cbrse wrote:Actually, I am an ex PHG who retired last year after 26 years service, firstly as a postie and then, due to ill health, as a PHG, and NO my ill heath was not caused by the way that I did my delivery or caused by stress as a result of being asked to work for a living.
Glad to hear that but "being asked to work for a living" kind of points out, along with your first abusive post, your biased opinion and quite nicely shows in microcosm one of the reasons for the poor industrial relations between management and posties.
cbrse wrote:All I ever heard and saw for many years were posties whingeing about how hard their jobs were while they still managed to finish 3 hours early most days.
Possible back before SDD but not know - 3 1/2 hour deliveries and not allowed out till 4 hours to go - that's means someone doing a delivery in less than an hour - me thinks you exaggerate.
cbrse wrote:Most used to come in early in order to get finished earlier each day, but moaned when they were asked to do a little extra for free if they had the time to do so.
So you recognise they worked hard to get the job done, but then didn't reward them. Of course starting early when you're not paid is a fools game and everyone should expect to work the hours they are paid for - working for free as you call it is not something people will do except for people whom they respect or get respect from - Perhaps that's what was missing from your time as a PHG/Manager.
cbrse wrote:Most used private cars on delivery daily and only stopped using their cars to "screw the business" during times of disruption in the belief that they were sticking 2 fingers up at Royal Mail only to revert to using private cars when their working day became too long.
My own opinion on using cars when Royal Mail dont recompense you for the costs is well known on here I am against it. However, its a voluntary method of delivery and aren't you showing your contempt for those who worked under you with this point of view. Most people I know who stopped using cars during disruption did only to try and show RM that the methods they were trying to introduce would not work, and invariably they were right. You appear to think they did it just to cause you problems.
cbrse wrote:Most ran round their deliveries in order to shorten their working day.
As a manager/PHG should you have managed this and stopped them for H&S reasons. Again they were working hard to get the job done and you rewarded them by thinking they were trying to screw the system. It's a very strange view, your lazy for working hard, but if you work to your time and go slow we'll still try to get you to do more - and they wonder why RM is in the mess it is. Here is a novel idea - give posties enough work that an average person can get it done with a specified time on 90% of occasions and let them get on with it. If they finish early so what the jobs done and they've put the effort in - If they finish after their time pay them docket as long as they have followed the rules and guidelines. Also inform posties how and when they can claim.
cbrse wrote:Most used not having the correct equipment to do the job as an excuse to cut-off or fail to complete, but refused to wear cycle helmets, high viz waistcoats, obey health & safety rules, perform cycle, HCT or vehicle checks or weigh their pouches.
So conduct them - H&S is not an Opt in or Opt out and there are systems in place. If I was a rep I would defend them, but I would also make sure that everyone knew the consequences of failing to follow H&S rule - Management should as well yet in 8 years I have seen nothing regarding H&S beyond "how to lift a bag", and watch out for Dogs; was it the same in your DO. If drivers/cyclists are not doing their checks shouldn't management try to find out why and approach it from a H&S point of view, instead of the confrontational method RM use - "Do the checks or else and I don't care if you have no time I have given you an instruction" - that's not grown up or inclusive management - its poor supervision, poor leadership and poor H&S.
cbrse wrote:Many blatantly exploited any opportunity not to deliver door 2 door items and then complained when door 2 door was included in daily workload and contracts were lost to DSA and they were forced to deliver them as a result
When we were being paid to do them they should have been prosecuted or conducted for false claims, not following instructions or delaying mail under the Postal Act. However most of the problem was because a lot of managers said they had to be done in the posties own time (which was wrong) and when it was included in the daily workload very few offices actually gave any extra time in the work-plan in the all they did was tweak the figures (reducing attendance calls etc) to fit it in.
cbrse wrote:Most despised mailsort and deliberately left it behind when possible only to moan when mailsort contracts became DSA.
MS could only be left on a Saturday after SDD and only within certain constraints. If posties played the system then it was up to managers to know the agreements (which from personal experience very few do) and apply them correctly. There are systems in place and managers should use them where appropriate, sounds again as if poor management blames the whole workforce for a few bad apples they cant seem to control.
cbrse wrote:With behaviour like this and attitudes to match, is it any wonder that the company you all hate working for so much is in financial difficulty?
Fully agree if management did not hate their employees and acted as managers rather than supervisors, if they applied the rules fairly and evenly with due regard to circumstances rather than mechanistically, then I agree RM would not be in the mess it appears to be.
cbrse wrote:If you were running the company, would you put up with kind of deliberate behaviour?
No - but then I would expect leadership from management, not buck passing. I would expect managers to use their own minds when confronted with a situation rather than apply policy as a one size fits all. There is a famous anonymous quote which RM senior management could apply if they did it would make a significant change in RMs Industrial relations and outlook. "Rules are made for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools"
cbrse wrote:After years of getting away with working as little as possible for as much money as possible, it's about time posties were asked to work the hours that they are paid for. For some, this is too much to ask.
Of course its right that we work the hours we paid for, but conversly should people be harassed and bullied into taking extra when the honestly believe when they they don't have the time. Should they be harassed and bullied into working over for free, or be expected to come in early without pay. The answer to both is NO and the answer to knowing the difference between an honest belief and someone taking the mickey - well its decent man management, good leadership and showing respect for the people who work for you. To get respect you have to earn and show it.
cbrse wrote:The CWU sold you all down the river years ago and many reps have taken VR as a result of lack of influence in their units.
So are you suggesting that all the troubles you highlight are not down to militant trade unionism. Wouldn't that only leave management failure as a reason for units not working as they should.
cbrse wrote:Managers being laid off in large numbers is only the start, you are next and the numbers will be far greater.
Blimey even someone with a poor grasp of mathematics could tell you that. 160,000 workers and 10,000 managers makes your statement blindingly obvious as does a grasp of historical facts. Approximately 3,000 managerial positions have gone or are foing in the last few years, but 60,000 CWU grades have over the last 5 years, with more to follow over the life of P&M2010.
cbrse wrote:Ultimately, you will only have yourselves to blame when the business is finally privatised, the CWU is crushed and all of your jobs are part-time.
No we can blame the ConDem government because they passed a law for which they had no political mandate. The EU for liberalisation - again with no mandate. Senior Management for poor decisions (DSA charged at a loss) local management for failing to manage. I am afraid the blame for privatisation can be laid at many doord - picking out the CWU shows your bias and contempt rather than a true understanding of the issues concerned.