30 mins flexibility

[fishtank]

[so what if they only have enough work on a tuesday to take them to 30 minutes before there finish time & there was nothing else to do

Give them more lapsing.

And ive never said we cant be made to work all our hours each day,but carrying time from one day to the next is not agreed, its banking hours.

It isn't actually.
Banking hours which the business has always wanted and the union has always fought is the payment of overtime in credited hours rather than cash, Annualised hours, again something the business wants is reducing the number of hours worked in the quiet periods (summer) and increasing them in the busy periods (winter) .

What you're actually talking about is balancing hours with workload without affecting gross weekly contracted hours which is actually agreed although very vaguely in the famous "swings and roundabouts" and "work all your paid hours" sections of P&M2007.

You're right in one respect that it's difficult to "force" someone to go over their time if they have genuine commitments but a degree of flexibility is expected and I really don't see an issue with it if all parties are happy with the situation. To be expecting to finish early most of the week and then throw your toys out of the pram if asked to work on for 30 mins occasionally is I would suggest rather childish though.

[halfull]

[so what if they only have enough work on a tuesday to take them to 30 minutes before there finish time & there was nothing else to do

Give them more lapsing.

And ive never said we cant be made to work all our hours each day,but carrying time from one day to the next is not agreed, its banking hours.

It isn't actually.
Banking hours which the business has always wanted and the union has always fought is the payment of overtime in credited hours rather than cash, Annualised hours, again something the business wants is reducing the number of hours worked in the quiet periods (summer) and increasing them in the busy periods (winter) .

What you're actually talking about is balancing hours with workload without affecting gross weekly contracted hours which is actually agreed although very vaguely in the famous "swings and roundabouts" and "work all your paid hours" sections of P&M2007.

You're right in one respect that it's difficult to "force" someone to go over their time if they have genuine commitments but a degree of flexibility is expected and I really don't see an issue with it if all parties are happy with the situation. To be expecting to finish early most of the week and then throw your toys out of the pram if asked to work on for 30 mins occasionally is I would suggest rather childish though.

1st off i said if there was no more work to do so where you get give them more lapsing if the office is clear is beyond me.
And yes it is banking hours,you are wrong.
If you finish early one day then are told you must give that time back the next when work volume is higher that is banking hours!
Ill break it down nice and simple so the word "banking" is nice & clear for you. If you make 30 minutes & the manager says you owe us that time back when you go over next time he has "banked" those 30 minutes.
Annualized hours has nothing to do with what we have been discussing in this thread,have a read back through & you'll see.
And like ive said we are all willing to work our paid hours "each day" but that is management responsibility to fill them not carry time over from one day to the next as this again is banking hours which is not agreed.
And lastly where you have read from my posts that i finish early most of the week then throw my toys out of the pram when asked to work over 30 minutes is yet again beyond me.
Maybe you finish early most of the week & occasionally go over but i certainly dont & many on here do not either! But even if i finished 40 minutes early one day & went 40 minutes over the next i will book that 40 minutes as its not my fault the work was not there the day before & carrying time over is banking hours, which i hope ive cleared up.
Yes it states "work all your paid hours" in pm2007 but it does not say bank time or carry it over to the next if the work is not there! But thats what your hinting at.
I dont want to turn this into im right & your wrong but ive saw & been involved in how disagreements end on this matter & ill inform you im right.

[Lincox]

Well for once halfull I am on your side.
I am not really against what Fishtank says about working over half an hour, IF and I mean IFF we had management that really had respect for their staff. As I have said the main problem with the flexibility clause is that managers use it against those who cannot or do not want to work over their time and that is a total abuse of this clause in the PM2007 agreement, and gets even worse when those who do exceed their contracted time in order to complete are paid that same thirty minutes in overtime.

[superports]

You're right in one respect that it's difficult to "force" someone to go over their time if they have genuine commitments but a degree of flexibility is expected and I really don't see an issue with it if all parties are happy with the situation. To be expecting to finish early most of the week and then throw your toys out of the pram if asked to work on for 30 mins occasionally is I would suggest rather childish though.

If that was aimed at me, don't worry, I'm quite aware that the nature of this job isn't an exact science, I do realise we aren't sitting at a conveyer belt with a constant flow of 60 units per hour. I don't "finish early most of the week", I also on a daily basis demonstrate a lot of "flexibility", I haven't been under my 39 hours in months. The fact is,I, and probably most of my colleagues, have regularly too much work to do in our hours. I shouldn't need to have a genuine commitment if I want to finish on, or close to my finish time.

[halfull]

You're right in one respect that it's difficult to "force" someone to go over their time if they have genuine commitments but a degree of flexibility is expected and I really don't see an issue with it if all parties are happy with the situation. To be expecting to finish early most of the week and then throw your toys out of the pram if asked to work on for 30 mins occasionally is I would suggest rather childish though.

If that was aimed at me, don't worry, I'm quite aware that the nature of this job isn't an exact science, I do realise we aren't sitting at a conveyer belt with a constant flow of 60 units per hour. I don't "finish early most of the week", I also on a daily basis demonstrate a lot of "flexibility", I haven't been under my 39 hours in months. The fact is,I, and probably most of my colleagues, have regularly too much work to do in our hours. I shouldn't need to have a genuine commitment if I want to finish on, or close to my finish time.

[OnAFlyer]

So what should someone do if they haven't been repaid the 30 minutes flexibility in 5 days? In fact the manager believes the 30 minutes has been paid back because of the time I spent talking to my rep and was under my time on one of the 5 days. I was the only one asked to flex, everyone who went over were paid OT, manager also seems not to know the flex agreement, firstly claiming I already had the time back, then by claiming he paid me OT for it.

To me it's simple. Did you work over 39hrs? If not then you got the 30 minutes back. If you did work over 39hrs then you want paying.

totally wrong, this would be banking hours which is not agreed.
Each day is a new day, if you go over you should be paid unless you have AGREED that you will flex 30 minutes over & have AGREED what day you will get it back.

Any reasonable person would say if you worked 30 minutes over one day, and 30 minutes under another then that evens it out.


Only in the world of RM do people still expect to be paid overtime when they haven't even worked their hours for the week. And yes, I'm fully aware of what the agreement is.

Obviously if certain people are treated differently then that clearly isn't right.

so tell me what you would do with the people that cannot work over but are willing to work their hours everyday?

It would depend on the circumstances for me. To finish on time we would be leaving the office at 2.25 in our office, that does give most people with school runs a little bit of leeway here and there.

Me personally, I have a child at nursery and pay extra after 1pm, so on the days he is there I do not and will not work over, I will go over a bit (up to 30 mins) another day though if needed. Over the course of most weeks I'll make a bit of time so it suits me.

I don't think anyone can or should be forced to work over, but if you've already gone under 30 mins one day and over 30 mins another then I think that should cancel eachother out regardless of whether you were specifically asked to flex or not. You wouldn't get paid it if you worked in my office.

I can understand managers being frustrated with staff who flat out refuse to work over any day, even though they know full well there isn't enough work to take them to time on certain days.

[halfull]

So what should someone do if they haven't been repaid the 30 minutes flexibility in 5 days? In fact the manager believes the 30 minutes has been paid back because of the time I spent talking to my rep and was under my time on one of the 5 days. I was the only one asked to flex, everyone who went over were paid OT, manager also seems not to know the flex agreement, firstly claiming I already had the time back, then by claiming he paid me OT for it.

To me it's simple. Did you work over 39hrs? If not then you got the 30 minutes back. If you did work over 39hrs then you want paying.

totally wrong, this would be banking hours which is not agreed.
Each day is a new day, if you go over you should be paid unless you have AGREED that you will flex 30 minutes over & have AGREED what day you will get it back.

Any reasonable person would say if you worked 30 minutes over one day, and 30 minutes under another then that evens it out.


Only in the world of RM do people still expect to be paid overtime when they haven't even worked their hours for the week. And yes, I'm fully aware of what the agreement is.

Obviously if certain people are treated differently then that clearly isn't right.

so tell me what you would do with the people that cannot work over but are willing to work their hours everyday?

It would depend on the circumstances for me. To finish on time we would be leaving the office at 2.25 in our office, that does give most people with school runs a little bit of leeway here and there.

Me personally, I have a child at nursery and pay extra after 1pm, so on the days he is there I do not and will not work over, I will go over a bit (up to 30 mins) another day though if needed. Over the course of most weeks I'll make a bit of time so it suits me.

I don't think anyone can or should be forced to work over, but if you've already gone under 30 mins one day and over 30 mins another then I think that should cancel eachother out regardless of whether you were specifically asked to flex or not. You wouldn't get paid it if you worked in my office.

I can understand managers being frustrated with staff who flat out refuse to work over any day, even though they know full well there isn't enough work to take them to time on certain days.

if i worked at your office & went 30 minutes under one day then 30 minutes over the next yes i would get paid or i would bring back 30 minutes work,it really is that simple!
Its not about agreements between postmen & their managers as they could be open to abuse from both parties, this is why we have national agreements to protect postmen/women & managers. What you describe is banking hours & should not happen, if you make time you are either doing the job wrong ie not using methods or taking breaks or the workload was not there that day which is not a postmans fault who turned up for work willing to work his/hers full hours that day. That time cannot be carried over,its unagreed with our union.
And people who dont want to work over thats their choice! Overtime is not for everyone, & nobody should be forced to do it.

[Lincox]

Agree with you again Halfull. This is becoming a regular event. I would ask On a Flyer how people can manage their personal lives if they use his system of giving back time under worked on one day, the following day if the workload means you are likely to go over. The agreement itself states quite categorically that .(This is not about people not knowing what they are going to be doing from one day to the next). One of my colleagues who is a Subs Floater has been told next week to stay at home until he receives a phone call each day as to where he will be working and what time he will be starting. Local Agreements such as what On a Flyer must be on is destroying the one thing that a good unionised workforce needs and that is uniformity. The CWU should be insisting that any local agreement has a starting point that it must comply and be compatible with the National Agreements in order that it does not compromise the position of other offices. Secondly it must be a documented agreement with the signatures of all those who participated in it and not just the signature of a Local Union Rep. The CWU have allowed these nondescript agreements to compromise the National Agreements and for that they should hang their heads in shame.

[OnAFlyer]

Agree with you again Halfull. This is becoming a regular event. I would ask On a Flyer how people can manage their personal lives if they use his system of giving back time under worked on one day, the following day if the workload means you are likely to go over. The agreement itself states quite categorically that .(This is not about people not knowing what they are going to be doing from one day to the next). One of my colleagues who is a Subs Floater has been told next week to stay at home until he receives a phone call each day as to where he will be working and what time he will be starting. Local Agreements such as what On a Flyer must be on is destroying the one thing that a good unionised workforce needs and that is uniformity. The CWU should be insisting that any local agreement has a starting point that it must comply and be compatible with the National Agreements in order that it does not compromise the position of other offices. Secondly it must be a documented agreement with the signatures of all those who participated in it and not just the signature of a Local Union Rep. The CWU have allowed these nondescript agreements to compromise the National Agreements and for that they should hang their heads in shame.

I'll say it again.

Nobody in my office is forced to go over their time or work back any time they've made. I make time almost every week.

However....

If you've finished before time some days, and gone over another, then you don't get paid for the time you've gone over unless it adds up to more than 39hrs for the week, then you get whatever you work over that.

Yes, I know it's banking hours, and I know it isn't agreed. But I don't protest too much because I very very rarely work over, make time most weeks and am quite happy to tell our manager that I'm not going over or refuse lapsing.

[Lincox]

The fact that your office is prepared to work under those terms as far as your concerned is fair enough. However as you say it is not adhering to national agreements as it includes banking of hours. That in itself defeats the object of collective agreement/bargaining and as such can and will have an impact on other delivery offices. DOMs get together and talk and if one is getting away with reducing overtime by banking of hours then you can bet your life the others will try and do the same unless there is a strong rep in the other offices.

[OnAFlyer]

The fact that your office is prepared to work under those terms as far as your concerned is fair enough. However as you say it is not adhering to national agreements as it includes banking of hours. That in itself defeats the object of collective agreement/bargaining and as such can and will have an impact on other delivery offices. DOMs get together and talk and if one is getting away with reducing overtime by banking of hours then you can bet your life the others will try and do the same unless there is a strong rep in the other offices.

Yeah I agree, our office is high performing and a benchmark for large offices. The trouble is we're achieving these things because we're ignoring national agreements. The flip side is we are largely being left alone, and have had staff made up to permanent contracts recently, both PT and FT, which is the first time for a long time.

[fishtank]

However as you say it is not adhering to national agreements as it includes banking of hours.

What office does adhere to national agreements if we're completely honest.
Working all paid hours, taking meal relief, seniority, holiday rotas, 1 in 4 saturdays, repicks, delivery methods, security guidelines...take your pick, and those are just the agreements we break, throw management into the mix and I doubt if there is an office in the country following nationally agreed guidelines. It's way too easy to be hypocritical about the whole thing.

[Lincox]

Fish, I agree it is easy to be hypocritical and there is absolutely no doubt that everyone breaks national agreements to some degree or another, but the main reason for this is down to local agreements which have destroyed any form of unity within the workforce. Local agreements also negate the need for any kind of collective bargaining at a national level except perhaps for remuneration and benefits, which makes me ask the question, why have the CWU allowed local bargaining to exist as surely it undermines everything that a union stands for and weakens their position with the employer.

[fishtank]

why have the CWU allowed local bargaining to exist

Strong offices and areas get the best deals, make the most noise, are the most militant and have the strongest representation at the top of the union. It suits these areas to have local agreements and it suits union HQ and RM to keep these areas sweet because if it all kicks off both sides know where it is likely to kick off first and hardest.

It isn't right and it's about as far away from trade union principles as you can get but it is what it is.

[Pinky 1]

However....

If you've finished before time some days, and gone over another, then you don't get paid for the time you've gone over unless it adds up to more than 39hrs for the week, then you get whatever you work over that.

Yes, I know it's banking hours, and I know it isn't agreed. But I don't protest too much because I very very rarely work over, make time most weeks and am quite happy to tell our manager that I'm not going over or refuse lapsing.

Just a few quick questions OnAFlyer .......
On the subject of banking hours in your office, how is it managed ? Do you admit to finishing 45 minutes early one day, and your manager believes you, or does your manager wait until the last person on delivery is back, to see it for themselves ?
Does the manager keep a book on everybody who owes the business some time ?