UNION 'FORCES OUT' POSTMAN

[mazza111]

Do wimminz really take offence at people calling them sweetheart? I call everyone love or honey or hen or son..... but that's usually just cos I forget everyone's name.

The point about the "sweetheart" post was not that it was overtly sexist.
The point was that if you're going to be over sensitive about what other people post you should use the same criteria when posting yourself.
Pot/Kettle syndrome mazza that's all.

You're totally right sweetypie


I was just trying to inject a wee bit of humour into a biatch slapping exercise

I'm personally waiting for you to get it off your 'tits'..............along with photographic evidence

Oh it wasn't on my tits to start with, I said tuff titties, I'm sure no one would want photographic evidence of that

Now I see we've all kissed and made up again, happier place to be

[MinisterofCucumber]

...and all based on the "why is it always poor little me?" principle.
You could always stop moaning about the status quo (and your perceived poor part of it) and try and get a job in the Real World....

This is your standard line against anything I say and your point is that I should not expect fair and equal treatment, as the company is forced by law to lead me to believe I should, because by accepting a guaranteed job (no compulsory redundancies) you want me to waive all of my legal rights and abide by the rules of this archetypically British seniority based club.

RMG is real and is one of the biggest employers in the country. Maybe you don't want to think that we work in the real world because you are embarrassed by the culture of RMG and ultimately what it says about British culture.

A visitor looking at RMG might get the idea that the British don't have a concept of individuality and consider everyone to have the same capabilities so power and tasks are allocated according to time served.

A sane society might use a state run company to help develop the talent of youngsters by requiring managers to leave after 2 years if they don't get promoted. They would still be young enough to find a job in the "real world" or could start up their own businesses.

[Tman]

[

your point is that I should not expect fair and equal treatment, as the company is forced by law to lead me to believe I should, because by accepting a guaranteed job (no compulsory redundancies) you want me to waive all of my legal rights and abide by the rules of this archetypically British seniority based club.

So how does the seniority process (which for all it's faults, is eminently fairer than the alternatives where skin colour, religion and being the boss's drinking mate could all have a bearing) have any connection with an alleged "guaranteed job" and no compulsory redundancies?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

I have to be honest here - I think the application of seniority if aged based is illegal, however the regulations that say age discrimination is illegal also say that rewarding loyalty is fine. I therefore think its difficult to say categorically that using seniority is age biased, so some units still use it as a deciding factor.

Under the Equality Act 2010, it is possible for an employer to justify direct and indirect age discrimination if the treatment or provision in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This potential to justify direct age discrimination is a unique provision in discrimination legislation, as usually only indirect discrimination can be justified.

The test for justification is an objective one, which means that an employer is required to show that the treatment or provision corresponds to a real business need, and is appropriate, balanced and necessary to achieve a valid goal.

The Equality Act therefore provides that any benefit based on a length of service requirement of 5 years or less is lawful. In addition, the Act says that it won't be unlawful to provide different levels of benefit based on length of service of more than 5 years where the employer “reasonably believes that doing so will fulfil a business need” , e.g. by encouraging loyalty, increasing motivation, or rewarding the experience of some or all of your workers. Nevertheless, an employer would need evidence to conclude that there is a benefit to the organisation from providing rewards directly linked to age. There is an obligation on the employer to objectively justify any provision, criterion or practice as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

[DGP1]

Calling someone a name as a term of endearment is different than writing it down, it can look very sarcastic and aggressive when written, I personally use love, dear, pet and honey but only verbally because of how I think it looks when written.

Now Teefeer love, how badly do you think the Wales team are going to get beaten in the 6 nations

Off now to buy a helmet and pray that I can hide until Teefeer calms down

You know I always find you. You can't hide that fat ass of yours.

How dare you talk about my wife........................


Throws hand grenade in and then waits

[Stormproof]

Calling someone a name as a term of endearment is different than writing it down, it can look very sarcastic and aggressive when written, I personally use love, dear, pet and honey but only verbally because of how I think it looks when written.

Now Teefeer love, how badly do you think the Wales team are going to get beaten in the 6 nations

Off now to buy a helmet and pray that I can hide until Teefeer calms down

You know I always find you. You can't hide that fat ass of yours.

How dare you talk about my wife........................


Throws hand grenade in and then waits

I see your Mrs is logged into F/B, think I will direct her here

[DGP1]

Calling someone a name as a term of endearment is different than writing it down, it can look very sarcastic and aggressive when written, I personally use love, dear, pet and honey but only verbally because of how I think it looks when written.

Now Teefeer love, how badly do you think the Wales team are going to get beaten in the 6 nations

Off now to buy a helmet and pray that I can hide until Teefeer calms down

You know I always find you. You can't hide that fat ass of yours.

How dare you talk about my wife........................


Throws hand grenade in and then waits

I see your Mrs is logged into F/B, think I will direct her here

[andy2007]

Apologies to Bexhil Palace and Stormproof, I missed the Ide connection with the original post.

My wife once played a girl at pool in the pub and beat her. The girl kept saying that she would have won if she hadn't had potted the black and my missus, who is more aggressive than me, said, "Listen, sweetheart. You did pot the black and that's why you lost," and the girl shut up after that. I was quite impressed at the time.

When I have a fight, Militantdave jumps in on my side and he comes up with good sayings like,

"would not suprise me if it was true...thats real democracy in a union....hang on let me watch orson wells animal farm again"

He may get Orson Welles and George Orwell confused but he doesn't defend the CWU when the CWU is wrong.

RMG, the CMA and the CWU together have created an oppressive neo-primitive culture where no two people in the permanent worker caste are equal because everyone is ranked according to seniority. If a worker shows signs of above average capability they are simply cajoled into doing more work so that the seniors can do less or they are trained on a higher grade task but have to do it at the lower grade pay unless they want to return to less interesting tasks. As there are no promotion opportunities, there is no escape from the caste and all those more senior than you will always be more senior than you:

"KNOW YOUR PLACE!"

Before I start, I'd just like to point out, that I don't agree with the seniority system either. I do however believe that it's ESSENTIAL to create a replacement which can be monitored just as well. What that would be, I don't know. That's something which (if it ever happens! ) should be done with consultation in all sections of RMG where seniority is currently used. Otherwise we might end up with something just as bad, or possibly worse!

Now there are a couple of points you made, which aren't entirely accurate imho:
1) You said that the seniors do less than the less senior workers. In my experience (with a couple of notable exceptions, which you'd get with any large group anyway ) the only senior OPGs who do less, are the ones with injuries they've picked up over the years. Mostly bad backs, knees or shoulder injuries. So they aren't CAPABLE of keeping up with the less senior OPGs. Admittedly I work indoors, so things might be different on Deliveries. But I doubt it, as any "slackers" are invariably "collared" by the Managers.

2) You said that the more senior people will always be more senior to you. Well that's clearly wrong, or there would be a large number of people more senior than them. People retire eventually. You just need to be patient. Your time will come, just like everyone else.

[andy2007]

Have there been any developments yet?
Have the CWU taken any action against the Papers yet?
Are the residents aware of the facts yet, or are they still under the mishaprehension that the CWU had any influence over the duty pick?

[keithposty]

MAY I ASK TRUBLUETERRIER WHERE THIS STATEMENT CAME FROM

MANY THANKS

Under the Equality Act 2010, it is possible for an employer to justify direct and indirect age discrimination if the treatment or provision in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This potential to justify direct age discrimination is a unique provision in discrimination legislation, as usually only indirect discrimination can be justified.

The test for justification is an objective one, which means that an employer is required to show that the treatment or provision corresponds to a real business need, and is appropriate, balanced and necessary to achieve a valid goal.

The Equality Act therefore provides that any benefit based on a length of service requirement of 5 years or less is lawful. In addition, the Act says that it won't be unlawful to provide different levels of benefit based on length of service of more than 5 years where the employer “reasonably believes that doing so will fulfil a business need” , e.g. by encouraging loyalty, increasing motivation, or rewarding the experience of some or all of your workers. Nevertheless, an employer would need evidence to conclude that there is a benefit to the organisation from providing rewards directly linked to age. There is an obligation on the employer to objectively justify any provision, criterion or practice as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

[MinisterofCucumber]

With seniority, everyone is saying that it is wrong because it could be indirect age discrimination but how about the exploitation angle?

I can only comment about my unit and I hope other units are not as bad but I would imagine most indoor units are run in the same way.

RMG reward long service because they benefit from it. If staff stay, it cuts down the costs of recruiting and training. Staff are rewarded with extra days annual leave after milestones are reached. Are these rewards enough to retain staff or do the other advantages that seniors get increase the retention rate?

Maybe seniors get more privileges where I am because the cost of recruiting is much higher than in other parts of RMG.

If RMG benefit from the increased loyalty that seniority brings, RMG should provide the reward (as they do with the extra days annual leave). The problem with allowing staff to pick annual leave in seniority order is that RMG is not providing the reward. It is the juniors that are being forced to give up their fair share of prime weeks to incentivise the seniors. One section of the workforce is exploiting the other.

We need a national agreement on this. Maybe a random picking order could be used to pick the first two weeks with the reverse order used to pick the rest of the weeks after everyone has had their first two weeks confirmed.

The aim of allocating extra days leave after 10 and 15 years is to encourage loyalty. This is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The aim of a system for allowing people to choose their annual leave is to allow everyone to pick their leave in a way that they can all agree is fair. As the main purpose of an annual leave selection system is not to reward loyalty and as there are other options available, allowing one section of staff to get the most popular weeks off at the expense of the others would not be a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

MAY I ASK TRUBLUETERRIER WHERE THIS STATEMENT CAME FROM

MANY THANKS

Under the Equality Act 2010, it is possible for an employer to justify direct and indirect age discrimination if the treatment or provision in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This potential to justify direct age discrimination is a unique provision in discrimination legislation, as usually only indirect discrimination can be justified.

The test for justification is an objective one, which means that an employer is required to show that the treatment or provision corresponds to a real business need, and is appropriate, balanced and necessary to achieve a valid goal.

The Equality Act therefore provides that any benefit based on a length of service requirement of 5 years or less is lawful. In addition, the Act says that it won't be unlawful to provide different levels of benefit based on length of service of more than 5 years where the employer “reasonably believes that doing so will fulfil a business need” , e.g. by encouraging loyalty, increasing motivation, or rewarding the experience of some or all of your workers. Nevertheless, an employer would need evidence to conclude that there is a benefit to the organisation from providing rewards directly linked to age. There is an obligation on the employer to objectively justify any provision, criterion or practice as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

http://www.lge.gov.uk/lge/core/page.do? ... contents-4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Its for local government but it must also apply at least in some degree to everyone.

[fishtank]

MAY I ASK TRUBLUETERRIER WHERE THIS STATEMENT CAME FROM

MANY THANKS

Under the Equality Act 2010, it is possible for an employer to justify direct and indirect age discrimination if the treatment or provision in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This potential to justify direct age discrimination is a unique provision in discrimination legislation, as usually only indirect discrimination can be justified.

The test for justification is an objective one, which means that an employer is required to show that the treatment or provision corresponds to a real business need, and is appropriate, balanced and necessary to achieve a valid goal.

The Equality Act therefore provides that any benefit based on a length of service requirement of 5 years or less is lawful. In addition, the Act says that it won't be unlawful to provide different levels of benefit based on length of service of more than 5 years where the employer “reasonably believes that doing so will fulfil a business need” , e.g. by encouraging loyalty, increasing motivation, or rewarding the experience of some or all of your workers. Nevertheless, an employer would need evidence to conclude that there is a benefit to the organisation from providing rewards directly linked to age. There is an obligation on the employer to objectively justify any provision, criterion or practice as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

http://www.lge.gov.uk/lge/core/page.do? ... contents-4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Its for local government but it must also apply at least in some degree to everyone.

The section of the equality act it relates to.

http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 90#p436762" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Militantdave]

now the question should be ,does picking holiday entilement incentivise the senior men or de incentivise all the new blood into the business?

IMHO it appear all the old guys are leaving in droves now they are actually being asked to do a fair days work for a fair days paySo the business should incentivise the newbies(mostly part timers) to stay ,not get shafted by RM and the union at ever given oportunity

[axeman]

oh my what a statement 'dave' firstly you have forgoten the 'old' guys have usually been in royal fail for a fair period of time and as you are aware age does not come alone. This means you cannot walk (or should i say run) as quick as you used to and as you have been on the job for longer than the newbies have been out of nappies. My guess is youd want out before you have a heart attack with the 'modernisation process now enveloping royal fail' but of course you are right the jobs were a tad easier in years gone by untill stupid people like yourself came into royal fail who are only to keen to run there ass off for them sad refelection of the times but dont forget you will too grow older what then chum !!