Pre WSM Revision

[hampshireman]

We are not due our WSM ; park and loop revision until the latter part of this year or more likely the New Year.

Now ; we have a revision being done now!!! On the current duties (which are mostly bike based).

It is obviously budget based. And I thought that was not allowed.

AM I right in thinking that this is a no no? Am I right that this is Executive Action (which again should not be allowed).

Or have I missed something ?

Thanks for any feedback

[Big Daz]

There are two revisons to be had for most D.O's, Non sequnced mail revision is one of them sounds like thats whats happening.


The non sequenced revision does not have to contain delivery methods, the one for my D.O is very unlikely to have DMS as RML have that scheduled for 2012 and our non sequenced revision planning is currently expected to start within a few weeks.

The 2010 agreement does not define what will happend within the NSM revision.


What you should get is DTD into workload and attendance patterns as the bare minum, the revsion should be put to a vote and the local rep if you have one should be involved. If no local rep then area del rep should be involved and reporting back to the mbrs.

[Ahebban]

Yes, the whole situation regarding non-WSM revisions is in a mess as far as i can see for my own area. We are not due WS mail until next year .. neither are we having a Delivery Method Revision. What we are going to be left with is our indoor efficiency tested to the max by the IWT and left with deliveries being done by 'table-top' methods. It strikes me as odd that we are using IWT indoors (counting every minute of our indoor workload) and then adopting 3.5 hr delivery spans because we cannot get work off our shoulders as we will still be using cycles and vans! Are we going to be expected to lapse/absorb duties all year round to make up any time discrepancies showing up between using the IWT and 3.5 hr delivery spans? Surely indoor and outdoor work should be balanced and not have this counter-productive mess that we are likely to end up with.

[Martin Walsh]

If you are now having a walk sequenced revison then you with either have a self started revision which is IWT led or you will have an IWT/geo route revison /delivery methods revison.

There are no budget driven revisons. All revisons must adopt the 6 step process which means at stage 2 you verify all the relevant information on IWT , geo route etc.

[fishtank]

If you are now having a walk sequenced revison then you with either have a self started revision which is IWT led or you will have an IWT/geo route revison /delivery methods revison.

There are no budget driven revisons. All revisons must adopt the 6 step process which means at stage 2 you verify all the relevant information on IWT , geo route etc.

There is no doubt that IWT is being used to cut hours from budgets...that is a no-brainer.
That leaves us with 3 possibilities.

1.IWT is not being applied properly and reps don't have the experience to spot the discrepencies.
2.We have a huge surplus of indoor hours...unlikely unless you have almost 100% full-timers and WSM.
3.The whole IWT system is deeply flawed.

[Martin Walsh]

Fishtank I fail to see your point ? Of course every revison whether you use IWT , Manual W , Geo route , Table top which either increases or decreases hours will effect the budget as it will change the TM1 for the office.

The point I was making is that the only revisons which should be performed are either a full intrefrated delivery revison with sequencing or a self starter which has IWT involvement , or a combined geo route , IWT and delivery methods.

This has been confirmed in writing to the union and no revisons should be proposed using the budget as the reason to get to a set hours in the office.

However will jobs be lost as a result of revisons off course , the numbers will vary and it will also depend on what type of revision you are introducing. However the reality is that the level of indoor IPS and prep has reduced not just because of walk sequencing but walk sorted and flat sorted in many delivery offices leading to the numbers of increased part timers in an office.

Now to your assumptions based on the IWT.

1. The IWT is a simple planning tool , it is essentail that all your offices detail is inpute correctly, however lets be honest the way Royal Mail have in the past caluclated performance is traffic to hours therefore not giving any allowance for walking between frames , redirections , walking to the ps locker etc and therefore is totally unrealistic.

The IWT confuses the manager as much as it will the local rep. Most reps should go on the intaial 3 hours iWT course which gives an insight into the IWT.

Your second assumption that only offices with 100% full timers will have an opprotunity to reduce indoor hourage is not correct. It will depend on when you recieve the work and of course which day of the week you are delivering on as the IWT can produce hours across the different days of the week.


The IWT system is not flawed it is a fair measurement of an offices indoor perfromance . Measuring everything from the time work arrives ion your lobby till you leave the office on delivery.

However to get a correct offices performance you have to record accurately input into the iWT all your offices measurements and unique issues. Thats why step 2 is in the 6 satge process.

[POSTMAN]

I think tbf dingo the tool is the tool and yes,if what is put in is correct will push out correct results,but the big problem with it seems to be the walk speeds.

[hampshireman]

There are two revisons to be had for most D.O's, Non sequnced mail revision is one of them sounds like thats whats happening.


The non sequenced revision does not have to contain delivery methods, the one for my D.O is very unlikely to have DMS as RML have that scheduled for 2012 and our non sequenced revision planning is currently expected to start within a few weeks.

The 2010 agreement does not define what will happend within the NSM revision.


What you should get is DTD into workload and attendance patterns as the bare minum, the revsion should be put to a vote and the local rep if you have one should be involved. If no local rep then area del rep should be involved and reporting back to the mbrs.

Thanks ; I believe you are correct

[steviemac]

my depot is struggling to counter the IWT , area rep will double check input info, despite repeated attempts i am trying to get both office rep and area rep to acknowledge sickness and absenteeism should be 'planned' for as we have historical data in which to prove that on average x hours a week will be lost. by counting these 'lost' hours it must have a value and so needs to be accommodated in the calculations, if we do this it must reduce the amount of hours that we are supposedly not productive. My second concern is that no d2d figures are available for Sept onwards and again if we believe that we have been turning d2d away because of the cap imposed then d2d traffic of 4 week will also significantly affect IWt calculations. Has anybody used these figures in real life scenario ? If so let me know as we are getting close to major change and we need some leverage to reduce the impact of IWT .

[hampshireman]

If you are now having a walk sequenced revison then you with either have a self started revision which is IWT led or you will have an IWT/geo route revison /delivery methods revison.

There are no budget driven revisons. All revisons must adopt the 6 step process which means at stage 2 you verify all the relevant information on IWT , geo route etc.

I believe, from looking at the tool they are using that this is IWT lead.

My background is IT and I can honestly say that this is one of the worst bits of 'software ' I have seen for many a long time. It's a bloody Excel spreadsheet... with code behind the cells!!!

Georoute is obviously involved as the walk times have been slashed!! Now how that equates to what was done a year or so ago is beyond me. If something a year ago was mapped by Georoute as 3.5 hours to deliver ; it's now 2.5 hours to deliver!!!

I do these rounds ; I know what they take.

We have to save 260 hours a week. This is the revision that makes that happen.

Maybe the 6 step process will change these things.. To be fair even the DOM was astonished by some of the figures...

But guess what.. As of next week we lapse two rounds .. Six days a week. And we don't have to take meal relief... And Job and Finish is back in play .. as long as we lapse..

And you can use your car to lapse... as long as the DOM does not see it.
Beggars belief!!!

Now someone tell me that this is right

[POSTMAN]

We have to save 260 hours a week.

No you don't!!
If what comes out of the other end when done properly is 260hrs then that has to be sucked.
You shouldn't be doing a revision where the main critea is to save x amount of hrs!!!

[hampshireman]

We have to save 260 hours a week.

No you don't!!
If what comes out of the other end when done properly is 260hrs then that has to be sucked.
You shouldn't be doing a revision where the main critea is to save x amount of hrs!!!

I bloody well agree.

This is being imposed.

I will not do this.. And if they take me down the ' conduct code' then great

You have to laugh (not)

[drb]

This is so flipping typical! Offices are being left to their own devices as usual. Can SOMEONE flag this up?

[Martin Walsh]

Flag it up drb to who and for what to happen. This is discussion forum only it is not and never will be some form of Royal Mail police which resolves units.

On this site we are all just indivuduals with a view. How do we know if what anyone say is factual ?

At the risk of repeating myself both postman and hampshire seem to be confusing the IWT with geo route as the IWT does not having walking speeds other than to and from frames and the PS lockers.

Now in terms of the issue hampshire has raised well at what stage of the process is your office. As stage 2 has a clause and a joint sign of process which means both sides have to express they belive that the information for both geo route , aplus and the iwt is correct. Stage 3 is the first cut of the duties.

If hampshire think things are wrong well if he is the local rep then raise it up to the area rep, or the divisonal rep or even HQ.

The union has got a 6 step process which puts the union rep totally involved in the processs and if he or she is not then you do not go past step 2 and you flag it up the union channels and via the framework.

It is really that simple if what people say is true.

[drb]

Dingo,I think the main "gist" of what people are saying on most of the forums,(and yes,no-one is EVER going to be happy), but are the local reps getting the support they need? I agree this is a forum for views but it also mirrors what is happening. I wish we had this pre-Way Forward days!!