Syze wrote:If it's not an insult what's the problem? It could have been a compliment. Maybe I just wanted to compliment a colleague.
EDIT: What's the green all about?
It says on his signature 'Green posts are in Moderator mode'
Move on now please.
Oink Oink
Back on topic now please.
I Wrote-During Covid-Which is still relevant now
It's good to get these types of threads, the ridiculous my manager said bollox, so we can reassure ourselves that while the world is falling apart, Royal Mail managers are still being the low-life C***S they have always been. My BFF Clash The daily grind of having to argue your case with an intellectual pigmy of a line manager is physically and emotionally draining.
BTW, neither Royal Mail nor I have any involvement with the manipulation of figures, these garments have been proven in many fields throughout the world. If you ignore that fact you are either ignorant of it or blind to it!
Note
The garment is designed to be worn fastened, wearing it unzipped carries the same penalty as not wearing it at all.
Himaggen wrote:BTW, neither Royal Mail nor I have any involvement with the manipulation of figures, these garments have been proven in many fields throughout the world. If you ignore that fact you are either ignorant of it or blind to it!
Note
The garment is designed to be worn fastened, wearing it unzipped carries the same penalty as not wearing it at all.
Rubbish,thats like me saying nobody has been run over or hit by a car after following the green cross code,if you don't feel safe crossing the road without one you wear one,me I am confident enough to manage it using my eyes and ears.If you step out in front of a moving car after looking left and right you must be either blind or stupid in which case its probabley what they used to call natural selection.
The garment is not designed to help you negotiate the terrain better, it is designed to alert others better.
Regardless of whether you think it is rubbish or otherwise it has been proven to work, the figures support it and Royal Mail has provided them for your benefit. I really am saddened to think that there's some belief that your employer has paid for and provided PPE with no other reason than to make you hot and uncomfortable.
As it does not mention wearing it all of the time I don't think there is a requirement for it. Also wont the reflective stripe on the bag do the same job in normal light whether you have it on the shoulder or LWT.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
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.
The reflective 'stripe' is for low light, and is designated in classes according to the sizes of the stripe etc. This means as far as I'm aware that the new 'cagoule' is not adequate protection, (class 2), you'd need to wear a hi-viz waistcoat over the top of it.
As for bags, if you're still allowed to carry them, I don't know if you could argue that if fastened, worn correctly and kept in good condition that they would provided sufficient protection.
As it does not mention wearing it all of the time I don't think there is a requirement for it. Also wont the reflective stripe on the bag do the same job in normal light whether you have it on the shoulder or LWT.
This is my point,and what I have said all along,there is no need to wear the hi-vis vest for walking along the pavement,if you had to walk along the road where there is no pavement that would be a differant matter,I would personally wear mine if I was riding a bike or getting in and out of a vehicle on the highway,also the surveys that Himaggen pointed out all related to people walking along unlit roads in the hours of darkness not the pavement in broad daylight.
Himaggen wrote:I really am saddened to think that there's some belief that your employer has paid for and provided PPE with no other reason than to make you hot and uncomfortable.
I was a H&S manager on a building site in a previous life and honestly most PPE seems to be supplied for insurance purposes and general a** covering! Practicality and common sense are largely ignored because of 'the rules'.
Himaggen wrote:I really am saddened to think that there's some belief that your employer has paid for and provided PPE with no other reason than to make you hot and uncomfortable.
I was a H&S manager on a building site in a previous life and honestly most PPE seems to be supplied for insurance purposes and general a** covering! Practicality and common sense are largely ignored because of 'the rules'.
I agree and it tends to undo all the good work that H&S do.
Bear in mind that the document linked to from the CWU is twelve years old and for outdated uniform and the earlier document linked to was a cycling one so wasn't designed to cover anything other than cycling. So far nobody has been able to confirm a national policy on the wearing of Hi-Viz waistcoats for Delivery Personnel.
Until we have confirmation I'd strongly suggest that you abide by the usage provided locally.
i would always advocate the wearing of high viz on bicycles.
some drivers would have trouble seeing you if you had blue flashing lights!
im not anti hi viz and try to use a common sense approach.
On a bike or getting in and out of a van then just wear the thing and TBH it's not really worth the hassle of fighting a conduct charge because you didn't think you had to wear one. I just wear mine all the time because I don't need the grief from the managers and it stops me from getting a dirty black mark on my shirt from the bag strap.
I'm preparing myself for the zombie invasion, rule number 1 - Cardio
