We are continuing to try and conclude a document around what is deemed by the words ‘Fair and Manageable Workload’ within delivery. The Department believes that this would go a long way to enabling our Delivery Members and Managers to understand what is expected of them during their hours of attendance. It is hoped that we can bring this to a satisfactory conclusion within the coming weeks.
Bob Gibson– CWU Assistant Secretary Outdoor
Not sure how that will work,fuzzy words and vague statements could make things worse for members not better.
Converting a statement like Fair and Manageable Workload into a document that protects members might be like nailing jelly to the wall,Royal Mail will never agree to absolute limits on what members are expected to do,that goes completely against their flawed plan of continuous improvement.
Kudos for trying it but i'm struggling to think of wording that would work and wouldn't be open to interpretation.
Anybody any ideas?
Well Fish, when I saw that I thought the same as you. An absolutely impossible conundrum. Too many variables, such as age, sex,health issues, geography of walk, housing variables, etc etc. Good luck Bob, will be interesting to see what you come up with.
Good luck Bob, will be interesting to see what you come up with.
It will probably be a handy sized card that you can cut out of The Voice to wave at the lino.
Royal Mail managers.....about as popular as a t.urd in a swimming pool!
The DDA/Equality Act demands action,NOT words......adjustments NOT Occupational Health referrals.Case No:2505901/09
Royal Mail is an Equal Opportunities Employer..It discriminates against everybody.
The statement needs to rely recognised standards (irrespective of age/gender etc.) of 'fairness' to ensure that they are not interpreted subjectively by the management or the workforce come to that. If this is achieved then the manageability should in theory take care of itself.
One thing that is bothering me is that workload requirements for deliveries are being treated as if they are separate from other areas of Royal Mail. Whilst most of the issues are in deliveries in terms of output an OPG should be targetted at exactly the same level for all other parts of the operation and measured using control systems that are equally accurate.
Budfrog wrote:The statement needs to rely recognised standards (irrespective of age/gender etc.) of 'fairness' to ensure that they are not interpreted subjectively by the management or the workforce come to that. If this is achieved then the manageability should in theory take care of itself.
One of the problems is that the business now considers us overpaid in comparison to other postal companies.
This means that they already believe we receive a "premium" and this has been used to justify the higher level of expected output from members.
Of course you know Budfrog that this is not how incentivised increase of output works.
You need to have a base salary for 75BSI then a premium available for working above that.
The fact that there are no genuinely comparable roles to that of a Royal Mail delivery OPG in any other UK postal companies has also completely(deliberately) passed them by.
Even the TNT employees involved in the trial in London have a far different role to us.
We are continuing to try and conclude a document around what is deemed by the words ‘Fair and Manageable Workload’ within delivery. The Department believes that this would go a long way to enabling our Delivery Members and Managers to understand what is expected of them during their hours of attendance. It is hoped that we can bring this to a satisfactory conclusion within the coming weeks.
Bob Gibson– CWU Assistant Secretary Outdoor
Not sure how that will work,fuzzy words and vague statements could make things worse for members not better.
Converting a statement like Fair and Manageable Workload into a document that protects members might be like nailing jelly to the wall,Royal Mail will never agree to absolute limits on what members are expected to do,that goes completely against their flawed plan of continuous improvement.
Kudos for trying it but i'm struggling to think of wording that would work and wouldn't be open to interpretation.
Anybody any ideas?
Many people on here quote the '318' as the guidance for a walk/duty etc I have never seen one ;but would be interested to do so.
Maybe this could be a way to reinstate the 318? Or at least have a better stab at having some sort of rules / regs/ duty structure?
If the end result is a joint statement. Then i think that everyone will be dissappointed
We are continuing to try and conclude a document around what is deemed by the words ‘Fair and Manageable Workload’ within delivery. The Department believes that this would go a long way to enabling our Delivery Members and Managers to understand what is expected of them during their hours of attendance. It is hoped that we can bring this to a satisfactory conclusion within the coming weeks.
Bob Gibson– CWU Assistant Secretary Outdoor
Not sure how that will work,fuzzy words and vague statements could make things worse for members not better.
Converting a statement like Fair and Manageable Workload into a document that protects members might be like nailing jelly to the wall,Royal Mail will never agree to absolute limits on what members are expected to do,that goes completely against their flawed plan of continuous improvement.
Kudos for trying it but i'm struggling to think of wording that would work and wouldn't be open to interpretation.
Anybody any ideas?
Many people on here quote the '318' as the guidance for a walk/duty etc I have never seen one ;but would be interested to do so.
Maybe this could be a way to reinstate the 318? Or at least have a better stab at having some sort of rules / regs/ duty structure?
If the end result is a joint statement. Then i think that everyone will be dissappointed
RM have been moving away from P318s for some time now and although they do still exist in some units they have, by and large, been replaced by Job Descriptions. The feeling was that P318s were too rigid and even though they all included the 'Or As Directed By Your Lino' RM wanted a more flexible approach particularly in Mail Centre where they wanted to develop teams and Team Leaders. Having said that a detailed JD is a P318 in all but name and so long as the employee and the management know precisely what is expected to complete the task safely and effectively then it is serving it's purpose.
We are having a similar argument at my DO - bearing in mind we are still pre-DMR - as to what equates as 'Fair and Manageable'. To my mind we need to stick at around 3.5 hr delivery spans (4 hrs at most) whilst management want to see delivery spans increased rather than lapse further duties. I can see the IR Framework being invoked, however, I am not so sure how much that will help depending on what interpretations are put on terms such as 'Fair and Manageable' in our circumstance.
Ahebban - anglo-saxon in origin - meaning 'Wages War'
What counts is not necessarily the size of the dog in the fight, what counts is the size of the fight in the dog. - Mark Twain
dont worry lads bob wont sign any agreement with royal mail hes not like that.
next you will be telling me i will have to change a flat tyre on my van.
Ahebban wrote:We are having a similar argument at my DO - bearing in mind we are still pre-DMR - as to what equates as 'Fair and Manageable'. To my mind we need to stick at around 3.5 hr delivery spans (4 hrs at most) whilst management want to see delivery spans increased rather than lapse further duties. I can see the IR Framework being invoked, however, I am not so sure how much that will help depending on what interpretations are put on terms such as 'Fair and Manageable' in our circumstance.
The snag with keeping 3.5 hr deliveries is finding work to fill the duty spans.
I think we all know that the company will drag the process out until such time as the union agrees on wording that will be so ambiguous it can and will be interpreted in any way the management see fit to do. Can only hope the CWU press for specific 'guidelines' on this, but cannot see the company wanting to sign anything off that would not leave any leeway for them, they don't like such things to be black or white, they like the grey. Gives them space to 'operate' in (shaft us).
UnhappyGremlin wrote:I think we all know that the company will drag the process out until such time as the union agrees on wording that will be so ambiguous it can and will be interpreted in any way the management see fit to do. Can only hope the CWU press for specific 'guidelines' on this, but cannot see the company wanting to sign anything off that would not leave any leeway for them, they don't like such things to be black or white, they like the grey. Gives them space to 'operate' in (shaft us).
The CWU must have people with a good enough knowledge of Work Study to negotiate an unambiguous agreement that protects it's members. Ensuring that agreement is followed (or even understood in some cases) may be the issue as some managers suffer from selectiv interpretation when it suits.
UnhappyGremlin wrote:I think we all know that the company will drag the process out until such time as the union agrees on wording that will be so ambiguous it can and will be interpreted in any way the management see fit to do. Can only hope the CWU press for specific 'guidelines' on this, but cannot see the company wanting to sign anything off that would not leave any leeway for them, they don't like such things to be black or white, they like the grey. Gives them space to 'operate' in (shaft us).
Ah yes highly amusing, they're still trying to iron out BT 2010 3 years on - they would need to know what they are talking about to get any specifics - RM run rings round these muppets. Just how many times have we heard RM say "full consultation, agreed work practices, CWU fully involved" only to find that it was an RM Charter to suit themselves and b*llocks to the CWU.
We are continuing to try and conclude a document around what is deemed by the words ‘Fair and Manageable Workload’ within delivery. The Department believes that this would go a long way to enabling our Delivery Members and Managers to understand what is expected of them during their hours of attendance. It is hoped that we can bring this to a satisfactory conclusion within the coming weeks.
Bob Gibson– CWU Assistant Secretary Outdoor Mar 2013...
We are continuing to try and conclude a document around what is deemed by the words ‘Fair and Manageable Workload’ within delivery. The Department believes that this would go a long way to enabling our Delivery Members and Managers to understand what is expected of them during their hours of attendance. It is hoped that we can bring this to a satisfactory conclusion within the coming weeks.
Bob Gibson– CWU Assistant Secretary Outdoor Mar 2013...
Lol.
No worries there then I think this is the document...................it just needs refining with a few reviews, visits by full time reps and then......well a little bit more chatter and ...a few more reviews. What a sorry state of affairs when they can't remember what they have said just 9 months ago - I'll have to have a word with the matron to see if there's a condition that can be ascribed to.
...a few more reviews. What a sorry state of affairs when they can't remember what they have said just 9 months ago - I'll have to have a word with the matron to see if there's a condition that can be ascribed to.