JaneM wrote:The briefing i went to,Bob Gibson was truculent and very defensive throughout
If I was Bob I would show a little more humility towards the reps who have had to clean up the mess on delivery over the last 4 or 5 years.
Did he mention waving agreements in manager's faces again?
At the Bristol briefing he did mention that a lot of the problems were down to local reps accepting 100 BSI which is a bit of a shocker as our office was one of the early ones into the delivery methods revision and I brought up the 100 BSI concern lots of times and was told by my area rep that all the offices were using it and we just had to accept it.
zipmeister wrote:At the Bristol briefing he did mention that a lot of the problems were down to local reps accepting 100 BSI which is a bit of a shocker as our office was one of the early ones into the delivery methods revision and I brought up the 100 BSI concern lots of times and was told by my area rep that all the offices were using it and we just had to accept it.
The DSM told me only last week that we should be using 100 BSI now and when i questioned him over who says so he said these figures have come from your divisional rep.
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.
zipmeister wrote:At the Bristol briefing he did mention that a lot of the problems were down to local reps accepting 100 BSI which is a bit of a shocker as our office was one of the early ones into the delivery methods revision and I brought up the 100 BSI concern lots of times and was told by my area rep that all the offices were using it and we just had to accept it.
The DSM told me only last week that we should be using 100 BSI now and when i questioned him over who says so he said these figures have come from your divisional rep.
Ah yes! The enemy within, those who purport to represent members providing it doesn't interfere with their little number. You have to wonder why all these half truths and supposed agreed principles are so often NOT in the agreement. Is it any wonder that deliveries is in such a state when you can't get the facts from the Area and Div reps in some cases.
if a DOM told me anything I would want to question and confirm it is true.
I can tell you that there is no agreement is 100BSi and if area reps or anyone else have told you they are wrong.
On resourcing there is an agreement between Bob Gibson and Rob. Jenson that what ever your revision EP was set at is what your resource at. So if it was set at 80 then you resource at 80 and not 100.
I know one area of the UK who wrongly believed by agreeing an 100bsi that they would get more full time jobs back when the upper decile was agreed.
None of the offices I represent have moved more then a maximum of 15 points in performance. Why any office would agree to go from 75 to an 100 is beyond me. Remember your revision is not agreed by CWU HQs it is agreed by the local rep and the members. I know what I would say to any rep who told me as a local rep to go to an 100 and my members would back me.
if a DOM told me anything I would want to question and confirm it is true.
It wasn't a DOM it was the DSM and yes of course I questioned it but it's rather hard to say f all when the piece of paper with all the figures on it and he is waving it in front of your face, has the divisional(not area as you put) email heading on it and he has shown you the said email conversation.
And if you think the failings of the last farce are all down to local reps and the members it just goes to show how effing out of touch the chain of command are.
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.
dvbuk55 wrote:Ah yes! If only we all lived in neverland
You live in the land where everyone else is to blame !
No dingo, you live in a wonderland where the union purports to have strength and purpose when in fact they have neither. Its certainly not the world in which most of us work............now there's a nasty word.
To the contrary I don't and if you have evidence that a divisional rep has done this well you should report it too union headquarters.
I cannot understand why anyone would do this as even if they were weak they could hide behind Bobs agreement with Jensen.
However in the same way as I accept that it's not all the fault of the local rep , you have to also accept that bob at every briefing including two briefings of local reps has said there is no agreement on 100 bsi yet it would seem lots of offices have agreed that figure.
dingo wrote:However in the same way as I accept that it's not all the fault of the local rep , you have to also accept that bob at every briefing including two briefings of local reps has said there is no agreement on 100 bsi yet it would seem lots of offices have agreed that figure.
Bob's been playing that same tune for 3 years now, Any rep knows that having "no agreement" on something is not the same as having an agreement and the fact is there is no agreement on any particular BSI figure apart from the "Setting the Indoor Performance for Delivery Offices" Guidance which states...
All units should plan on the basis of improving or at least maintaining their current performance
Now calculating your current performance accurately is a difficult thing because you have to rely on your Dom for a lot of the figures and a fair bit of knowledge is required as well as a decent amount of release time and preferably branch support so it's hardly surprising that some offices where none of this was available may have been presented with current performance figures that were above 100BSI.
What happens then bearing in mind you have to plan on the basis of at least maintaining performance?
This new agreement is also full of anomalies like leaving all the negotiating to the unit rep even to the extent of calling strikes...........like that's going to happen in the majority of offices. Deliveries are being thrown to the wolves in the main and anyone in deliveries who votes yes won't get what they deserve, oh no, they'll get what they're given in whatever shape or form Royal Mail decides.
Does anyone think this "incentive scheme" isn't already waiting in the wings to be unveiled, or performance issues and growth doesn't already have a percentage value and that a figure for savings doesn't already exist? Of course they do, they just don't want to produce what is going to be unpalatable before the vote.
If RM wasn't expecting great changes who thinks the 9.3% would have been on the table from the outset plus the £200, which wasn't a bribe of course and the long debate to increase the back pay was by accident and not design.
The members have been played by the union and Royal Mail to their mutual advantage but not ours.
Dvbuk local strikes have always been called by the local office that's why there called local strikes. This agreement changes nothing.
You have to go through the IR Framework before you ballot so currently it is after stage 3. You Branch secretary has to write the request as is now and the divisional rep has to give a report based on his involvement.
That's is how local ballots come about. This agreement changes nothing in this respect. However Dvbuk don't let the truth get in the way.
dingo wrote:Dvbuk local strikes have always been called by the local office that's why there called local strikes. This agreement changes nothing.
You have to go through the IR Framework before you ballot so currently it is after stage 3. You Branch secretary has to write the request as is now and the divisional rep has to give a report based on his involvement.
That's is how local ballots come about. This agreement changes nothing in this respect. However Dvbuk don't let the truth get in the way.
The truth dingo? In the words of Jack Nicholson "you can't handle the truth" - oddly enough the similarities in the story are relevant, we are "on the wall" in effect and you are at "home" chattering and nothing changes on deliveries...............oh except more chattering.
What about a National strike dingo, has nothing changed there either, I mean how would that be called under the new agreement- if ever?
I see the solicitor didn't manage to drag his backside outside of London to assuage the fear of the northern members and Bob Gibson didn't manage to get to Manchester - was his satnav on the blink or could he not be arsed.
Dingo, is Bob and Jensens agreement in respect of BSI, something that has been negotiated within the national agreements, or is it just a cosy chat that they can fall back upon if units do go to disagreement over the BSI imposed in the unit.
