wcm re-instated by union?

[Brain Fury]

There is nothing which I am required to do in my current role which causes me any qualms about its legitimacy or morality and if and when I get involved with WCM neither will that.

Of course it won't. At the moment, you are being paid a huge amount to play around in chat rooms and if your surplus position is resolved and they find you a unit, your pay will outweigh any qualms you might have about the legitimacy and morality of whatever you are asked to do, Brain Fairy.

Note: The Brain Fairy is like the Tooth Fairy and the reference is not a comment on Brain Fairy's sexual orientation or intended to insult anyone's sexual orientation. The Brain Fairy takes away people's brains and leaves them with money instead.

I'm being paid to post here? Great - is that by the Government or the CIA? When you speak to "the voices" next though tell them I'm not surplus.

[Brain Fury]

Bullying and Harassment is not a consensus decided upon by Posties, the CWU and Royal Mail. They are conditions laid down by statute within employment law. They are broken on a daily basis by front line managers, no doubt under undue pressure from their senior counterparts. However that does not excuse them from what they are doing, and until this spiralling problem is acknowledged and dealt with at the highest level there will never be harmony between Royal Mail and it,s employees. This one major factor has again not been dealt with within the new agreement and this is why we should never vote for an agreement that tries to deny us the right to withdraw our labour.

Perhaps I should have said that in my opinion the three parties do not agree on the interpretation of what constitutes B&H. And I never sought to excuse it where it happens. It should be dealt with. Is it not addressed at all in the new agreement? Even if it is, it obviously it isn't to your satisfaction, so what should have been in the agreement?

[Lincox]

Royal Mail have never acknowledged that B&H exists on a large scale within Royal Mail and Moya Greene in her speech in Birmingham to the CWU Reps stated that in her opinion bullying in Royal Mail was between Postperson and Postperson rather than her Managers. This is complete denial of the cases that the CWU highlighted to her previously after they had completed a survey amongst staff.
She and her senior managers should wake up to the facts, and issue a statement, whether that be within the agreement or outside and state that all B&H claims should be dealt with in time scales laid down and any manager found to be carrying out this kind of action will be dealt with at board level, rather than at the moment her HR department downgrade the majority of cases to grievance procedures which in my case took 15 months to be dealt with.

[Brain Fury]

Royal Mail have never acknowledged that B&H exists on a large scale within Royal Mail and Moya Greene in her speech in Birmingham to the CWU Reps stated that in her opinion bullying in Royal Mail was between Postperson and Postperson rather than her Managers. This is complete denial of the cases that the CWU highlighted to her previously after they had completed a survey amongst staff.
She and her senior managers should wake up to the facts, and issue a statement, whether that be within the agreement or outside and state that all B&H claims should be dealt with in time scales laid down and any manager found to be carrying out this kind of action will be dealt with at board level, rather than at the moment her HR department downgrade the majority of cases to grievance procedures which in my case took 15 months to be dealt with.

Has RM ever said that B&H between managers and post persons doesn't happen? I believe the CEO's perception that the majority of cases of B&H were between post persons was because at that time just over 50% of cases that went throughout the B&H process were between post persons. Since then I believe the balance has marginally tipped to the majority being manager to post person. The comment about cases being downgraded simply confirms my point that there isn't a consensus of understanding of what constitutes B&H. Presumably RM will say that the cases downgraded to grievances weren't B&H. I don't have knowledge of the B&H investigation process but the team that operate it will be working to agreed criteria.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

the CEO's perception that the majority of cases of B&H were between post persons was because at that time just over 50% of cases that went throughout the B&H process were between post persons.

But if the balance of those accused of B&H was 50% managers in any sane and responsible company that would raise so many flags that you would think the UN was in town. At a guess even with the company self admitting a few years ago that there were too many layers of management I still think the division would be about 10-15% managers and 85-90% posties. Therefore even by simple numbers a 50/50 split of complaints would mean that complaints against managers are higher by a magnitude of 2 or 3 than they should be on a statistical basis.

[Brain Fury]

the CEO's perception that the majority of cases of B&H were between post persons was because at that time just over 50% of cases that went throughout the B&H process were between post persons.

But if the balance of those accused of B&H was 50% managers in any sane and responsible company that would raise so many flags that you would think the UN was in town. At a guess even with the company self admitting a few years ago that there were too many layers of management I still think the division would be about 10-15% managers and 85-90% posties. Therefore even by simple numbers a 50/50 split of complaints would mean that complaints against managers are higher by a magnitude of 2 or 3 than they should be on a statistical basis.

I take your point and I agree although one might also argue that the very nature of the relationship means that it is more likely that someone would claim that their manager was bullying them rather than a colleague. However, as I said I agree with your point. That said, I was just pointing out that based purely on the number of formal B&H cases, Moya was right to say that the majority was between colleagues (or at least it was). Of course the Employee Opinion Survey told another story too - it's been a while since I saw the results but I think it was something like two thirds of the 14% of people that said they had been bullied said it was by a manager.

I've no doubt that there is an issue. It seemed like it was being addressed earlier in the year because the policy documents were amended and relaunched and we definitely had a briefing on B&H in our group although I am not sure what happened in the operation. I suspect it got overtaken by events during the privatisation and negotiations but it seems to me to be back on the agenda again now. We'll see what happens in the New Year.

[General Mannerheim]

Not that I want to stick up for Brain (POSTMAN EDIT) but the last 5 cases I've been involved in have all been postie v postie ...but I will also say that out of that 5 only 1 case was where the management where not at least mainly responsible for not nipping it in the bud or dealing with the problem in the first instance and also I can only see more conflict with posties with this WCM shite and the resentment of people `only being a porter` etc.

[clashcityrocker]

I can only see more conflict with posties with this WCM shite and the resentment of people `only being a porter` etc.

What if we called them super porters?

[dvbuk55]

I don't doubt there is an issue of B&H but I do believe it's a question of perception of what exactly constitutes either. A manager may be under pressure to cut his costs and in so doing be rather more forceful than necessary to get the work completed. By the same token an individual may be sensitive to the way in which "requests" are made. In that vain I can understand why grievance cases don't travel as perhaps they should. The nature of the beast is uncertain really because where one person may shrug off the request another may take umbrage.

[fishtank]

The true extent of bullying & harassment is difficult to pinpoint but there is no doubt it's much higher than reported.

Both sides have been downplaying the problem for as long as I can remember,In Royal Mail's case it's obvious why but the union has one or two reasons itself.First of all some branches are very poorly run,very cliquish and don't want anything ruining their little social club so the spotlight that a large number of B&H cases might bring on a branch is unwelcome.

Secondly and perhaps slightly more understandable I have as a rep had instructions from branch and above to "steer" members away from the B&H procedure towards a grievance because the grievance procedure is a safer option for members without the risk of a reciprocal charge of bad faith.

Whether HQ is hiding away from the real scale of the problem is not for me to say but you can understand the thought process that a big,strong industrial union might not want to face up to the fact that it's members are getting kicked from pillar to post and that apparent strength is just an illusion.

All in all it's a very poor starting point if you genuinely want to tackle bullying & harassment in the workplace.

[Lincox]

In my case I was being treated differently to the rest of the staff in my delivery office as I was the only one cutting off. I was persistently being told (not asked) to flex and as I refused my manager became angry and rude over the phone and then began a campaign of harassing me whilst out on delivery, and checking my indoor activity whilst at the same time paying overtime to the rest of the staff on the days that I cut off, without querying their indoor activity, speeds etc.
As I said before it took me over a year to fight my case, which was downgraded by HR to a grievance as they said that this was a procedural matter. They refused me the right to pursue a case of B&H which it was. In the end I received a begrudging agreement that I had been treated unfairly. The Appeal Manager in the case, gave the DSM a list of what needed to be done to sort out the differences between myself and this manager, and nothing was done.
I do not think my case was a one off and you only have to read this forum threads to know that many people who choose to work to their contracted hours have gone through the same problems of harassment.
So you see Brain Fury their is a major problem which like most managers you choose to turn a blind eye to, and this is not a matter of how an individual interprets the way a manager makes a request, but is the way a manager reacts when an individual refuses to carry out that request when it is made contrary to national agreements, which in my case it was as a manager cannot ask an individual to flex just because he works to his hours, and not ask all the other individuals in that unit to flex at the same time.

[Brain Fury]

In my case I was being treated differently to the rest of the staff in my delivery office as I was the only one cutting off. I was persistently being told (not asked) to flex and as I refused my manager became angry and rude over the phone and then began a campaign of harassing me whilst out on delivery, and checking my indoor activity whilst at the same time paying overtime to the rest of the staff on the days that I cut off, without querying their indoor activity, speeds etc.
As I said before it took me over a year to fight my case, which was downgraded by HR to a grievance as they said that this was a procedural matter. They refused me the right to pursue a case of B&H which it was. In the end I received a begrudging agreement that I had been treated unfairly. The Appeal Manager in the case, gave the DSM a list of what needed to be done to sort out the differences between myself and this manager, and nothing was done.
I do not think my case was a one off and you only have to read this forum threads to know that many people who choose to work to their contracted hours have gone through the same problems of harassment.
So you see Brain Fury their is a major problem which like most managers you choose to turn a blind eye to, and this is not a matter of how an individual interprets the way a manager makes a request, but is the way a manager reacts when an individual refuses to carry out that request when it is made contrary to national agreements, which in my case it was as a manager cannot ask an individual to flex just because he works to his hours, and not ask all the other individuals in that unit to flex at the same time.

Can you point to where I said there was not a problem with B&H? You just see what you want to see - perhaps that's the problem.

On General M's point about managers nipping bullying between colleagues in the bud - yes managers should and are required do that but to say that they are mainly responsible in those cases is ridiculous - the main responsibility must always be the the person doing the bullying.

Oh and "Brain Fart" - insults in a thread about bullying?

[POSTMAN]

Oh and "Brain Fart" - insults in a thread about bullying?

Another post edited!!
Seriously ffs guys!

[dvbuk55]

Oh and "Brain Fart" - insults in a thread about bullying?

Another post edited!!
Seriously ffs guys!

Well call me old fashioned but I don't see that as bullying and that's probably part of the problem with B&H because it must be in the eye/perception of the beholder. It may be insulting but not bullying.

[pcb]

Perception plays a big part in B/H in today's society.