Thames Valley Delivery Method revision facts

[hantsman]

This is illegal and covered under the employment rights acts. Immediate grievance should be put in.

Should go right in at stage 2 grievance, who then looks at that? Oh yes the DSM who is very likely to be leaning on said DOM to reduce overtime by whatever means. Send it up further to stage 3, oh yes the Area Manager who is now leaning on the DSM. In theory the grievance procedure is the way to go. In practice you could become a marked posty deserving special attention and we are not talking about free bacon sarnies and tea.


All of the above is sad but true in most offices.

[Lincox]

Nevertheless Hantsman unless we have the courage of our convictions we will allow such managers to ride all over us without any fight. We all must continue to remind these managers that they are breaking all of the agreements between cwu and RM and in many cases breaking the law. If we do not get recompense at stage 3 then we must all be prepared to take this to the ultimate of ET or claims in the small claims courts. We cannot allow bullying and harrassment to deter us from being treated fairly and with respect. I speak as someone who is going through this process and know what problems I have come up against so far, but that will not deter me from pursuing this to it,s conclusion.

[fishtank]

The CWU will only see what RM want or allow them to see, figures are easy to manipulate.

That's the problem in a nutshell.
Everything from the business financial position to the D2D profits to whether the revisions are working is based on information "shared" by Royal Mail.
Now even if they were not by nature a shower of lying tossers would you really expect them to hand over information to the union that they knew could be used against them in negotiations and could cost them money?
You would have to be an idiot to do that and that's why these are not "facts".
They may be based on fact and i'm sure they were presented to the union as facts but each part of the reporting procedure will have been doctored slightly because no Dom,DSM or Regional Director is going to want to admit that they screwed up....especially to the union.
I'm afraid that also applies to the reps and area reps,that's not really a criticism,i'm sure they did their best under very difficult circumstances but it's human nature not to want to admit that things are quite as bad as they are if you were one of the major architects yourself.
The question is as a union how do we get to the real facts to find out if these revisions really are working and more importantly if so what makes them different?...and how can we use that information to improve the situation in other offices?

[Lincox]

Fish, you would have thought that there would have been one revision that stood head and shoulders above the rest, that they (RM & CWU) could have said this is the blueprint that all present and future revisions must be aligned to. But I don,t believe that they have found that one beacon of light and for all the savings that are shown in some of the Thames Valley area, there must be some glaring problems in those units that they are not prepared to base future revisions on.

[POSTMAN]

Wolverhampton?

[dvbuk55]

Wolverhampton?

Yes you might well look sheepish

[fishtank]

Thatcham...not on the list.
I wonder why?

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 61#p452872" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dvbuk55]

Thatcham...not on the list.
I wonder why?

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 61#p452872" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Must have been a typo OR that info hadn't filtered down yet OR no no shame on me