dvbuk55 wrote:It's a very interesting point you make there BD, " the creation of self starter revisions" - pity we weren't informed of them as well, pity we all couldn't cling on to the old ways , with bikes and pouches and early starts and on the job finishes.............
You sound like your blaming the workers/members, please assure me that you accept that if RML choose to do big offices first then move on to medium size ones that is not the fault of the workforce? I mean how on earth could we not use bikes and pouches when there are no HCTS and vans to use?
I thought early starts went in 2007 when RML took EA
I'm sure I don't need to remind you that we are a democratic Union and therefore the mbrs have the democratic right to vote no if they so wish to do so otherwise whats the point of a local ballot?
A local ballot can change how you go about implementing delivery methods and WSMs revisions NOT whether or not you have them........that has already been agreed by the 2010 & Beyond ballot, which as you may recall WAS accepted by the membership, including yours. The timing of the revision is not in question, it is the fact of payment for what in effect is, by your own account now, a non revision, if there are no vans and no HCTs then it is not a revision is it? And yet you still expect to get the same money as offices who HAVE implemented the revision.
On site finishes BD, are they still in your mix???
But the agreement does not state a revision has to be Delivery Methods to qualify for one of the £200s (The £600 and follow on £200 are for sequencing) so if Big Daz has an agreed revision that both CWU members have agreed and that RM management agree does qualify then surely we should be congratulating his office rather than berating them.
They have used the agreement to their advantage why is it such a problem when RM do it all the time, perhaps other Units could learn something.
All post by me in Green are Admin Posts. Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility. If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
TrueBlueTerrier wrote:But the agreement does not state a revision has to be Delivery Methods to qualify for one of the £200s (The £600 and follow on £200 are for sequencing) so if Big Daz has an agreed revision that both CWU members have agreed and that RM management agree does qualify then surely we should be congratulating his office rather than berating them.
They have used the agreement to their advantage why is it such a problem when RM do it all the time, perhaps other Units could learn something.
Wrong! The weight off the shoulder, the P&L, LCTs and HCTs are for everyone, not a matter of choice and is fundamental to the 2010 and Beyond. Fiddling the hours, call it a revision and expect £200 is not using the agreement it is actually abusing the agreement. Not unknown in some areas of course.
TrueBlueTerrier wrote:But the agreement does not state a revision has to be Delivery Methods to qualify for one of the £200s (The £600 and follow on £200 are for sequencing) so if Big Daz has an agreed revision that both CWU members have agreed and that RM management agree does qualify then surely we should be congratulating his office rather than berating them.
They have used the agreement to their advantage why is it such a problem when RM do it all the time, perhaps other Units could learn something.
Wrong! The weight off the shoulder, the P&L, LCTs and HCTs are for everyone, not a matter of choice and is fundamental to the 2010 and Beyond. Fiddling the hours, call it a revision and expect £200 is not using the agreement it is actually abusing the agreement. Not unknown in some areas of course.
Well unless you do something you won't ever see the final £200. £600+£200 is paid on a delivery methods WSM revision, the other £200 is paid on a non-sequenced revision.
If you already have sequenced mail as we did, then the only way to get that last £200 is to have yet another revision after the DM one. And revisions ALWAYS mean more hours out.
OnAFlyer wrote:
If you already have sequenced mail as we did, then the only way to get that last £200 is to have yet another revision after the DM one. And revisions ALWAYS mean more hours out.
My personal opinion is...tell them to shove the last £200.
It isn't worth putting your office through another revision for a hundred and fifty bucks after tax.
....basically two days wages.
Agree with Fishtank. If possible I'd tell them keep the money Why are people so short-sighted? Someone waves a bit of cash under their nose and they're willing to sign up for anything.
Do they realise they lost about £1000 when they agreed to the last D2D deal? We've really got to make sure these revisions are workable or we're just going to be opening another big can of worms!
Like all Wage Slaves, he had two crosses to bear: The people he worked for and the people he worked with! (Stephen Vizinczey.)
OnAFlyer wrote:
If you already have sequenced mail as we did, then the only way to get that last £200 is to have yet another revision after the DM one. And revisions ALWAYS mean more hours out.
My personal opinion is...tell them to shove the last £200.
It isn't worth putting your office through another revision for a hundred and fifty bucks after tax.
....basically two days wages.
Bit difficult to tell them to shove it when it's already agreed under the 2010 and Beyond Agreement, signed, sealed and delivered.....Delivery Methods and WSM. Backed by the CWU and paid for with your own money.
dvbuk55 wrote:
Bit difficult to tell them to shove it when it's already agreed under the 2010 and Beyond Agreement, signed, sealed and delivered.....Delivery Methods and WSM. Backed by the CWU and paid for with your own money.
The delivery methods and WSM we've done DV which is probably more than some areas will even contemplate so we've done our bit....we won't do another revision this side of 2013...you can take that to the bank.
OnAFlyer wrote:
If you already have sequenced mail as we did, then the only way to get that last £200 is to have yet another revision after the DM one. And revisions ALWAYS mean more hours out.
My personal opinion is...tell them to shove the last £200.
It isn't worth putting your office through another revision for a hundred and fifty bucks after tax.
....basically two days wages.
Bit difficult to tell them to shove it when it's already agreed under the 2010 and Beyond Agreement, signed, sealed and delivered.....Delivery Methods and WSM. Backed by the CWU and paid for with your own money.
You can tell them to shove the revision, which is the trigger for the £200.
Don't knock Insanity
it's just another outlook on Reality!
dvbuk55 wrote:
Bit difficult to tell them to shove it when it's already agreed under the 2010 and Beyond Agreement, signed, sealed and delivered.....Delivery Methods and WSM. Backed by the CWU and paid for with your own money.
The delivery methods and WSM we've done DV which is probably more than some areas will even contemplate so we've done our bit....we won't do another revision this side of 2013...you can take that to the bank.
Our DM is done and the WSM comes in about 6 weeks, like you we've already gone the full mile.................I won't be seeing another revision..........I was thinking more of those with "self starters" who think there is some sort of option in not implementing the full procedure sooner or later.
dvbuk55 wrote:
Bit difficult to tell them to shove it when it's already agreed under the 2010 and Beyond Agreement, signed, sealed and delivered.....Delivery Methods and WSM. Backed by the CWU and paid for with your own money.
The delivery methods and WSM we've done DV which is probably more than some areas will even contemplate so we've done our bit....we won't do another revision this side of 2013...you can take that to the bank.
Our DM is done and the WSM comes in about 6 weeks, like you we've already gone the full mile.................I won't be seeing another revision..........I was thinking more of those with "self starters" who think there is some sort of option in not implementing the full procedure sooner or later.
How interesting personally Im now aware of any local reps and managers who are trying to block any part of BT210.
Plenty of unhappy members regarding the changes that will come in by the end of the offical three year transformation agreement. However the CWU powers that be will have to hope they can win them round by the end of March 2013.
My D.O by the end of year two of the three year transformation period should have in place delivery methods, 39 hour week, sequenced mail and M3 on a Saturday and have pocketed a total of 1 grand for FT OPG's. So thats all aspects of BT2010 applicable to delivery offices being planned and implemented at my D.O well within the three year timeframe. Sounds like youve nowt to be woried about dvbuk55
I notice BT210 lists cycles as a approved delivery method
This means local reps CAN argue for retention of pouch and cycle for some streets/deliveries if the rep/mbrs feel that is the best method from a OPERATIONAL view point.
Big Daz wrote:I notice BT210 lists cycles as a approved delivery method
This means local reps CAN argue for retention of pouch and cycle for some streets/deliveries if the rep/mbrs feel that is the best method from a OPERATIONAL view point.
In exceptional circumstances, not as a standard procedure.............bet you use a bike BUT are within 1 mile of the DO so it's an HCT for you - unless you are an exceptional case
Big Daz wrote:I notice BT210 lists cycles as a approved delivery method
This means local reps CAN argue for retention of pouch and cycle for some streets/deliveries if the rep/mbrs feel that is the best method from a OPERATIONAL view point.
In exceptional circumstances, not as a standard procedure
Dont dissagree with you in fact I can only think of 2 streets across the entire urban bike round area that would have a realistic prospect of retaining bike as delivery method.
Big Daz wrote:I notice BT210 lists cycles as a approved delivery method
This means local reps CAN argue for retention of pouch and cycle for some streets/deliveries if the rep/mbrs feel that is the best method from a OPERATIONAL view point.
In exceptional circumstances, not as a standard procedure
Dont dissagree with you in fact I can only think of 2 streets across the entire urban bike round area that would have a realistic prospect of retaining bike as delivery method.
I used to be a cycle mechanic, and I took over about 7 (?) years ago when we had 52 (4) cycles, now we do not have a single cycle, not one! I think there could have been a case for a moderate retention of 3/4/5 but nobody was remotely interested in making a case for them..............now as a rep I would strongly recommend you start looking at any option you can to retain as many as you can and one of those scenarios is the closeness to the DO for replenishment.
If possible I'd tell them keep the money 
Why are people so short-sighted? Someone waves a bit of cash under their nose and they're willing to sign up for anything. 
