Courier

[postypie]

Talking of elastic bands.....I was on a delivery the other week and this very large lady started f..ing and b..ing about something....so I asked what the problem was in a polite manner......you f and f posties have been dropping bands(not one. But bundles she said)...all outside her council flat around four weeks ago....she then went on to say her son who was two years old...had picked them up and had somehow managed to get several bands round his neck...(what is a two year old walking around the street unsupervised in the first place I thought to myself)...I apologised ...but I told her that all my old bands go in my bag....and that four weeks ago I was holidaying in Asia....so I was pretty sure I had nothing to do with it..(.I informed the manager of what this lady had said) and this lady also said she would contact child protection agencies in the future if she found more bands....(whom I am sure would like to know why a two year old was walking the streets alone in the first place)....and then.. THEM magic words come out.....''I will sue RM she shouted'' for thousands.........a day later she was as nice as pie....and made no mention of elastic bands.....while her son was playing alone on the street yet again in a car park area!!

[bustedflush]

Talking of elastic bands.....I was on a delivery the other week and this very large lady started f..ing and b..ing about something....so I asked what the problem was in a polite manner......you f and f posties have been dropping bands(not one. But bundles she said)...all outside her council flat around four weeks ago....she then went on to say her son who was two years old...had picked them up and had somehow managed to get several bands round his neck...(what is a two year old walking around the street unsupervised in the first place I thought to myself)...I apologised ...but I told her that all my old bands go in my bag....and that four weeks ago I was holidaying in Asia....so I was pretty sure I had nothing to do with it..(.I informed the manager of what this lady had said) and this lady also said she would contact child protection agencies in the future if she found more bands....(whom I am sure would like to know why a two year old was walking the streets alone in the first place)....and then.. THEM magic words come out.....''I will sue RM she shouted'' for thousands.........a day later she was as nice as pie....and made no mention of elastic bands.....while her son was playing alone on the street yet again in a car park area!!

That's similar to an old lady warning me (although not on that round the previous week!) that me dropping bands was going to kill or injure her cat, because apparently it had a habit of chewing them and she had to take one from the bloody cat the previous Friday...

[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.

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.

The key point is that starting a loop with a load that is 'light' i.e. one that will not cause any risk of discomfort, injury or a detrimental restriction of movement, using a trolley habitually, presents H&S hazards that are avoidable. The chances of problems may well be slight but they still remain. Continual twisting movements leading to back complaints (it's happened), stress on wrists and shoulders (it's happened), empty pouches ending up in the middle of the road during high winds (it's happened), tripping incidents (they've happened) etc are avoidable if you don't set off with a trolley in the first place. Now you may say all these are as likely to happen during the latter parts of a loop as the load goes down. That is true to a point but the chances are diminished because the period of the load being 'light' is substantially less and as such the chances of accidents lessen accordingly. The possible incidents nearing the end of loop are an unavoidable hazard and are offset by the H&S benefits gained by using the trolley for the initial heavy/average load. In short, these incidents 'go with the territory'. To reiterate, I am talking about avoidable hazards being removed completely by not using a trolley when the initial load doesn't justify it.

As regards PUSH/PULL, I beg to differ. The way I read it, the reply says it was designed to be pulled and was tested on that basis but feedback received since then has pointed out that pushing is sometimes the best option. Which it is.

It puzzles me that because certain people (presumably delivery staff) are not to be trusted to identify when using a LWT is appropriate, we are all forced to use them no matter what the load, as long as the terrain is suitable. It also puzzles me what your position within RM is but I guess that's never going to be revealed

[S6 Stroller]

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!

I kind of got what you were getting at. For a full explanation of what my point is see the first paragraph of my lengthy reply to Brain Fury, directly above. I don't particularly care if anyone agrees and it's not a big deal in the scheme of things, however, my point is valid and so is my mate's. Nobody will ever admit it but it's fun trying. As a parting note, every delivery person I've talked to about this agrees that using a trolley on 'light' loops is ridiculous and causes more H&S hazards than it solves, including our CWU rep. He will of course never admit it to anybody else...and why would he?

[Hitcher]

Well we still have people not using them at all no matter how heavy the bag is!

[S6 Stroller]

Well we still have people not using them at all no matter how heavy the bag is!

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I suspect though, a good deal more people would use them when required if they weren't 'forced' to use them when they're not. It doesn't make sense but human nature is a funny old thing

[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.

The key point is that starting a loop with a load that is 'light' i.e. one that will not cause any risk of discomfort, injury or a detrimental restriction of movement, using a trolley habitually, presents H&S hazards that are avoidable. The chances of problems may well be slight but they still remain. Continual twisting movements leading to back complaints (it's happened), stress on wrists and shoulders (it's happened), empty pouches ending up in the middle of the road during high winds (it's happened), tripping incidents (they've happened) etc are avoidable if you don't set off with a trolley in the first place. Now you may say all these are as likely to happen during the latter parts of a loop as the load goes down. That is true to a point but the chances are diminished because the period of the load being 'light' is substantially less and as such the chances of accidents lessen accordingly. The possible incidents nearing the end of loop are an unavoidable hazard and are offset by the H&S benefits gained by using the trolley for the initial heavy/average load. In short, these incidents 'go with the territory'. To reiterate, I am talking about avoidable hazards being removed completely by not using a trolley when the initial load doesn't justify it.

As regards PUSH/PULL, I beg to differ. The way I read it, the reply says it was designed to be pulled and was tested on that basis but feedback received since then has pointed out that pushing is sometimes the best option. Which it is.

It puzzles me that because certain people (presumably delivery staff) are not to be trusted to identify when using a LWT is appropriate, we are all forced to use them no matter what the load, as long as the terrain is suitable. It also puzzles me what your position within RM is but I guess that's never going to be revealed

I thought the push / pull issue didn't concern you? It was designed to be pulled and was tested on that basis but after some feedback from users who wanted to push it, it was re-tested and agreed that it could be pushed in certain circumstances as is now explained in the SSoW.

[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.

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.

The key point is that starting a loop with a load that is 'light' i.e. one that will not cause any risk of discomfort, injury or a detrimental restriction of movement, using a trolley habitually, presents H&S hazards that are avoidable. The chances of problems may well be slight but they still remain. Continual twisting movements leading to back complaints (it's happened), stress on wrists and shoulders (it's happened), empty pouches ending up in the middle of the road during high winds (it's happened), tripping incidents (they've happened) etc are avoidable if you don't set off with a trolley in the first place. Now you may say all these are as likely to happen during the latter parts of a loop as the load goes down. That is true to a point but the chances are diminished because the period of the load being 'light' is substantially less and as such the chances of accidents lessen accordingly. The possible incidents nearing the end of loop are an unavoidable hazard and are offset by the H&S benefits gained by using the trolley for the initial heavy/average load. In short, these incidents 'go with the territory'. To reiterate, I am talking about avoidable hazards being removed completely by not using a trolley when the initial load doesn't justify it.

As regards PUSH/PULL, I beg to differ. The way I read it, the reply says it was designed to be pulled and was tested on that basis but feedback received since then has pointed out that pushing is sometimes the best option. Which it is.

It puzzles me that because certain people (presumably delivery staff) are not to be trusted to identify when using a LWT is appropriate, we are all forced to use them no matter what the load, as long as the terrain is suitable. It also puzzles me what your position within RM is but I guess that's never going to be revealed

I thought the push / pull issue didn't concern you? It was designed to be pulled and was tested on that basis but after some feedback from users who wanted to push it, it was re-tested and agreed that it could be pushed in certain circumstances as is now explained in the SSoW.

PUSH/PULL doesn't particularly interest me, I was merely pointing out that The Courier response wasn't the blanket 'IT'S PULL!' that you intimated in your comment previous to last. What you've done in your response directly above, is basically mirror that sentiment...but with a bit of jargon chucked in for good measure. Thanks.

Anyway, the meat of the matter. Avoidable H&S hazards caused by using a LWT when it's not required. Any more thoughts or are you content to keep banging on about PUSH/PULL because you know you're on a partial winner with that one?

[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.

The key point is that starting a loop with a load that is 'light' i.e. one that will not cause any risk of discomfort, injury or a detrimental restriction of movement, using a trolley habitually, presents H&S hazards that are avoidable. The chances of problems may well be slight but they still remain. Continual twisting movements leading to back complaints (it's happened), stress on wrists and shoulders (it's happened), empty pouches ending up in the middle of the road during high winds (it's happened), tripping incidents (they've happened) etc are avoidable if you don't set off with a trolley in the first place. Now you may say all these are as likely to happen during the latter parts of a loop as the load goes down. That is true to a point but the chances are diminished because the period of the load being 'light' is substantially less and as such the chances of accidents lessen accordingly. The possible incidents nearing the end of loop are an unavoidable hazard and are offset by the H&S benefits gained by using the trolley for the initial heavy/average load. In short, these incidents 'go with the territory'. To reiterate, I am talking about avoidable hazards being removed completely by not using a trolley when the initial load doesn't justify it.

As regards PUSH/PULL, I beg to differ. The way I read it, the reply says it was designed to be pulled and was tested on that basis but feedback received since then has pointed out that pushing is sometimes the best option. Which it is.

It puzzles me that because certain people (presumably delivery staff) are not to be trusted to identify when using a LWT is appropriate, we are all forced to use them no matter what the load, as long as the terrain is suitable. It also puzzles me what your position within RM is but I guess that's never going to be revealed

I thought the push / pull issue didn't concern you? It was designed to be pulled and was tested on that basis but after some feedback from users who wanted to push it, it was re-tested and agreed that it could be pushed in certain circumstances as is now explained in the SSoW.

PUSH/PULL doesn't particularly interest me, I was merely pointing out that The Courier response wasn't the blanket 'IT'S PULL!' that you intimated in your comment previous to last. What you've done in your response directly above, is basically mirror that sentiment...but with a bit of jargon chucked in for good measure. Thanks.

Anyway, the meat of the matter. Avoidable H&S hazards caused by using a LWT when it's not required. Any more thoughts or are you content to keep banging on about PUSH/PULL because you know you're on a partial winner with that one?

1. I have never said that the LWT can only be pulled. I know the SSoW and fully agree with what was said in the Courier response. The LWT should be pulled but in certain circumstances can be pushed. I used no jargon. It was you that said that your H&S expert friend thought it should always or mainly be pushed. I pointed out that this is a matter of opinion not fact and that Royal Mail experts obviously don't agree with him.

2. Similarly it is your opinion that using a LWT with a lighter load creates H&S issues and therefore using the LWT should be a matter of choice for the individual. You have never explained what these hazards are. I suggested why allowing people to use their own judgement about whether or not to use the LWT would not work. As I said you may be absolutely able and willing to determine the appropriate load you can carry without incurring injury in the short or long term but in my experience many delivery staff are not. Royal Mail has apparently taken the position that it is on balance safer to insist that LWT is used on all occasions. You appear to be suggesting that they make this decision knowing that on balance it is less safe. Why would they do that?

[Ralph Wiggum]

Courier is the biggest bag of shite ever

[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.

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.

The key point is that starting a loop with a load that is 'light' i.e. one that will not cause any risk of discomfort, injury or a detrimental restriction of movement, using a trolley habitually, presents H&S hazards that are avoidable. The chances of problems may well be slight but they still remain. Continual twisting movements leading to back complaints (it's happened), stress on wrists and shoulders (it's happened), empty pouches ending up in the middle of the road during high winds (it's happened), tripping incidents (they've happened) etc are avoidable if you don't set off with a trolley in the first place. Now you may say all these are as likely to happen during the latter parts of a loop as the load goes down. That is true to a point but the chances are diminished because the period of the load being 'light' is substantially less and as such the chances of accidents lessen accordingly. The possible incidents nearing the end of loop are an unavoidable hazard and are offset by the H&S benefits gained by using the trolley for the initial heavy/average load. In short, these incidents 'go with the territory'. To reiterate, I am talking about avoidable hazards being removed completely by not using a trolley when the initial load doesn't justify it.

As regards PUSH/PULL, I beg to differ. The way I read it, the reply says it was designed to be pulled and was tested on that basis but feedback received since then has pointed out that pushing is sometimes the best option. Which it is.

It puzzles me that because certain people (presumably delivery staff) are not to be trusted to identify when using a LWT is appropriate, we are all forced to use them no matter what the load, as long as the terrain is suitable. It also puzzles me what your position within RM is but I guess that's never going to be revealed

I thought the push / pull issue didn't concern you? It was designed to be pulled and was tested on that basis but after some feedback from users who wanted to push it, it was re-tested and agreed that it could be pushed in certain circumstances as is now explained in the SSoW.

PUSH/PULL doesn't particularly interest me, I was merely pointing out that The Courier response wasn't the blanket 'IT'S PULL!' that you intimated in your comment previous to last. What you've done in your response directly above, is basically mirror that sentiment...but with a bit of jargon chucked in for good measure. Thanks.

Anyway, the meat of the matter. Avoidable H&S hazards caused by using a LWT when it's not required. Any more thoughts or are you content to keep banging on about PUSH/PULL because you know you're on a partial winner with that one?

1. I have never said that the LWT can only be pulled. I know the SSoW and fully agree with what was said in the Courier response. The LWT should be pulled but in certain circumstances can be pushed. I used no jargon. It was you that said that your H&S expert friend thought it should always or mainly be pushed. I pointed out that this is a matter of opinion not fact and that Royal Mail experts obviously don't agree with him.

2. Similarly it is your opinion that using a LWT with a lighter load creates H&S issues and therefore using the LWT should be a matter of choice for the individual. You have never explained what these hazards are. I suggested why allowing people to use their own judgement about whether or not to use the LWT would not work. As I said you may be absolutely able and willing to determine the appropriate load you can carry without incurring injury in the short or long term but in my experience many delivery staff are not. Royal Mail has apparently taken the position that it is on balance safer to insist that LWT is used on all occasions. You appear to be suggesting that they make this decision knowing that on balance it is less safe. Why would they do that?

1. What is SSoW? Sounds like jargon to me. Anyway, please stop banging on about PUSH/PULL. This is a side issue and was only added to the letter as an afterthought, purely because my mate mentioned it in the same conversation. I find it interesting that Courier used that as the header though, when the unedited letter was clearly about H&S hazards. I don't suppose 'LWTs. Are they a waste of space when the load isn't heavy enough?' is a question they want delivery staff to be mulling over. Anyway...

2. I have never explained what these hazards are? I suggest you read my posts instead of skimming through them. I hope you show more attention to detail during your working day. Can I ask what the difference is between 'policing' whether a LWT is being used when required (in terms of load weight) and whether an LWT is being used at all? Both require the same amount of man hours. Can't see the problem. I'll let you into a 'secret' though, a special kind of 'secret' because it's one that I suggest Royal Mail are well aware of...*drum roll*...the vast majority of delivery staff don't use LWTs unless they need to! They're adults, not slobbering idiots. There is nobody more qualified to tell you if you can comfortably carry something than yourself. Raise your opinion of delivery staff, you might be pleasantly surprised. I'll let you into another 'secret'...*bigger drum roll*...management take very little notice because they know it's quicker to deliver not using a LWT and it cuts down on O/T claims. Shocking isn't it? The 'taking the weight off your back' is not what it's about. It's about being able to carry more parcels and cutting down on solo deliveries by the driving partner in P&L and also swerving any responsibility for back problems. Nothing wrong with the increased capacity benefits of LWTs but let's not pretend delivery staff's well-being is the primary concern. In terms of physical damage due to prolonged usage, the compulsory nature of LWT will obviously bite Royal Mail on the backside in years to come, for the reason I stated in an earlier comment...that you didn't read. I know one member of delivery staff who has developed back problems due to repeated twisting movements. This was diagnosed by a doctor. Compensation claims will rocket in future. Imagine it if you will. "Royal Mail made me use a piece of equipment habitually, even when it wasn't required. I told them it caused me back discomfort and got a note from a doctor but they ignored me and told me to get on with it" KERRCHING! While we're on, is there access to H&S reports on the LWT for mere mortals? I'm thinking that they were probably tested using a full load and comparisons weren't made between someone carrying a 'light' load on their back and a 'light' load on a LWT. Sorry, just blue-skying. Indulge me.

As for your last point. You could ask that question about any number of things that Royal Mail does. Why does Royal Mail think a dog peg that snaps so easily should be rolled-out? Tokenism? Box ticking? Why does Royal Mail think it is above Employment Law until someone actually has the gumption to pull them up on it? I could go on but it's far too depressing.

What's your job again?

[Brain Fury]

Every activity has an element of risk. The aim is to minimise the risk by using the most appropriate methods and ensuring that appropriate Safe Systems of Work (SSoW) are in place to explain how to carry out these methods

I've read your opinion about using LWTs with light loads. You think that on balance it's safer to make the use of trolleys optional.

I don't agree but more to the point neither does Royal Mail.

[dblad]

10 quotes, are you 2 going for a world record

[Brain Fury]

10 quotes, are you 2 going for a world record

I suspect I've wasted my time anyway so I'll let S6 Stroller have the last word.

[S6 Stroller]

Every activity has an element of risk. The aim is to minimise the risk by using the most appropriate methods and ensuring that appropriate Safe Systems of Work (SSoW) are in place to explain how to carry out these methods

I've read your opinion about using LWTs with light loads. You think that on balance it's safer to make the use of trolleys optional.

I don't agree but more to the point neither does Royal Mail.

Hahaha. I love the way you don't address specific points and simply stick to the company line. It's brilliant and as such, you have wasted your time but on a brighter note, you've made me laugh and confirmed that whatever your job is, you are unable to concede an inch.

'appropriate methods...' - Is it 'appropriate' to use a sack barrow to move a bag of sugar? No, it isn't. Presumably, you think it is and so does Royal Mail. Genius.

'The aim is to minimise the risk...' - So you do agree after all. Make your mind up.