LTB No. 738/10 Delivery Revisions : Model Week

[Geezer]

Don't know if this has already been posted, i looked but couldn't find it on the site.
If it is posted one of the Mods can delete this, Thanks

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Letter to Branches


No. 738/10 Ref. 230.03 Date: 27th August 2010


To: All Branches with POSTAL Members


Dear Colleague,

Delivery Revisions – Model Week

As part of our ongoing dialogue with Royal Mail on delivery revisions systems and tools, we have had detailed discussions on the issue of the model week.

Those discussions have been both positive and helpful in allowing us and Royal Mail to address each others concerns on this issue.

Further to that, Royal Mail were able to provide factual historical data which has obviously assisted in providing for an informed debate.

It is apparent that there are obvious dangers in setting the model week either too high or too low.

If it is set too high, on many weeks there will be insufficient traffic to support the duty structure. This invariably leads to demands from local managers to lapse and absorb which in many instances leads to disagreement and conflict. Royal Mail accept the logic that a reduced model traffic week reduces the potential for absorption / lapsing. There is also a point to consider in relation to traffic levels declining structurally as opposed to fluctuating weekly. It would clearly not be in our members’ interests to build an unsustainable duty structure which could result in more short term upheaval and change.

Conversely if the model week is set too low then there is a risk that there will be insufficient resource to cover the workload if additional hours through overtime / SA cannot be covered. Additionally, higher than anticipated levels of absence could compound this problem and could jeopardise a potentially weak duty structure.

There are two documents attached to this LTB, one is the guidance which Royal Mail are circulating, the other is a spreadsheet showing 70 weeks of historical total unweighted traffic data shared with us during the discussions.

From the spreadsheet it will be noted that even with the model week set at the average of weeks 11-17, there are 27 weeks with reported traffic below that figure, the remaining 43 weeks have reported traffic above the model week and would therefore require (to varying degrees) additional resource to be put in. Whilst these are national traffic figures, local units should be able to provide the same data by office.

Whilst the guidance paper is not formally agreed with us it does broadly reflect our discussions on this matter.

Clearly the model week is a legitimate discussion to be had as part of the revisions process. That discussion should be based on a sensible and pragmatic approach to the overall revision objectives and informed by the relevant traffic data for the unit. Whilst some latitude should be available locally, recognition should be given to the issues in this LTB and be caveated around them.

The reality is that whatever model week is used, a revision will only be successfully deployed when everyone understands what any fluctuations in traffic will mean for their unit.

Equally it has been made clear to Royal Mail that it is crucial that ongoing joint management of the revision (at whatever base it is set) is robust and effective. Ongoing detailed and informed discussions, including the regular sharing of traffic data via the weekly resourcing meetings, will be a key involvement process for our representatives.

Any enquiries to Bob Gibson’s Office, quoting reference 230.03
Email Address: hnutley@cwu.org

Yours Sincerely

Noel McClean
A/Assistant Secretary

[POSTMAN]

Someone help me out,where's Fish ffs,is there still not an agreed model week and we have to do it at local level?

[Big Daz]

It seems local reps and DOMS will have to agree which traffic figures to use.

Advantage is that you can use what suits your D.O, rather than some arbitary national figure that might not be of any use to any given D.O

Ill leave it to the experts to point out any disadvantages, Im far too optimistic in my outlook to do that.

[Big Daz]

So far on this I feel as a local rep I will need

To compare weeks 1 to 18 this financial year with same period 2009/2010 to see how traffic is doing week to week.

Do this with local figures and compare with national trend.

[fishtank]

If you read RMs guidance it's apparent that they wish to push ahead with the lowest week.
No manager will agree to using the highest week and to be honest it's not sensible to resource your office for the highest traffic volumes..
It's the reps job to ensure that the model week used is sustainable for the majority of the year,sustaining full-time jobs and earning opportunities.
Now are you asking me if i buy all that sh*t?
Trust me it'll be the lowest week....the rest is just spin because the union doesn't have the balls to say it outright.

[dvbuk55]

If you read RMs guidance it's apparent that they wish to push ahead with the lowest week.
No manager will agree to using the highest week and to be honest it's not sensible to resource your office for the highest traffic volumes..
It's the reps job to ensure that the model week used is sustainable for the majority of the year,sustaining full-time jobs and earning opportunities.
Now are you asking me if i buy all that sh*t?
Trust me it'll be the lowest week....the rest is just spin because the union doesn't have the balls to say it outright.

Doesn't have the balls? - well isn't it about time they grew a pair, or is that strictly reserved for the ground troops - the general staff must not need a pair being in the rear echelon and all - of course they'd call it the front line.

[Broxi51]

Trust me it'll be the lowest week....the rest is just spin because the union doesn't have the balls to say it outright.

So that will mean job losses and managers delivering in average to higher traffic weeks

Fecking beyond belief

Maybe the higher echelon of the CWU can van share with the doms

[fishtank]

The model week should be set on a low, but realistic, reference period as it is always possible to flex resource up whereas it is very difficult to recover unproductive time stranded within duty time. By setting a low model week traffic this will mean that plans will have to be put in place to flex up indoor resourcing when traffic volumes exceed the model. Typically a 10% increase in traffic volume indoor will result in a 8% increase in workload. There is less of an issue outdoor when traffic volumes exceed model traffic week as a 10% increase in traffic typically only represents a 1.8% increase in workload. In other words outdoor time is far less affected by increases in traffic volume.

I think that shows just how out of touch RM managers are and since the union says this...

Whilst the guidance paper is not formally agreed with us it does broadly reflect our discussions on this matter.

It also shows how out of touch they are.
Does that also mean that a 10% decrease in traffic translates to only a 1.8% decrease in outdoor workload?, in which case...what's all the feckin lapsing been about.

[ronpetetrevchris]

You know, whereas the content is debatable, i am the rep in a biggish d.o. and will be responsible for the future settings of all these tools/revisions along with my most trustworthy manager friends

What really concerns me is that NON and i mean Non of these ltb's that have been circulated on here have reached me in an official capacity.
Im thinking any office without a rep who dosent have an eye on here is gonna be in doo doo!

[Danelectro]

Can these clowns make a bloody decision,if i want fudge ill go to f***ing Orkney.

Also 27 weeks below and 43 weeks above? How many weeks are there in the year nowadays?Are we lapsing the future? Has Royal Mail reordered the space/time fabric of the universe so we can deliver next years mail yesterday?

[Grinder64]

Royal Mail were able to provide factual historical data

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... gures.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I'm overwhelmed with confidence...

[Big Daz]

Can these clowns make a bloody decision,if i want fudge ill go to f***ing Orkney.

Also 27 weeks below and 43 weeks above? How many weeks are there in the year nowadays?Are we lapsing the future? Has Royal Mail reordered the space/time fabric of the universe so we can deliver next years mail yesterday?

The time period is all of 2009/2010 period and the first 18 weeks of the 20101/2011 period. The data if you read the LTB covers 70 weeks.

"There are two documents attached to this LTB, one is the guidance which Royal Mail are circulating, the other is a spreadsheet showing 70 weeks of historical total unweighted traffic data shared with us during the discussions."

[Danelectro]

The time period is all of 2009/2010 period and the first 18 weeks of the 20101/2011 period. The data if you read the LTB covers 70 weeks.

"There are two documents attached to this LTB, one is the guidance which Royal Mail are circulating, the other is a spreadsheet showing 70 weeks of historical total unweighted traffic data shared with us during the discussions."

Aye i skim read it and missed that bit.I was too pissed off with yet another issue unresolved and subject to further meetings etc

[BELIAL]

Royal Mail were able to provide factual historical data

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... gures.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I'm overwhelmed with confidence...

You mean we can't trust management?

[Phantom]

All Royal Mail figures are wrong, pure and simple. The indoor work tool was thrown at me when i decided to cut off and after closely examining the figures i noticed that on a MONDAY i was supposed to have 775 items and around 70 mins to prep this lot then on a TUES i was supposed to have 850 items and 50mins to prep it?????? as you can see, the manager was trying to use this tool when at the end of the day it was all bullshit.

So Royal Mail figures aren't worth the paper they are printed on!