I shall be voting "yes"

[DirtyHarry]

Dingo, never mind what Royal Mail management want, or don't want.........The CWU should be doing something about the workloads we face.
The CWU shouldn't concern itself with Royal Mail's problem of how to deal with Door-2-Door crap, that's their problem.
Your, the CWU's, only problem should be preventing Royal Mail bosses making Door-2-Door shyte solely the problem of postal workers.
And that goes for any other shenanigans Royal Mail bosses have in store for us.

[Brain Fury]

The BT2010 agreement did not have a set span as if you choose one of the menu of options of less Saturdays then you could have a slightly longer span but I do get really concerned when someone comes on here and say that they have a 5 hour plus delivery span and have to ask why was this agreed. it's is unachievable and unrealistic unless you have a 4 day week.

If a span was agreed 3 years ago at 4 hrs 15 minutes and in that time your indoor performance has improved by 5-10% due to indoor methods and your traffic has declined by maybe another 10% further reducing your indoor workload what do you think is going to happen to the span?

That's what happens when you agree a span as an enabler....it has to keep enabling either full-time work or attendance patterns and with the focus on improving performance,packet automation on the horizon and structural letter decline continuing the spans are only going to go one way.

We need a new delivery model and it may have to be one that accepts a far higher proportion of part-time staff then anyone really wanted. 5 hr first to last letter delivery spans are physically unsustainable and that's something both parties just have to accept.

I think you're right that the choice is longer delivery spans or shorter attendance. I am not sure that RM will easily accept that delivery spans of over 5 hours are unsustainable. I was recently told that they have identified other postal authorities with average delivery spans of 5.5 hours. I'm not arguing one way or another but I do think that some people still believe they can "have their cake and eat it".

[dvbuk55]

The CWU have defended national pay negotiations despite numerous attempts to pay the rate of each geography area. No complusory redundancies , RRIS payments . Paid meal reliefs , MTSF . They are all good agreements.

The BT2010 agreement did not have a set span as if you choose one of the menu of options of less Saturdays then you could have a slightly longer span but I do get really concerned when someone comes on here and say that they have a 5 hour plus delivery span and have to ask why was this agreed. it's is unachievable and unrealistic unless you have a 4 day week.

Well that may be historically correct dingo but that doesn't excuse the CWUs current stance of embedding itself with the company. As for 5 hour delivery spans being unrealistic - then why did the BT2010 agreement negate the 3.5 hour delivery span in place of the delivery enabler - did you seriously believe RM would be reasonable if so there is a childish naiveté within the ranks of the CWU hierarchy that is quite alarming.

[DirtyHarry]

I do think that some people still believe they can "have their cake and eat it".

And those 'people' largely consist of managers not even putting in a third of the graft that postal workers do on a daily basis.
Christ almighty, man.....What are you advocating, that postal workers in deliveries continue as they are, with all the adverse health issues the workloads you want to impose on us, cause?
This cannot be allowed to go on. As always, it's only too easy for those not faced with a work-till-you-drop scenario, to tell those that do, tough titty.

[dvbuk55]

I do think that some people still believe they can "have their cake and eat it".

And those 'people' largely consist of managers not even putting in a third of the graft that postal workers do on a daily basis.
Christ almighty, man.....What are you advocating, that postal workers in deliveries continue as they are, with all the adverse health issues the workloads you want to impose on us, cause?
This cannot be allowed to go on. As always, it's only too easy for those not faced with a work-till-you-drop scenario, to tell those that do, tough titty.

TBH DH I pretty much think BF should be ignored because I don't believe he's anywhere near the frontline, I think he bases his opinion on real managers anecdotes.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

I was recently told that they have identified other postal authorities with average delivery spans of 5.5 hours.

The Americans and the Australians are 2 I know of - Both have kerbside deliveries

[Pinky 1]

The BT2010 agreement did not have a set span as if you choose one of the menu of options of less Saturdays then you could have a slightly longer span but I do get really concerned when someone comes on here and say that they have a 5 hour plus delivery span and have to ask why was this agreed. it's is unachievable and unrealistic unless you have a 4 day week.

If a span was agreed 3 years ago at 4 hrs 15 minutes and in that time your indoor performance has improved by 5-10% due to indoor methods and your traffic has declined by maybe another 10% further reducing your indoor workload what do you think is going to happen to the span?

That's what happens when you agree a span as an enabler....it has to keep enabling either full-time work or attendance patterns and with the focus on improving performance,packet automation on the horizon and structural letter decline continuing the spans are only going to go one way.

We need a new delivery model and it may have to be one that accepts a far higher proportion of part-time staff then anyone really wanted. 5 hr first to last letter delivery spans are physically unsustainable and that's something both parties just have to accept.

My delivery span, including a 40 minute meal relief, is already at 6 hours 15 minutes.
I'm on a 5 day week.
Will this new agreement help to alleviate some of the pressure i'm currently under, or add to it ?

Answers on a postcard ................

[clashcityrocker]

We need a new delivery model and it may have to be one that accepts a far higher proportion of part-time staff then anyone really wanted.

The problem then is how do you get to that position.
Buy downs will probably never be in sufficient demand which leaves VR and the associated costs.
Or abuse of the attendance procedure to reduce the f/t headcount, or taking your chances in a tribunal following draconian use of the conduct code, or an increase in ill-health retirement.
And an increased p/t workforce will inevitably weaken the position of the CWU which in some cases barely acknowledges the existence of their p/t members.
Next year doesn't look very rosy despite the legally binding agreement.

[RTP]

The CWU have defended national pay negotiations despite numerous attempts to pay the rate of each geography area. No complusory redundancies , RRIS payments . Paid meal reliefs , MTSF . They are all good agreements.

The BT2010 agreement did not have a set span as if you choose one of the menu of options of less Saturdays then you could have a slightly longer span but I do get really concerned when someone comes on here and say that they have a 5 hour plus delivery span and have to ask why was this agreed. it's is unachievable and unrealistic unless you have a 4 day week.

Well that may be historically correct dingo but that doesn't excuse the CWUs current stance of embedding itself with the company. As for 5 hour delivery spans being unrealistic - then why did the BT2010 agreement negate the 3.5 hour delivery span in place of the delivery enabler - did you seriously believe RM would be reasonable if so there is a childish naiveté within the ranks of the CWU hierarchy that is quite alarming.

It also begs the question.

Why was there no cap set on delivery spans for 5 day weeks?

I don't expect an answer from dingo, because he still hasn't answered why there was no cap set on BSI and why there is still no cap set on BSI in the new agreement.

[dvbuk55]

[Why was there no cap set on delivery spans for 5 day weeks?

I don't expect an answer from dingo, because he still hasn't answered why there was no cap set on BSI and why there is still no cap set on BSI in the new agreement.

Simple really they quote bell, book and candle and at the end of the day they have that age old excuse "the members voted for it".

[britwrit]

I was recently told that they have identified other postal authorities with average delivery spans of 5.5 hours.

The Americans and the Australians are 2 I know of - Both have kerbside deliveries

First, I (heart) America!

But except for walks in cities, and other selected areas, don't posties from the USPS spend most of their time zipping around in their nifty little trucks?

[OnAFlyer]

The BT2010 agreement did not have a set span as if you choose one of the menu of options of less Saturdays then you could have a slightly longer span but I do get really concerned when someone comes on here and say that they have a 5 hour plus delivery span and have to ask why was this agreed. it's is unachievable and unrealistic unless you have a 4 day week.

If a span was agreed 3 years ago at 4 hrs 15 minutes and in that time your indoor performance has improved by 5-10% due to indoor methods and your traffic has declined by maybe another 10% further reducing your indoor workload what do you think is going to happen to the span?

That's what happens when you agree a span as an enabler....it has to keep enabling either full-time work or attendance patterns and with the focus on improving performance,packet automation on the horizon and structural letter decline continuing the spans are only going to go one way.

We need a new delivery model and it may have to be one that accepts a far higher proportion of part-time staff then anyone really wanted. 5 hr first to last letter delivery spans are physically unsustainable and that's something both parties just have to accept.

My delivery span, including a 40 minute meal relief, is already at 6 hours 15 minutes.
I'm on a 5 day week.
Will this new agreement help to alleviate some of the pressure i'm currently under, or add to it ?

Answers on a postcard ................

Are you working over every day? Your delivery is nearly 2 hours longer than mine, at least it takes you 2 hours longer anyway so where is the time coming from?

[Pinky 1]

The BT2010 agreement did not have a set span as if you choose one of the menu of options of less Saturdays then you could have a slightly longer span but I do get really concerned when someone comes on here and say that they have a 5 hour plus delivery span and have to ask why was this agreed. it's is unachievable and unrealistic unless you have a 4 day week.

If a span was agreed 3 years ago at 4 hrs 15 minutes and in that time your indoor performance has improved by 5-10% due to indoor methods and your traffic has declined by maybe another 10% further reducing your indoor workload what do you think is going to happen to the span?

That's what happens when you agree a span as an enabler....it has to keep enabling either full-time work or attendance patterns and with the focus on improving performance,packet automation on the horizon and structural letter decline continuing the spans are only going to go one way.

We need a new delivery model and it may have to be one that accepts a far higher proportion of part-time staff then anyone really wanted. 5 hr first to last letter delivery spans are physically unsustainable and that's something both parties just have to accept.

My delivery span, including a 40 minute meal relief, is already at 6 hours 15 minutes.
I'm on a 5 day week.
Will this new agreement help to alleviate some of the pressure i'm currently under, or add to it ?

Answers on a postcard ................

Are you working over every day? Your delivery is nearly 2 hours longer than mine, at least it takes you 2 hours longer anyway so where is the time coming from?

I'm on a 7hr 48min day, so have 1hr 33mins to throw off and tie up my duty.
Yes, i go over and book most days.
Like i asked, will this new agreement benefit me in any way ?

Thought not.

[Martin Walsh]

RTP the reason there was no mention of a limit of BSI or a cap or a level was that delivery offices up and down the UK are at different levels.

Remember in 1999 when the Performance Bonus Scheme was introduced their was the following bands based on EP. High Performance which meant any office over 105 EP , then Band A if you were at 90 , Band B if your office was at 85 , Band C if your office was at 80 and then Band D was offices with 75. It even suggested that if a delivery office went below 75 for 3 months they would lose bonus.

DPMS measure the EPs then and now it is the IWT. The EP for some offices are well over 100 and others well below 60. A number of things can effect your ep as we know.

However as Bob will testify he has said this consistently at briefings and members meeting that there was never an agreement to go to 100 BSi and he even at one point said the proposal should only be for a 5 % improvement on your current EP.

For whatever reasons some units agreed to go too 100bsi some even believed when the upper decile was agreed they would get jobs back which was disturbing to say the least. Other offices have negotiated what they believe was a reasonable move in inward performance which is what the agreement allows you to do.

However if anyone really believes that Royal Mail were ever going to put a cap on EP improvements when some offices are allegedly working at 130 Bsi then they are clearly not living in the real world. Some of those offices when checked have loads of people starting before their time and cutting corners and clearly give a false productivity rating.

[Martin Walsh]

Pinky you could look at it this way , that the current status quo way of working is not doing you any favours and rejecting the agreement will not help in at all in your current way of working.

Whereas besides the Legal Protections which contrary to some on here are good ,and the pay award is very good in this current economy. You also have the following

A review into deliveries including a review in offices workload , traffic , revision plans.

A review into whether traffic recording is accurate.

Whether D2D is being give the work credit and time required

Whether absorption is being applied fairly and in line with current agreements

There will be a review to see whether the targets the business has set are realistic and achievable.

The work plan is set to change again and the current work plan will be reviewed.

There will be new incentive schemes for delivery employees.


Now the alternative is that you continue to do what you are doing now but as your unhappy currently what have you got to lose by voting yes ?