Hi hope someone can help me with this as I am not sure if this would class as indirect discrimination,
there are a number of part timers and reserves in our office who do not have a duty of their own so to speak, so trying to get a long weekend off is nearly impossible. Usual manager spille is that as long as your get a day off each week then it doesn't matter which day off you get and that noone is gauranteed a long weekend.
Here is the thing are Royal Mail treating these members of staff less favourablly than the other members within the office as I think this is discrimination of some sort or has this been written into the rule books somewhere and been okayed by the cwu.
Has the cwu never had to tackle this issue before?
Why has Royal Mail being allowed to get away with this for so long without any intervention from the cwu?
How do we go about putting an end to this type of behaviour, especially in todays politically correct society?
ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (Updated 2021)... HERE
ANNOUNCEMENT : PLEASE BE AWARE WE ARE NOT ON FACEBOOK AT ALL!
Is this not indirect discrimination?
-
newtimes
- EX ROYAL MAIL
- Posts: 595
- Joined: 16 Feb 2012, 14:10
- Gender: Male
Re: Is this not indirect discrimination?
I hear what you are saying and I totally agree, same argument as we have plenty of food but people are starving. In the past people fought to be organised and have unions to get good conditions, now a days unions are just corporate bodies, how much do you earn, how much do our top paid officials earn. If they were paid our wages and worked under our conditions, they would fight tooth and nail to improve them. If we start helping others then could that inturn help us.
-
spoodoo
- Posts: 829
- Joined: 06 Sep 2009, 18:07
- Gender: Male
Re: Is this not indirect discrimination?
yeah theres guys in my office still res floaters after 8 years ,never get a long weekend ,dont even get put on there res cover duty ever! the guys who are just in the office,, part timers all have there own duties and of course set days off and long weekends. Were losing full timers left right n centre here ,whats the unions stance on that ????
-
spoodoo
- Posts: 829
- Joined: 06 Sep 2009, 18:07
- Gender: Male
Re: Is this not indirect discrimination?
btw what does - £10.40 POAL MEAN ON PAYSLIP THIS WEEK ,any ideas folks?
-
doorstepped
- Posts: 1063
- Joined: 10 Oct 2011, 23:17
- Gender: Male
- Location: Somewhere west of London
Re: Is this not indirect discrimination?
Purchase of annual leave.
its the pay you are giving Royal Mail to cover your extra purchased holiday entitlement. it is not shown on your payslips but never used to be, but was still taken out.
its the pay you are giving Royal Mail to cover your extra purchased holiday entitlement. it is not shown on your payslips but never used to be, but was still taken out.
-
clashcityrocker
- Posts: 16683
- Joined: 22 Sep 2009, 13:50
- Gender: Male
- Location: strummerville
Re: Is this not indirect discrimination?
You should get the day off that corresponds to the duty you are on.gerardy wrote:
How do we go about putting an end to this type of behaviour, especially in todays politically correct society?
You should get 1 in 6 Saturdays, (even if it means 2 Saturdays in a row and none for the next 10 weeks.) With a little bit of planning this need not happen.
You put an and to this type of behaviour by using the grievance form available from the rep/area rep or the Downloads section of RMC.
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.
-
dvbuk55
- EX ROYAL MAIL
- Posts: 16650
- Joined: 02 Jun 2007, 19:17
- Gender: Male
Re: Is this not indirect discrimination?
Bring back the 6 day week, when we worked every Saturday and it will stop all the arguing.
-
spoodoo
- Posts: 829
- Joined: 06 Sep 2009, 18:07
- Gender: Male
Re: Is this not indirect discrimination?
6 day week and 2 deliveries ,back to the good old days,when the customer mattered ,not profits for bosses.
-
DGP1
- Posts: 15551
- Joined: 07 Jun 2007, 20:39
- Gender: Male
- Location: Terminus
Re: Is this not indirect discrimination?
Yep, and a 9am Saturday finishspoodoo wrote:6 day week and 2 deliveries ,back to the good old days,when the customer mattered ,not profits for bosses.
I'm preparing myself for the zombie invasion, rule number 1 - Cardio
-
dvbuk55
- EX ROYAL MAIL
- Posts: 16650
- Joined: 02 Jun 2007, 19:17
- Gender: Male
Re: Is this not indirect discrimination?
Well three and half wasn't too bad but that was signed away to an indeterminate length of delivery "as an enabler" - I'm not entirely sure what it enabled other than weary bodies and bad knees...............luckily it was agreed by people who don't do deliveries.Sherpas Rule wrote:Yes! Two and a half hour rounds MAX so you weren't going home knackered every day. I'd love to go back to a 6 day week and smaller rounds.dvbuk55 wrote:Bring back the 6 day week, when we worked every Saturday and it will stop all the arguing.
-
spoodoo
- Posts: 829
- Joined: 06 Sep 2009, 18:07
- Gender: Male
Re: Is this not indirect discrimination?
All this longer back breaking,knee knackering deliveries,is this not against any health and safety rules etc.? Are there not any rules,guidelines for the length of time you're out for ?
-
not me
- Posts: 2735
- Joined: 10 Aug 2007, 15:07
- Gender: Female
- Location: Uranus
Re: Is this not indirect discrimination?
spoodoo wrote:All this longer back breaking,knee knackering deliveries,is this not against any health and safety rules etc.? Are there not any rules,guidelines for the length of time you're out for ?
there was,3.5 hours