BT2010 & BSI

[celerycelery]

As far as I'm aware BSI being set at 100 or any other figure is not mentioned once in the 2010 agreement then I'm wondering why it's appeared as part of a document reps have to sign at phase 4. Even a discussion with bob Gibson who says there is no mention of it in the agreement doesn't seem to stop it being part of this document.

[AnotherLimey]

As far as I'm aware BSI being set at 100 or any other figure is not mentioned once in the 2010 agreement then I'm wondering why it's appeared as part of a document reps have to sign at phase 4. Even a discussion with bob Gibson who says there is no mention of it in the agreement doesn't seem to stop it being part of this document.

It's bollocks, i put in a disagrement on 100 BSI it was passed up and the Div reps f****d us over, as they did on ALL disagrements i put in

[celerycelery]

Maybe those div reps that did that need to come and see what bullying/stress etc our members have to put up with when managers use the 100 as a performance tool. Yeah we know its not to be used on any individual as a performance tool but when the bsi comes out with prep times that are unachievable, the amount of intimidation on members who say they cant do it within that time is disgusting.

[fishtank]

Yeah we know its not to be used on any individual as a performance tool

Yet.

[DiamondSmiles]

We had a manager come round last week doing manual prep tests on our delivery frames. The frames were full of work so most were failing miserably, when our rep pointed out to our DOM that these tests should be done on an EMPTY frame the DOM replied that it didn't matter if the frames were full or empty!! The manager doing the tests was telling people they were below average on their tests. I wonder why! Minutes later the rep came down to all of us who were tested dishing out nice grievance forms for us to fill in. Over 25 years of being at RM and I have not had to put any grievance forms in. But now it's been 2 forms in as many months. Won't be long before we are all out on strike that's for sure.

[crazyshrew]

Minutes later the rep came down to all of us who were tested dishing out nice grievance forms for us to fill in.

Nice to hear of a switched on Rep, ours would have just told us to do our best and accept that the goal posts had moved
hope everyone filled them in and handed back

[DiamondSmiles]

Minutes later the rep came down to all of us who were tested dishing out nice grievance forms for us to fill in.

Nice to hear of a switched on Rep, ours would have just told us to do our best and accept that the goal posts had moved
hope everyone filled them in and handed back

They did

[UnhappyGremlin]

Minutes later the rep came down to all of us who were tested dishing out nice grievance forms for us to fill in.

Nice to hear of a switched on Rep, ours would have just told us to do our best and accept that the goal posts had moved
hope everyone filled them in and handed back

They did

[Kidders]

Time to draw a line in the sand.

[Budfrog]

The subject of BSI has been done to death on here and I will only repeat what I have said many times before.

For OPGs working in either processing or delivery there should be a target of 75Bs and no more.

This is not just a Royal Mail Standard but an international standard for staff not working on output related incentives as laid down by the International Labour Organisation whose Work Study book is the foundation for all Industrial Engineering.

Of course any employers can set whatever targets it sees fit (or thinks he can get away with) and it is the responsibility of CWU to resist and reject any such targets which are both unfair and discriminatory if applied to a single section of the workforce without the rest following suit.

[Budfrog]

If you accept that performance levels above 75Bs are for incentive based workers then it is only fair that some form of bonus payment is generated when units go above this.

In terms of savings as fixed overheads stay pretty much constant inc supervisory/management costs then any increase in output generates savings far higher than a straight proportional increase in EP or BSI. If you are not paying any type of performance related payment then these savings are far higher still.

I am a simple and fair person and appreciate that RM is not a charity. I am also an advocate of all OPGs receiving pretty much the same remuneration for their hard work. However if performance levels rise above 75Bs then it does not take a lot of imagination to develop a simple bonus scheme.

The following would be far too straightforward and uncomplicated for RM/CWU to ever understand. It is also uncompromisingly fair to the business donating a full 50% of the savings over and above the baseline to them. However it still shows what kind of payments could be generated and bear in mind that this is all based on real efficiency gains (assuming RM have their Traffic/Hrs and other s**t together).

To summarise (Based on a Baseline of 75Bs):

75Bs Weekly Bonus = £0.00
80Bs Weekly Bonus = £11.70
85Bs Weekly Bonus = £23.40
90Bs Weekly Bonus = £35.10
95Bs Weekly Bonus = £46.80
100Bs Weekly Bonus = £56.50

AND THAT IS WITH GIVING RM 50% !!!!

[pop it in pete]

As far as I'm aware BSI being set at 100 or any other figure is not mentioned once in the 2010 agreement then I'm wondering why it's appeared as part of a document reps have to sign at phase 4. Even a discussion with bob Gibson who says there is no mention of it in the agreement doesn't seem to stop it being part of this document.

It's bollocks, i put in a disagrement on 100 BSI it was passed up and the Div reps f****d us over, as they did on ALL disagrements i put in

Same with me never agreed 100 BSI put in a disagreement and somehow revision all came in regardless.

[Budfrog]

If RM have their control/measurement systems correct targets should be the same for ALL units end state. In fact they should be the same for ALL functions (Delivery/Distribution/Processing) and these should be nationally agreed. Interim targets may differ but end state the same workrate should be expected from ALL staff on manual work.


Prior to RM I was involved in job evaluation and the setting up and running of incentive schemes based on productivity. In many of these the baseline was 75Bs with performance levels above this triggering bonus payments. It is up to the CWU members to decide if they want to work above 75 but if they accept and achieve more then they should receive fair remuneration.

[fishtank]

It's difficult to reconcile an incentive scheme in an industry where quality can be easily circumvented by both management and employees.
If measurement of BSI only included actual work done during contracted hours a great deal of delivery offices would struggle to reach 75BSI.
If it measured overall work done against contracted hours that would incentivise members to work outside their contracted hours for free.
That would give an unrealistic picture and could cost jobs.
I'm sceptical about the use of incentive bonus schemes in this job..

[Budfrog]

It's difficult to reconcile an incentive scheme in an industry where quality can be easily circumvented by both management and employees.
If measurement of BSI only included actual work done during contracted hours a great deal of delivery offices would struggle to reach 75BSI.
If it measured overall work done against contracted hours that would incentivise members to work outside their contracted hours for free.
That would give an unrealistic picture and could cost jobs.
I'm sceptical about the use of incentive bonus schemes in this job..

The issues with incentive schemes and RM are primarily around the accuracy of the control systems and the the supply of the product.

I would sooner see staff being rewarded for working above 75Bs than have them intimidated into doing so by a management structure which seems to promote this type of behaviour. If you look at the managerial bonus scheme as an example many of the beneficiaries have no control over the results that dictate it's payment, at least with a BSI based system it is reward based on output.

If you are going to be pressurised into a high productivity level (which has undoubtedly already cost jobs) then you may as well benefit from it !!! My stance has always been 75Bs and not a point higher but that ship sailed a long time ago.