeps both happy

[andy2007]

and thats a good idea lets have them both responsible for the van so who gets the parking fines and speeding tickets ? because the law says if you have a set of keys then your in charge of that vehicle so in reality the non driver has to be tea total otherwise he could be nicked for driving whilst under the influence (if he or she has an inclination for a tipple) even just sitting in the van waiting for his buddy many have fallen foul of the law whov'e gone into the back of a car to sleep it off

That's easy to sort out. RM just need to get one set of keys for each van, which DON'T have the chip programmed. That way, the Driver will be able to drive the van, and the passenger, will only be able to open the doors. Modern (last decade or so) immobilisers rely on a chip in the key. If it isn't programmed, the engine won't start. Even if it's the correct key.

That way, if there are any fines/tickets. There's no doubt about who was responsible. If you can't start the vehicle, you can't be held responsible for the way it's driven/parked.

[fishtank]

That way, if there are any fines/tickets. There's no doubt about who was responsible. If you can't start the vehicle, you can't be held responsible for the way it's driven/parked.

But the real question is......why should he be responsible for NO more money than his collegue?
That's the real debate.
Why would you want to take on the extra responsibility and by definition have more chance of losing your job for absolutely nothing?

[snoopywonderdog]

Yes the guidelines have been agreed and should be out there.

That would be the guidelines that have two people van sharing with DIFFERENT finishing times. For example

Postman 1) Finish time at 2PM (25 Hr Contract)
Postman 2) Finish time at 2.45PM (40Hr Contract)

BOTH doing the same rounds together. Can you explain how that works dingo?

Shambles Royal Mail/CWU!

No thought has gone in to this at all, zero.... Its people behind desks that have never posted a letter, or stopped ten years ago that come up with this tosh and inflict it on hard working people.

Keep pushing your pens and getting rich off our subs! I have brought this up at national level, my response?

Ziltch

One of the ideas at our office Non Driver 7am to 3pm preps 2 deliveries, delivers 1 Driver 10am to 6pm picks non driver up from office go out together delivers other delivery returns non driver to office 2.45 then does collection.

[axeman]

keys are itro £30 / 40 ? (mine cost nearer £80 + the cost of programing) as they come chipped but have to be coded to the vehicle no doubt they have spares ( locked myself out before) available but the question would they want to purchase extras

[Martin Walsh]

Those who oppose CDVs fall into the following catogories

1. They are concerned that they dont drive and what duty they will have.

2. Who they are paired with

3. Those who dont want to drive or want to be paid to drive.

4. Those who dont want CDVs as they want to continue to drive their own cars on delivery and chase time.


I have symphony for those in 1 and 2 and can understand some of number 3 but I have no time for those who fall into number 4.

Last year they imposed CDVs in some offices including Wimbledon and Streatham and the union took legal advice of our employment specialists and it was not entirely helpful. I wont induge the legal advice as this forum is viewed by many managers and dont want to give them the reasons.

But in essence the legal advice was such that it is reasonable for an employer to change how deliveries are done , be that by CDVs or other methods and it is reasonable to ask an employer to drive and if they choose not to then to ask them for legitamate reasons especially if it can be demonstrated that they have driven their car on delivery or performed overtime in a Royal Mail van.

Royal Mail in Wimbledon instructed a number of indivduals to drive , they took it to the wire , put in grievences etc but Royal Mail then threatened them with the conduct code and we then advised them to drive as we were taking industrial action and did not want to see indivuduals protentially discplined for holding the union line.

The union has now agreed guidelines which do not complusory force indivduals to drive CDVs other then Royal Mail drivers, however everyone will have a 121 with the managers who will ask indivuduals to a number of things including how they get to work and they will also be aware of whether they park their cars in the yard or use their cars on delivery.

CDVs will mean there is less space in your yard for private cars.

CDVs will mean that there are less firms and replisnment vans.

CDVs will mean that non drivers will be either allocated to HCT walks ( less than a mile from the office ) or 50% of CDV vans can have non drivers.

CDVs if planned right work well and do in most cases take the weight off the shoulder.

CDVs remove cars on delivery which I guess a lot wont be happy about but hard luck , cars on delivery have ruined many a life and cut the job up.

CDVs are widlely used in postal companies throughout the world and work if planned right.

Drivers employed since 2000 do not recieve drivers allowance as that went into basic pay and therefore there is no chance of getting this allowance back unless we decide to target drivers and therefore let all the others pay fall behind as there is only one pot of money.

The Union did not choose CDVs , the company invested over an 100 million into them. Imagine a car factory and say ford says we are building the focus and the workers say no we want to build the montego instead. Who do you think would win ?

The fact is the union has managed to get a lot of safeguards within the agreement which protect members but it was never ever going to stop CDVs being used.

If an office decides to campaign against them , well I think your find you cant win , they are not going to allow those vans to sit idle and let you all load your private cars and go out on delivery.

Time to get real . CDVs will mean that you can race around , time is the enemy of postal workers , chasing time gives you stress.

I now go into offices who now have found that out and now all sit in the canteen on break times having a good laugh and chat rather then all still working during their break.

[Pat Ostman]

i now go into offices who now have found that out and now all sit in the canteen on break times having a good laugh and chat rather then all still working during their break

Obviously not been to our DO then

The Union did not choose CDVs , the company invested over an 100 million into them. Imagine a car factory and say ford says we are building the focus and the workers say no we want to build the montego instead. Who do you think would win ?

That is a terrible analogy Dingo and will not wash. All employees would have all the relevant qualifications from the beginning to build said 'cars'. Royal Mail are asking you to use YOUR licence when they initially, at interview, did not request one. It's a highly questionable breach of contract and could not possibly result in dismissal.

Of course you should have the option not to use your licence. If not, RM could dismiss ALL non drivers - and they cannot.

People seen using their cars on delivery or to get to work will find it difficult to resist but the truth is that if they do not know you drive, their is NO WAY Royal Mail will check you can drive. So hush hush I imagine if you do not want to drive.

Unless Dingo, you know different?

[Martin Walsh]

There are many ways to get drivers volunter, what happens if you cant park your car in the yard anymore and Royal Mail offer you to take the van home saving you petrol etc ?

Equally what if your a duty holder who has done a walk for 20 years and that walk is going to become a CDV walk.

Or that your refusal means that you are limited to what walk you can sign for.

Or that due to Royal Mail introducing delivery methods and you refuse to drive and you become surplus in the office as all the non drivers duties are taken.
Royal Mail then advirtise in other offices etc.

Can I ask what your objection is to driving a van ? Especilally as it would seem that people in your office are happy to break the law and drive their own private cars on delivery ?

I am sorry but CDVs will be introduce and will ban cars and hopefully reduce the amount of back injuries that postman and women suffer.

Change is differcult but lets be honest , what is happening in many delivery offices now is wrong and has to stop. Chasing time , loading your cars. Managers have been to workshops where they ask them to attempt to find out who uses their cars , most postal workers load their cars in the open , its easy for a manager to spot.

Delivery methods is coming in , get used to it . Hopefully cutting corners will mean that people do the work within their conditoned hours of pay.

[pickaname]

What if they cant get enough drivers in an offfice?

I very much doubt they will be able to get enough people to drive at my office. They are always understaffed with drivers as it is.

The fact is at my office, very few people want the added hassle or responsibility of driving. They want to come in do the job and go home. Very few people give a s**t beyond getting paid on friday.

Driving in a huge city is a headache at the best of times. Having to do this day in, day out and on saturdays, when theres a football match for example, is an unescessary stress I for one can do without. I know for a fact the majority of people in my office would not volunteer for this regardless of whether they lose their duty. Even the most cruddy duty would be better.

Cue the scare mongering and bully boy tactics to freak people into driving i.e "Or that due to Royal Mail introducing delivery methods and you refuse to drive and you become surplus in the office as all the non drivers duties are taken.
Royal Mail then advirtise in other offices etc."

Lets be honest now.

Van Sharing is madness in built up, congested cities.

[PingPong]

After reading all the posts on here I still do not understand if RM can or can not force people to drive as part of their duty. Is there a straight yes or no answer?

[fishtank]

After reading all the posts on here I still do not understand if RM can or can not force people to drive as part of their duty. Is there a straight yes or no answer?

No because the guidlines first state this...

The survey captures, amongst other things:

1. Home addresses of employees
2. Current use of private cars on delivery
3. Current travel to work arrangements of employees
4. Any disability or other significant need of individuals
5. Whether individuals hold a driving licence
6. Whether individuals are willing to drive a Royal Mail vehicle

And then state this....

1. Driving duties will be restricted to existing and volunteer new drivers and non-driving duties will be restricted to non-drivers

So you can see where the confusion comes from.

[PingPong]

Thanks, at least I know where the confusion is. Have you any idea who will clarify the issue?

[Pat Ostman]

what is happening in many delivery offices now is wrong and has to stop

Would that be the bullying/intimidation/harassment issues that a lot of us went on strike for and remained absent in the agreement and subsequent talks?

Can I ask what your objection is to driving a van ? Especilally as it would seem that people in your office are happy to break the law and drive their own private cars on delivery ?

Was this directed at me? Sorry if not

[Pat Ostman]

Pinky is correct, the van driver signs for the van of which 2 keys are made available.

Right you are there are two sets of keys issued to the driver of the vehicle who then hands a set to his navigator who will use them to shelter take a break store his bags, etc - but only the signatory is responsible for that vehicle for all matters of security, health and safety, speeding, parking et al.

I think we are getting confused with the van and the mail. The mail is both parties responsibility,vehicle matters (not security) are down to the driver concerned. I do not think it could possibly work any other way. For example if the non driver never locks the van after his burst they will be in trouble (in theory) not the driver.

Yes you can argue that then the non driver said it was the driver etc etc, then I guess it's a conduct issue for both. Personally this issue has never arisen in our office but the potential for trouble is there. The way I have seen it work is that each person is responsible for their signed duty. You may burst but you still have a delivery that you are responsible for.

Another example would be if the non driver was a thief. Are you saying the driver then gets automatically blamed for lost/stolen post as they were in charge of security?

The long and short of it is that the whole thing has been rushed through, with little or no CWU involvement and even less thought and planning.

Great isn't it....