proposed deal loses delivery issues

[Socialist postie]

Royal Mail/CWU: “a fresh approach” to delivery issues: lose them
http://www.workerspower.co.uk/2013/12/r ... lose-them/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It’s been widely known, since the 4 November national briefing of local officials and full-time reps, that outdoor delivery was the big sticking point in negotiations. Not surprisingly since this is the most difficult to automate, and competition is hotting up with rival TNT rolling out its city centre delivery network.

Despite weeks of talks, Royal Mail clearly wouldn’t be moved on its plans to impose budgets by hiking flexibility and absorption, efficiency speed-ups and the pressure and bullying that goes with it. And it looks like CWU negotiators blinked first. A 26 November Letter to Branches already stated that differences over “delivery workload issues” hadn’t been resolved so “a fresh approach” was being considered – what this hinted at has now become clear, delivery issues have been left out of the agreement.

1. There is nothing at all about impossible 100 percent BSI efficiency standards, where computer programmes plan hours budgets using figures that assume workers work constantly at the top rate of speed like in a factory. 100 BSI is used by planners to slash hours and by managers as a whip to speed up workers. The same goes for the walk speeds, throw in times, and other unachievable standards agreed in the past by the postal executive and used to bully workers by managers.

2. There is nothing on the right to refuse to work overtime which is the number one cause of bullying on the shopfloor right now and number one issue for staff and reps – management bullying was the one issue that Royal Mail CEO Moya Greene was loudly booed on when she spoke at the 12 September national reps meeting. Despite the “Royal Mail and CWU National Joint Statement – Fairness, Dignity and Respect in Delivery” agreed in March 2013, bullying has increased sparking strikes, sit-ins and walkouts throughout the summer and autumn, most recently at Crewe. That shows how seriously Royal Mail takes the issue and paper agreements.

3. A “clarification” clause about the thirty minute flexibility rule has clarified nothing, just repeated what has been written many times before (for instance the Joint Statement above). The 2007 flexibility agreement allows managers to “request” (ie order) staff work thirty minutes extra “when traffic volumes are unexpectedly high or resourcing issues arise”. Originally the official union line was that this was for for exceptions like where road traffic accidents blocked mail wagons getting to the office on time, ie almost never, but in the last couple of years in many areas this has been extended to covering first day absences, and managers push it even further.

All this “clarification” will do is enshrine this state of affairs, so that emergency absorption becomes the norm, after all people ring in sick all the time and the traffic is always up and down, with bulk postings coming through without any warning. When workers object its too much work, they will be told they can’t work to their time (2) because they are inefficient (1), just like now.

Instead of pinning Royal Mail down on these crucial issues, the agreement instead promises a review starting in January. But if the new agreement can’t deal with issues like BSI then how can a review resolve them? Royal Mail might make a few token concessions but it won’t retreat from its efficiency drive, its more likely CWU negotiators will make yet more concessions. The review will be overseen by the government mediation body ACAS, with a posh lawyer or government bureaucrat in charge, where efficiency will be the number one priority not fairness. Till then “all existing national agreements, joint statements and guidelines covering delivery will be adhered to and remain in place.” That’s a green light to every office manager to keep up the pressure on delivery staff.

Bad deal for delivery

The pay aspect of the deal would be even better if posties got a pound every time the agreement talks about efficiency, mentioned nearly thirty times! Royal Mail and the CWU are seeking “further improvements to efficiency” together. A review will aim “to identify efficient and fair ways to align resources to workload in delivery” the holy grail of CWU officials since the market opened in 2006, and just as impossible to find – the fairness always gets lost in the drive for efficiency. Targets will of course be “realistic achievable and sustainable” just like in 2010 and the 2007 flexibility agreement, another meaningless phrase in every one of these agreements. All this will leave many delivery workers with the feeling that the target has been pinned to their back!

And other aspects of the deal will hit delivery workers particularly hard, like the get-out clauses that make a mockery of the five year “protections” against zero hours contracts, two tier workforce, and franchising. With TNT rolling out city centre delivery operations based on low wages and zero hour contracts, and Amazon building local hubs so it can use cheaper local delivery companies, Royal Mail bosses will put huge pressure on CWU negotiators to make concessions or face the company pulling out of the protections one by one – which means they aren’t really protections.

The fact is agreement has left delivery issues in the ditch, for us to fight over after the deal is balloted on – not a good sign. Delivery office staff should mark it return to sender with a big No vote.

For an analysis of the full deal read this: A workers guide to the deal: the small print

[Socialist postie]

Any other delivery issues that should have been addressed by the deal other than those in the article?

[houseoflords]

I shall be voting NO!!!!

[Martin Walsh]

Clearly there are some who have not either read past joint statements on bullying or not understood them

there is an agreement signed by mike Newby for Royal Mail and Bob Gibson dated 15th March titled National Joint Statement Fairness , Dignity and Respect in Delivery.

It states employes are not required to work beyond their scheduled finish times if they do not wish to do so.

Where individuals agree to work beyond their scheduled finish time they will receive the appropriate level of remuneration

It is covered already in this agreement and holds the field.

Now what is it that delivery members want in an agreement , Royal Mail are not going to stop absorbing , Royal Mail are not going to stop wanting efficiency.

What the delivery agreement is there to do is too review the what has happened and try and find out the truth as Royal Mail are calming things are not so bad.

Equally the CWU Branch's agreed to a new delivery blueprint for the further including new revisions processes , how to deal the increases in parcels , resourcing in the future and the fact that TNT will take some of our Mail.

The long terms delivery stuff was never going to be resolved in this agreement it was never the intention.

[BernardBresslaw]

It states employes are not required to work beyond their scheduled finish times if they do not wish to do so.

The problem is dingo that the bullying of staff into working beyond their finish times is common place and takes many forms. Management either target workers on temporary contracts, and subtly threaten them that their contracts will not be extended if they don't help out, or single out veteran workers, and watch them exclusively until they make a mistake, and then punish them as fully as their powers allow. We want an end to bullying NOT an end to absorption. It speaks volumes on how out of touch union leaders are, that they think this isn't going on, preferring to believe RMs version of events rather than their own members. It just illustrates how entrenched the union has become with senior management.

Where individuals agree to work beyond their scheduled finish time they will receive the appropriate level of remuneration

It is covered already in this agreement and holds the field.

Erm sorry it isn't and doesn't. What happens, in reality, is your manager turns round and says 'well, you finished early a week last Tuesday, so I'll just pay you for the half hour rather than the 90 minutes you worked.' This is happening in offices up and down the country, yet the union keeps bleating on about its selfish workers just wanting 'job and finish' back and an 'end to absorption' when all we want is to be treated fairly and for this air of bullying to be stopped!

[Martin Walsh]

Look Bernard how can you make an assumption that it is widespread ? You might say it is in your office but how do you come to the conclusion it is widespread elsewhere ?

You claim you want to reject the agreement , yet the agreement your disagreeing with was agreed in March 2013 and your saying it is not occurring in your office. But what has been done to ensure it is done in your office. You see there is no point having any agreement if you don't force management to adhere to it.

The new agreement also will ensure that the standards within this agreement will be deployed everywhere in the delivery network.

[goinpostal]

Look Bernard how can you make an assumption that it is widespread ? You might say it is in your office but how do you come to the conclusion it is widespread elsewhere ?

Bernard is dead right and so's that article, bullying imo is a massive issue and its all related to absorption, thats why so many reps are being targetted because they try to stand up for people. Haven't you been following all these walkouts and strikes and suspensions Dingo? Its been going on for a year now!

[Martin Walsh]

Look Bernard how can you make an assumption that it is widespread ? You might say it is in your office but how do you come to the conclusion it is widespread elsewhere ?

Bernard is dead right and so's that article, bullying imo is a massive issue and its all related to absorption, thats why so many reps are being targetted because they try to stand up for people. Haven't you been following all these walkouts and strikes and suspensions Dingo? Its been going on for a year now!

I have been involved in two and they were not down to bullying. So what ones are your referring too ?

[BernardBresslaw]

Look Bernard how can you make an assumption that it is widespread ? You might say it is in your office but how do you come to the conclusion it is widespread elsewhere ?

I base it on reports on walkouts across the country, including a local office here, which had a office-wide 2-day walk-out last year, due to the office rep being suspended, along with countless reports on here, proving that it is a deliberate tactic employed across the board, by management. Why all these walk outs if everything is fine and rosy?

There is also the raw statistical data, that shows that reports of incidents of bullying are at an all time high. The figures don't lie. The union are doing nothing about it, and this new agreement changes nothing.

[Martin Walsh]

The fairness agreement invited all employees who believed they are in recipient of treatment which constitutes bullying , harassment and intimidation to to register their concern via the agreed procedure.

There has been bullying and it is out of order and needs to be stopped but what the actual level is difficult to gauge.

In terms of walks outs the one at wimbledon was over the wrongful dismissals of two individuals one on an HCT walk and the other a driver under mails integrity.

We had another one for the same thing. Not all walks outs are over bullying cases but normally are a result of the wrong decisions by managers and executive action.

[goinpostal]

The fairness agreement invited all employees who believed they are in recipient of treatment which constitutes bullying , harassment and intimidation to to register their concern via the agreed procedure.

There has been bullying and it is out of order and needs to be stopped but what the actual level is difficult to gauge.

In terms of walks outs the one at wimbledon was over the wrongful dismissals of two individuals one on an HCT walk and the other a driver under mails integrity.

We had another one for the same thing. Not all walks outs are over bullying cases but normally are a result of the wrong decisions by managers and executive action.

The actual level isn't difficult to gauge as Bernards right about the statistics, no less than Dave Ward and Bob Gibson said it was at a record high and unaccpetable, at least when the build up to the strike was on, its all gone quiet now because they want to sell us the deal.

In my area there's one office where they had five B&H against managers all turned down, in my experience that's typical and that's why no one bothers to put a complaint in, its managers investigating managers.

The root of it is the big efficiency drive at the moment, absorption is part of that, BSI is part of it, it all means people demand to work to their time because theres too much work being put on them and managers try to stop them. If thats not sorted in the agreement then it wont be sorted.

[bigbazza]

We are all doomed and will be working part time on minimum wage or on dole with in 10 years or sooner.

[jack]

Look Bernard how can you make an assumption that it is widespread ? You might say it is in your office but how do you come to the conclusion it is widespread elsewhere ?

It is and has been in the offices I have worked in.

[fishtank]

Look Bernard how can you make an assumption that it is widespread ?

According to their own employee survey 14% of staff have seen or experienced bullying in the last 12 months and of those 62% had seen or experienced bullying from a manager.

Just for clarification 14% of 150,000 staff is 21,000 staff and 62% of 21,000 staff is 13,020 staff.
I take it that's not widespread enough for some.

[goinpostal]

Can understand how you feel Baz but we're still a strong union, the problem is the agreement actually means we'll head downwards towards TNT that much faster.