Collaboration With Doms

Post by **dvbuk55** » 14 Jul 2010, 18:39

fishtank wrote:What many area and divisional reps and most at HQ fail to realise is that a union is not a business and the higher up you go in a union the less important you become to the general membership.
Not all area and divisional reps are poor but enough are and the systems in place to remove poor reps at any level above local requires a fair degree of organisation and cooperation from the very people who are close to if not drinking buddies with the rep you are trying to remove.
Maybe it's time for a fixed term of office for "full-time release" reps and maybe we will encourage some new blood with new ideas.
Maybe 2 years and if your good enough you move up and if your not....back to the floor.
Some area reps have been sitting treading water for 10years plus.

You have nailed it again ft. What you have and sometimes including unit reps, is a gentlemans club, you need support within the branch to progress to full time release, BUT, you must first get into the inner circle of the branch. Once on full time release that in itself becomes a raison d'etre, job done, then the struggle, which is not too difficult, is to stay there.

There needs to be an inclusion at shop floor level, communication to the lowest level on a regular and consistent basis by Area and Div Reps - and yes you are right,it is time for them to roll up their sleeves and get down and dirty.

That of course is never going to happen despite those cries of "get involved" - bit difficult when there is no published agenda for local and branch meetings. Not all the fault of the union of course but there has never been a drive by the branch to recruit - so you have fewer and fewer members which I think has been a deliberate action.

ass asin · Post by **ass asin** » 14 Jul 2010, 20:08

dvbuk55 wrote:Re: Collaboration With Doms
by dvbuk55 » Today, 18:39
fishtank wrote:
What many area and divisional reps and most at HQ fail to realise is that a union is not a business and the higher up you go in a union the less important you become to the general membership.
Not all area and divisional reps are poor but enough are and the systems in place to remove poor reps at any level above local requires a fair degree of organisation and cooperation from the very people who are close to if not drinking buddies with the rep you are trying to remove.
Maybe it's time for a fixed term of office for "full-time release" reps and maybe we will encourage some new blood with new ideas.
Maybe 2 years and if your good enough you move up and if your not....back to the floor.
Some area reps have been sitting treading water for 10years plus.

You have nailed it again ft. What you have and sometimes including unit reps, is a gentlemans club, you need support within the branch to progress to full time release, BUT, you must first get into the inner circle of the branch. Once on full time release that in itself becomes a raison d'etre, job done, then the struggle, which is not too difficult, is to stay there.

There needs to be an inclusion at shop floor level, communication to the lowest level on a regular and consistent basis by Area and Div Reps - and yes you are right,it is time for them to roll up their sleeves and get down and dirty.

That of course is never going to happen despite those cries of "get involved" - bit difficult when there is no published agenda for local and branch meetings. Not all the fault of the union of course but there has never been a drive by the branch to recruit - so you have fewer and fewer members which I think has been a deliberate action.

your r rite dvbuk55 and fishtank it will never happen. not one branch in the whole country would put an idea like this for conference to debate. again it goes back to self preservation and the gentlemans club mentality that exists. And to the cries of "get involved " im sorry but for me i would never compromise my beliefs, ideals and values to play their game. so local rep i will remain until such time i feel my position becomes untenable.

Post by **POSTMAN** » 14 Jul 2010, 20:14

Maybe it's time for a fixed term of office for "full-time release" reps and maybe we will encourage some new blood with new ideas.

Don't theses guys come up for election every year?

Saying that,i did not vote my ADR in and since he's been in i've never had a vote to keep him in or out.

But ftr,he's the bollox,and i have no problem with him,it's just i find what i posted above a bit strange.

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 14 Jul 2010, 20:55

POSTMAN wrote: Don't theses guys come up for election every year?

To bypass the branch old boy's network and "maybe" encourage more people to step forward it would need something to discourage the same old faces appearing on the ballot paper that's why i suggested a fixed term then it would be make your mark and move up the union chain or make room for someone else.
We need something to discourage the cushy number,kick back and relax attitude of SOME senior reps.

Post by **dvbuk55** » 14 Jul 2010, 20:56

POSTMAN wrote:
Maybe it's time for a fixed term of office for "full-time release" reps and maybe we will encourage some new blood with new ideas.
Don't theses guys come up for election every year?

Saying that,i did not vote my ADR in and since he's been in i've never had a vote to keep him in or out.

But ftr,he's the bollox,and i have no problem with him,it's just i find what i posted above a bit strange.

Well Postman, there should be, I believe, a proposer and a seconder for an elected position - now - when the proposer and the seconder are on the same ship it's not difficult to maintain a sort of closed shop so to speak. There is also the "you run and I won't stand against you" so that a third party has some difficulty in breaking in to the inner circle.

Post by **POSTMAN** » 15 Jul 2010, 19:59

I'll be honest,i know all the reps in my area,and if my branch were swinging stuff they wouldn't get far.

Big Daz · Post by **Big Daz** » 16 Jul 2010, 05:56

dvbuk55 wrote:Well, it's a little late. The horse has bolted and the stable door is as wide as wide can be. You will soon be told that this agreement was voted in by you, exactly the same as last time, and that it is, collectively, all your fault. You may even be advised to "grow a pair" and that really is the icing on the cake, because there is a blatant admittance that there will be "winners and losers" - that statement alone should have rung alarm bells.

Still that's water under the bridge and as quoted by some "that's the agreement, live with it" - those I may add who AREN'T having to live with it.

Grow a pair eh

Thats what I tell my mbrs but in relation to DTJP, the whole idea of working to their offical finsh time is incedibly alien to them. And that's why the DOM has them by the short and curlys, he knows he could put more work on them and they would simply carry on carving their delivery up rather than relax and cut off which would mean working to their offical finish time.

Still if thats what they want then thats what I will represent to the DOM when he says lets start absorbing the new estate as its too big now to manage how we have been doing it so far.

blade8t1 · Post by **blade8t1** » 19 Jul 2010, 00:32

ours is 14 per minute,how can this be different at a local level?.so if I was at 13 per minute and stated I didnt have time to finish/absorb today,I could be in bother?. yet in another office this would be more than acceptable?.does anyone know why? because I really dont get it.How can this be fair?.

Big Daz · Post by **Big Daz** » 19 Jul 2010, 05:57

Because all inclusive prep tests do not have CWU backing at this moment in time.

It's a unagreed RML performance tool, the ONLY agreed test is 25 ltrs in one min on a clear frame.

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 19 Jul 2010, 13:14

Big Daz wrote:Because all inclusive prep tests do not have CWU backing at this moment in time.

It's a unagreed RML performance tool, the ONLY agreed test is 25 ltrs in one min on a clear frame.

Individual Performance Standards – Delivery Offices

This brief is designed to give guidance to representatives concerning the way Royal Mail managers are applying performance standards in delivery units.
It is clear that Royal Mail is using the IPS to calculate throughputs and workloads for delivery offices, and expand on the terms of the national IPS agreement to assess performance.
This is not part of the IPS agreement. No member’s performance on inward sorting or preparation should be assessed outside the one-minute tests contained in the IPS national agreement. This is the only process to be used. If managers are trying to introduce processes to assess performance outside of the national agreement, disagreement should be registered.
Royal Mail will only apply the conduct code in circumstances where employees refuse to participate in the one-minute tests or where their behaviour falls below expected levels (Para 5 IPS agreement Four Step Process).

Probably be redundant shortly though.