Courier

[Brain Fury]

The letter about LWTs made me laugh. RM's reply didn't even answer the main question, just gave some froth about how they'd been thoroughly tested by RM & CWU and were initially meant to be pulled but can now be pushed as well, since they've realised that it's obvious that they're designed to be used that way, presumably.

Nothing about whether using a LWT, even when the load doesn't require it, causes more H&S issues than it solves though. I think I know why.

Actually the were designed to be pulled. And as the article says the LWT was thoroughly tested including a full ergonomic assessment and involving the CWU.

Were they designed to be pulled? Explain to me how it makes sense to move a load without being able to see it.
What kind of imbecile would do that? In the US they have similar trolleys. They push them. As for the tests. Nobody is saying they don't work when they're required but nobody wants to answer the question regarding repeated use of a trolley when it isn't required. Why is it compulsary to use one, even when the load is too light to justify it? It's obvious that it causes more H&S issues than it solves when used in those circumstances, so why are we still made to use them in those particular circumstances? Answer that question.

They were designed to be pulled. Like golf trolleys. I think the US trolley has 4 wheels

I think it is logical to say they might not need to be used where there is a very light load but it's hard to police that and it invites continual arguments about the definition of "light" and when "it is required". I don't see how using a LWT with a light load causes H&S issues but then I am not a user or ergonomist so I can't really comment.

[Brain Fury]

well said that man! talk about stating the obvious,they do tend to over complicate things do they not.?and as for getting the vans up to how they were? well mine was obviously a stock car in a former life.it just doesn't happen,who are they kidding?its another world far removed from what goes on day in day out in most offices up and down the country,some are far too efficient for there own good,maybe the odd visit from so called top brass to offices to see what really goes on and how things can be done better?

If it was obvious you would all be doing it. I thought the idea was that it gave people who actually do the job the opportunity to say how it can be done better. It seems that the pervading culture is not to get involved and to denigrate people who do.

[DB1100]

Deliver to a neighbour is going to be my mission if they ever get round to walk test me,is there a limit to how many neighbours you can try? 10 or 20 maybe or are you allowed to go on the next street if their garden backs on to the delivery address?

[Hitcher]

I don't see how using a LWT with a light load causes H&S issues but then I am not a user or ergonomist so I can't really comment.

If it was then you'd never be able to finish your loops when the bags are lighter!

[maisymoo04]

I must say hands up here, I do read it , its on our bog floor now side the bog

[OnAFlyer]

Deliver to a neighbour is going to be my mission if they ever get round to walk test me,is there a limit to how many neighbours you can try? 10 or 20 maybe or are you allowed to go on the next street if their garden backs on to the delivery address?

It would be hilarious wouldn't it. These clowns haven't got a clue, Moya is in every single courier spouting about deliver to neighbour, in this months she says 'some seem to think its optional'.

Yes it is optional Moya, it's up to us to decide whether any parcels are going to be safe with neighbours, not you.

She keeps banging on about delivering parcels first time, yet at the most important time of the year (Christmas) we don't get enough hours put in for the parcels to even leave the office for days, never mind actually get delivered the first day.

[DB1100]

Deliver to a neighbour is going to be my mission if they ever get round to walk test me,is there a limit to how many neighbours you can try? 10 or 20 maybe or are you allowed to go on the next street if their garden backs on to the delivery address?

It would be hilarious wouldn't it. These clowns haven't got a clue, Moya is in every single courier spouting about deliver to neighbour, in this months she says 'some seem to think its optional'.

Yes it is optional Moya, it's up to us to decide whether any parcels are going to be safe with neighbours, not you.

She keeps banging on about delivering parcels first time, yet at the most important time of the year (Christmas) we don't get enough hours put in for the parcels to even leave the office for days, never mind actually get delivered the first day.

I know it's crazy,what a way to run a firm,she is so out of touch it is laughable

[venger]

I don't deliver to a neighbour unless there's a note on the door asking me to do so. I don't have time to knock a neighbours door and 95% of them also have jobs and aren't in.

[Sidley]

I'll DTN if it suits me, have the time and I'm in the mood. You'd be surprised how infrequently the occasion arises when those criteria are met.

[S6 Stroller]

The letter about LWTs made me laugh. RM's reply didn't even answer the main question, just gave some froth about how they'd been thoroughly tested by RM & CWU and were initially meant to be pulled but can now be pushed as well, since they've realised that it's obvious that they're designed to be used that way, presumably.

Nothing about whether using a LWT, even when the load doesn't require it, causes more H&S issues than it solves though. I think I know why.

Actually the were designed to be pulled. And as the article says the LWT was thoroughly tested including a full ergonomic assessment and involving the CWU.

Were they designed to be pulled? Explain to me how it makes sense to move a load without being able to see it.
What kind of imbecile would do that? In the US they have similar trolleys. They push them. As for the tests. Nobody is saying they don't work when they're required but nobody wants to answer the question regarding repeated use of a trolley when it isn't required. Why is it compulsory to use one, even when the load is too light to justify it? It's obvious that it causes more H&S issues than it solves when used in those circumstances, so why are we still made to use them in those particular circumstances? Answer that question.

They were designed to be pulled. Like golf trolleys. I think the US trolley has 4 wheels

I think it is logical to say they might not need to be used where there is a very light load but it's hard to police that and it invites continual arguments about the definition of "light" and when "it is required". I don't see how using a LWT with a light load causes H&S issues but then I am not a user or ergonomist so I can't really comment.

This being RM, I don't doubt they were actually designed to be pulled but you have to admit, that's a pretty silly idea. Given the places they're going to be used i.e. pavements, squeezing past cars and pedestrians, crossing busy roads etc, not being able to see the widest part of the trolley whilst moving forward is not exactly an advantage is it? Anyway, the PUSH/PULL argument isn't really what concerns me. Moving on...

This is not a grey area. It is black and white. Using a LWT when the load doesn't justify it, creates more potential H&S hazards than it solves. That is a fact, not just my opinion. Carrying a light bag i.e. one that falls well within your own personal load carrying capabilities, creates minimal H&S risk. The reasoning for LWTs is to take the weight off our shoulders. Do you see where I'm going with this? It makes no sense to make it compulsory to use one in these circumstances. In fact, I'd say it is highly irresponsible of an employer to do so. We're all adults aren't we? I know what I can carry comfortably. We're not idiots. Why continually treat us like we are children?

Time to own up. It was me that sent the letter in. This may come as a huge shock but the first paragraph was edited and, credit where it's due, quite cleverly. It took out the part that mentioned about my mate, a vastly experienced independent H&S Officer (the bloke mentioned in the second paragraph) who confirmed my thoughts on this subject are 100% correct. Clever editing. RM really wouldn't want it to be known that somebody who is vastly experienced in this field and has no axe to grind, says that compulsory use of trolleys when they're not required, is ridiculous and potentially very dangerous. Imagine them printing that letter in the Courier. I knew it wouldn't get in without being edited but, and this is a big but, that edit is a tacit acknowledgement that my argument is valid and RM knows it is.

[S6 Stroller]

I don't see how using a LWT with a light load causes H&S issues but then I am not a user or ergonomist so I can't really comment.

If it was then you'd never be able to finish your loops when the bags are lighter!

Feel free to re-submit this comment when you have figured out how to express what you actually mean via a keyboard

[Hitcher]

It's simple - when you get to the end of your loop you'll only have a few bundles left but by your reckoning that is now unsafe.

Also, in the three years we've been on P&L I've hardly ever had a loop with so little in it you could carry it.

[S6 Stroller]

It's simple - when you get to the end of your loop you'll only have a few bundles left but by your reckoning that is now unsafe.

Also, in the three years we've been on P&L I've hardly ever had a loop with so little in it you could carry it.

You get to the end of a loop and have a few bundles left? I think you're doing something wrong mate. I still have no idea what point you're trying to make.

As regards you never having a light loop in 3 years of P&L, this discussion clearly doesn't apply to you then does it?

[Brain Fury]

The letter about LWTs made me laugh. RM's reply didn't even answer the main question, just gave some froth about how they'd been thoroughly tested by RM & CWU and were initially meant to be pulled but can now be pushed as well, since they've realised that it's obvious that they're designed to be used that way, presumably.

Nothing about whether using a LWT, even when the load doesn't require it, causes more H&S issues than it solves though. I think I know why.

Actually the were designed to be pulled. And as the article says the LWT was thoroughly tested including a full ergonomic assessment and involving the CWU.

Were they designed to be pulled? Explain to me how it makes sense to move a load without being able to see it.
What kind of imbecile would do that? In the US they have similar trolleys. They push them. As for the tests. Nobody is saying they don't work when they're required but nobody wants to answer the question regarding repeated use of a trolley when it isn't required. Why is it compulsory to use one, even when the load is too light to justify it? It's obvious that it causes more H&S issues than it solves when used in those circumstances, so why are we still made to use them in those particular circumstances? Answer that question.

They were designed to be pulled. Like golf trolleys. I think the US trolley has 4 wheels

I think it is logical to say they might not need to be used where there is a very light load but it's hard to police that and it invites continual arguments about the definition of "light" and when "it is required". I don't see how using a LWT with a light load causes H&S issues but then I am not a user or ergonomist so I can't really comment.

This being RM, I don't doubt they were actually designed to be pulled but you have to admit, that's a pretty silly idea. Given the places they're going to be used i.e. pavements, squeezing past cars and pedestrians, crossing busy roads etc, not being able to see the widest part of the trolley whilst moving forward is not exactly an advantage is it? Anyway, the PUSH/PULL argument isn't really what concerns me. Moving on...

This is not a grey area. It is black and white. Using a LWT when the load doesn't justify it, creates more potential H&S hazards than it solves. That is a fact, not just my opinion. Carrying a light bag i.e. one that falls well within your own personal load carrying capabilities, creates minimal H&S risk. The reasoning for LWTs is to take the weight off our shoulders. Do you see where I'm going with this? It makes no sense to make it compulsory to use one in these circumstances. In fact, I'd say it is highly irresponsible of an employer to do so. We're all adults aren't we? I know what I can carry comfortably. We're not idiots. Why continually treat us like we are children?

Time to own up. It was me that sent the letter in. This may come as a huge shock but the first paragraph was edited and, credit where it's due, quite cleverly. It took out the part that mentioned about my mate, a vastly experienced independent H&S Officer (the bloke mentioned in the second paragraph) who confirmed my thoughts on this subject are 100% correct. Clever editing. RM really wouldn't want it to be known that somebody who is vastly experienced in this field and has no axe to grind, says that compulsory use of trolleys when they're not required, is ridiculous and potentially very dangerous. Imagine them printing that letter in the Courier. I knew it wouldn't get in without being edited but, and this is a big but, that edit is a tacit acknowledgement that my argument is valid and RM knows it is.

I don't have the expertise to argue with the opinion that using a LWT with a light load creates H&S problems but even if your mate agrees it is still an opinion not a fact. I still don't understand what the risks are though. There are very experienced people in RM too and they apparently have a different opinion.

Edit: I've read the Courier letter again and although I obviously haven't seen the full version, it seems to get across the point that your mate, a healthy and safety officer, says they should be pushed and not pulled. The answer makes it pretty clear that RM doesn't share his opinion.

You may be able to take a sensible approach to managing the weight you are delivering but I'm afraid in my experience there are too many people who wouldn't to leave it up to personal choice.

[Hitcher]

You know exactly what I'm getting at - the weight goes down as you deliver so the weight nearer the end of your loops is (according to your mate) a health risk!