Dragging it out

[steve1873]

stop running round
1st back sums it all up
work to your time then cut off
if you have the guts to do it
and dont blame others for doing the job properly
management wont touch him or they would have by now so ask yourself what am i doing wrong
oh and btw mgmt will be laughing at you for enlarging their bonus

There's nothing to suggest that he is running around.

Every office has one of these slow clowns. I don't mean people who are doing the job properly. I mean people who are stood in gardens stroking cats and going to the toilet for 15 mins in the morning but whenever you're in there they are just stood around talking rather than actually using the toilet.

Doing this to drag it out in your own time to work your hours is fine. But doing it and holding someone else back is out of order. If you want overtime go and do half a walk.

Hear hear! I have had a$$-clowns like that, but only once each. First one I made take me back on time, he alone had to stay out and finish on OT and that included my loops I hadn't completed because I was waiting by the van 15 minutes after each bag. Managers have never put me with him again. Second one I took my own van and came back over an hour earlier than the other one. The third time it happened, he was off the next week and I was on it with a runner, we blasted it 2 HOURS quicker just to make a point.

There are now 3 people in our office who are excessively slow (would fail frame speed/walk checks etc.) and nobody will partner them so they usually get their own van and don't get OT when they are late as they accept they aren't quick enough to do the jobs as even the moderately-paced can finish them early.

And your office is OK with people not getting paid OT for the hours they work? Words fail me!

[hampshireman]

stop running round
1st back sums it all up
work to your time then cut off
if you have the guts to do it
and dont blame others for doing the job properly
management wont touch him or they would have by now so ask yourself what am i doing wrong
oh and btw mgmt will be laughing at you for enlarging their bonus

There's nothing to suggest that he is running around.

Every office has one of these slow clowns. I don't mean people who are doing the job properly. I mean people who are stood in gardens stroking cats and going to the toilet for 15 mins in the morning but whenever you're in there they are just stood around talking rather than actually using the toilet.

Doing this to drag it out in your own time to work your hours is fine. But doing it and holding someone else back is out of order. If you want overtime go and do half a walk.

Hear hear! I have had a$$-clowns like that, but only once each. First one I made take me back on time, he alone had to stay out and finish on OT and that included my loops I hadn't completed because I was waiting by the van 15 minutes after each bag. Managers have never put me with him again. Second one I took my own van and came back over an hour earlier than the other one. The third time it happened, he was off the next week and I was on it with a runner, we blasted it 2 HOURS quicker just to make a point.

There are now 3 people in our office who are excessively slow (would fail frame speed/walk checks etc.) and nobody will partner them so they usually get their own van and don't get OT when they are late as they accept they aren't quick enough to do the jobs as even the moderately-paced can finish them early.

are you happy with the highlighted bit? You and the runner 'blasted it'.

You must be proud of yourself

[bustedflush]

stop running round
1st back sums it all up
work to your time then cut off
if you have the guts to do it
and dont blame others for doing the job properly
management wont touch him or they would have by now so ask yourself what am i doing wrong
oh and btw mgmt will be laughing at you for enlarging their bonus

There's nothing to suggest that he is running around.

Every office has one of these slow clowns. I don't mean people who are doing the job properly. I mean people who are stood in gardens stroking cats and going to the toilet for 15 mins in the morning but whenever you're in there they are just stood around talking rather than actually using the toilet.

Doing this to drag it out in your own time to work your hours is fine. But doing it and holding someone else back is out of order. If you want overtime go and do half a walk.

Hear hear! I have had a$$-clowns like that, but only once each. First one I made take me back on time, he alone had to stay out and finish on OT and that included my loops I hadn't completed because I was waiting by the van 15 minutes after each bag. Managers have never put me with him again. Second one I took my own van and came back over an hour earlier than the other one. The third time it happened, he was off the next week and I was on it with a runner, we blasted it 2 HOURS quicker just to make a point.

There are now 3 people in our office who are excessively slow (would fail frame speed/walk checks etc.) and nobody will partner them so they usually get their own van and don't get OT when they are late as they accept they aren't quick enough to do the jobs as even the moderately-paced can finish them early.

And your office is OK with people not getting paid OT for the hours they work? Words fail me!

You miss the point. They are being 'looked after' as their performance is clearly below agreed minimum standards. Which would you prefer - let them get on with it in their own time, or go down the disciplinary route for under-performance? You forget that people like these put stress on whichever poor sod is paired with them as it means they have to go through the hassle of cutting-off if they have child issues OR be pressured into staying out to complete on OT when they would rather not. So it's like a compromise. If they got OT for under-performing it would take the mickey out of the rest who do the job efficiently within their hours.
So you think if postman X takes 1.5 hours longer CONSISTENTLY to do the same work you do within your hours (and I mean with the breaks and not running, just 'normal') he should be paid 7.5 hours more than you a week?? I know duties vary, and people work differently, but I'm talking 'pound-for-pound' here....

[hampshireman]

stop running round
1st back sums it all up
work to your time then cut off
if you have the guts to do it
and dont blame others for doing the job properly
management wont touch him or they would have by now so ask yourself what am i doing wrong
oh and btw mgmt will be laughing at you for enlarging their bonus

There's nothing to suggest that he is running around.

Every office has one of these slow clowns. I don't mean people who are doing the job properly. I mean people who are stood in gardens stroking cats and going to the toilet for 15 mins in the morning but whenever you're in there they are just stood around talking rather than actually using the toilet.

Doing this to drag it out in your own time to work your hours is fine. But doing it and holding someone else back is out of order. If you want overtime go and do half a walk.

Hear hear! I have had a$$-clowns like that, but only once each. First one I made take me back on time, he alone had to stay out and finish on OT and that included my loops I hadn't completed because I was waiting by the van 15 minutes after each bag. Managers have never put me with him again. Second one I took my own van and came back over an hour earlier than the other one. The third time it happened, he was off the next week and I was on it with a runner, we blasted it 2 HOURS quicker just to make a point.

There are now 3 people in our office who are excessively slow (would fail frame speed/walk checks etc.) and nobody will partner them so they usually get their own van and don't get OT when they are late as they accept they aren't quick enough to do the jobs as even the moderately-paced can finish them early.

And your office is OK with people not getting paid OT for the hours they work? Words fail me!

You miss the point. They are being 'looked after' as their performance is clearly below agreed minimum standards. Which would you prefer - let them get on with it in their own time, or go down the disciplinary route for under-performance? You forget that people like these put stress on whichever poor sod is paired with them as it means they have to go through the hassle of cutting-off if they have child issues OR be pressured into staying out to complete on OT when they would rather not. So it's like a compromise. If they got OT for under-performing it would take the mickey out of the rest who do the job efficiently within their hours.
So you think if postman X takes 1.5 hours longer CONSISTENTLY to do the same work you do within your hours (and I mean with the breaks and not running, just 'normal') he should be paid 7.5 hours more than you a week?? I know duties vary, and people work differently, but I'm talking 'pound-for-pound' here....

Pound for pound ... should these 'under performers' be sacked?

[ThatsNotPlumb]

Pound for pound ... should these 'under performers' be sacked?

My guess is if any DO's management had the slightest clue that somebody was purposely dragging out a duty to claim an extra hour(s) overtime each day they would be sacked or given a serious warning.

In any other job I've had, see if somebody was clearly not pulling their weight or doing their fair share of the workload, you would be sacked. There are people that bust their balls in RM on whatever shift they're on to complete their work & then on the flipside there are people that just don't want to work, want to go in, argue with their manager that they won't be able to complete, leave bulk or a loop or whatever, then have to drag their duty out so they don't appear back early. Both are as bad as one another in my opinion & both are the reason why some duties are so imbalanced within DO's.

[steve1873]

stop running round
1st back sums it all up
work to your time then cut off
if you have the guts to do it
and dont blame others for doing the job properly
management wont touch him or they would have by now so ask yourself what am i doing wrong
oh and btw mgmt will be laughing at you for enlarging their bonus

There's nothing to suggest that he is running around.

Every office has one of these slow clowns. I don't mean people who are doing the job properly. I mean people who are stood in gardens stroking cats and going to the toilet for 15 mins in the morning but whenever you're in there they are just stood around talking rather than actually using the toilet.

Doing this to drag it out in your own time to work your hours is fine. But doing it and holding someone else back is out of order. If you want overtime go and do half a walk.

Hear hear! I have had a$$-clowns like that, but only once each. First one I made take me back on time, he alone had to stay out and finish on OT and that included my loops I hadn't completed because I was waiting by the van 15 minutes after each bag. Managers have never put me with him again. Second one I took my own van and came back over an hour earlier than the other one. The third time it happened, he was off the next week and I was on it with a runner, we blasted it 2 HOURS quicker just to make a point.

There are now 3 people in our office who are excessively slow (would fail frame speed/walk checks etc.) and nobody will partner them so they usually get their own van and don't get OT when they are late as they accept they aren't quick enough to do the jobs as even the moderately-paced can finish them early.

And your office is OK with people not getting paid OT for the hours they work? Words fail me!

You miss the point. They are being 'looked after' as their performance is clearly below agreed minimum standards. Which would you prefer - let them get on with it in their own time, or go down the disciplinary route for under-performance? You forget that people like these put stress on whichever poor sod is paired with them as it means they have to go through the hassle of cutting-off if they have child issues OR be pressured into staying out to complete on OT when they would rather not. So it's like a compromise. If they got OT for under-performing it would take the mickey out of the rest who do the job efficiently within their hours.
So you think if postman X takes 1.5 hours longer CONSISTENTLY to do the same work you do within your hours (and I mean with the breaks and not running, just 'normal') he should be paid 7.5 hours more than you a week?? I know duties vary, and people work differently, but I'm talking 'pound-for-pound' here....

I am missing no point. You are ok with people working on and not getting paid for it. They may well be "under performing", but that is not for you to judge. And if they are, in fact not reaching the standard required then there are procedures in place to try and get them up to the required standard. Not paying them for OT is not 1 of those procedures. You say, would I be ok with someone getting paid 7.5 hours more than me? If they were working 7.5 hours more than me, then I don't really have a problem with it. You want them to work longer hours but be paid the same, meaning you are in effect getting paid a higher hourly rate than them.

As for your "looked after" comment about staff having wages STOLEN from them. Aye right you are!

[bustedflush]

Pound for pound ... should these 'under performers' be sacked?

My guess is if any DO's management had the slightest clue that somebody was purposely dragging out a duty to claim an extra hour(s) overtime each day they would be sacked or given a serious warning.

In any other job I've had, see if somebody was clearly not pulling their weight or doing their fair share of the workload, you would be sacked. There are people that bust their balls in RM on whatever shift they're on to complete their work & then on the flipside there are people that just don't want to work, want to go in, argue with their manager that they won't be able to complete, leave bulk or a loop or whatever, then have to drag their duty out so they don't appear back early. Both are as bad as one another in my opinion & both are the reason why some duties are so imbalanced within DO's.

Exactly! Fortunately these are a small minority, but they pose a problem for both managers and people paired with them, i.e. reserves/floaters. The managers don't want to get heavy, the rep doesn't want to get involved as they have no defence so the unwritten compromise seems to be to keep them in their jobs, let them do it at their own slow pace and give them their own van. And to the other poster, yes they may be effectively getting paid less an hour (the flip side of what I said) but they are 2 or 3 people. How could a DIM justify continually paying a 39-hour'er 46 hours a for a basic round? Questions would soon be raised, then they would be called to account and may end up out of work. So I can see why the situation has developed as it has.

Runners get effectively paid 12-13 quid an hour if you look at it that way plus their ghost OT. I personally along with the majority do +/- about 1 hour a week and finish on-time or a few minutes before unless paired with a runner. But I DO KNOW the majority would be mighty peed-off if they knew that for working hard they ended up 3-4k a year worse-off before tax than 2 or 3 people who were just plain idle or unfit for the job. So whether you agree with me or not, it's the reality of the situation and the majority don't have their noses put out of joint.

As for the 'looked after' comment; the people I refer to simply haven't got the will or capacity to go faster - you could put a rocket up their jacksies and the fuse would die of boredom. So to question them would almost certainly lead to sanction or some form of dismissal, therefore the management avoiding doing so IS looking after them. I think it's wrong as we shouldn't have passengers but they are decent people so it's not my problem and like I said a status quo has been reached.

[jetblack]

.........

I agree with virtually everything you've said in this thread.

The poster defending those that take longer is correct in his intent/spirit - but is misguided if he believes that the reasons for individuals finishing over time are the same. They obviously aren't. Its not even a case of underperforming (in the case of the OP) as this would suggest that there were at least a willingness or intent to perform.
Its more that there are scammers amongst us - they do exist - these people have no intention of performing adequately. And so it can't possibly be right that they be paid a couple of thousand per year more for doing the same amount of work as someone else who isn't being rewarded so.


Its fraud. It wouldn't be tolerated by the local builders round the corner, who are bursting a gut to stay afloat, and it shouldn't be tolerated by Royal Mail.

Its a complete slap in the face for the rest of us that are doing the job to the best of our ability.

As a side note I reckon the union reps should be thinking long and hard about showing misguided loyalty to this sort of employee also - helping one crook like this is shafting a hundred of us - and we are paying our dues as well.

[steve1873]

.........

I agree with virtually everything you've said in this thread.

The poster defending those that take longer is correct in his intent/spirit - but is misguided if he believes that the reasons for individuals finishing over time are the same. They obviously aren't. Its not even a case of underperforming (in the case of the OP) as this would suggest that there were at least a willingness or intent to perform.
Its more that there are scammers amongst us - they do exist - these people have no intention of performing adequately. And so it can't possibly be right that they be paid a couple of thousand per year more for doing the same amount of work as someone else who isn't being rewarded so.


Its fraud. It wouldn't be tolerated by the local builders round the corner, who are bursting a gut to stay afloat, and it shouldn't be tolerated by Royal Mail.

Its a complete slap in the face for the rest of us that are doing the job to the best of our ability.

As a side note I reckon the union reps should be thinking long and hard about showing misguided loyalty to this sort of employee also - helping one crook like this is shafting a hundred of us - and we are paying our dues as well.

Whilst I can agree with most of what you say - the fact is we are paid by the hour. Some people can do more work in that hour than others. It doesn't mean they should be paid more. We are all human beings and as such vary massively in our physical and mental capabilities. Yes, there are "scammers", but management should be identifying those individuals and dealing with them. They shouldn't be withholding OT payments from people though. If they work the hours, they should be paid. And if it is an ongoing thing, then the reason for the OT needs to be investigated.

To be honest, there are guys in my office who have no real business doing this job as it is beyond what they are physically capable of, and as such it takes them longer than either myself, or the majority of the office would take. That said, as long as they ARE employed by RM then they should be paid for the hours that they do work. I have no problem with someone earning more than me if they happen to be out walking the streets well after I am home with my feet up.

The acceptance of non payments of overtime is a very slippery slope to go down!

[hans solo]

.........

I agree with virtually everything you've said in this thread.

The poster defending those that take longer is correct in his intent/spirit - but is misguided if he believes that the reasons for individuals finishing over time are the same. They obviously aren't. Its not even a case of underperforming (in the case of the OP) as this would suggest that there were at least a willingness or intent to perform.
Its more that there are scammers amongst us - they do exist - these people have no intention of performing adequately. And so it can't possibly be right that they be paid a couple of thousand per year more for doing the same amount of work as someone else who isn't being rewarded so.


Its fraud. It wouldn't be tolerated by the local builders round the corner, who are bursting a gut to stay afloat, and it shouldn't be tolerated by Royal Mail.

Its a complete slap in the face for the rest of us that are doing the job to the best of our ability.
ghost overtime is fraud and should be reported to ib and if happening in your office manager authorising this should be done for fraud that is not working and claiming wages worse than people claiming ot for apparently being slow

As a side note I reckon the union reps should be thinking long and hard about showing misguided loyalty to this sort of employee also - helping one crook like this is shafting a hundred of us - and we are paying our dues as well.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

As a side note, I reckon the union reps should be thinking long and hard about showing misguided loyalty to this sort of employee also - helping one crook like this is shafting a hundred of us - and we are paying our dues as well.

It's not misguided loyalty. It's a proper division of responsibility.

If someone isn't working to standards the Union are there to protect and defend him, when and if he is accused of such by management. Full Stop. If they do anything else then they are another tier of management and that's unacceptable.

Yes there are chancers, and there are people who work slow or inefficiently on purpose, but it's the Managers job to manage them, not the Unions. If you really feel that strongly about a particular person and you feel it isn't being dealt with properly then YOU can use either the B&H complaint process or more properly the grievance one.

After all, there may be medical or other conditions you are unaware of, and should remain unaware of. Put the shoe on the other foot, if other people think you are dragging your feet and the managers decide they are right. Wouldn't you want the CWU fighting your corner.

[fishtank]

First of all there are no " minimum acceptable standards " for outdoor work so judging the performance of others is a pointless waste of time. Secondly if I was paired with someone who was particularly slow and I wanted to finish on my time I wouldn't moan and bitch about it, I would just do it, thirdly I couldn't give a flying f**k what someone else is earning or what they do to earn it, it makes no difference to my wages, fourthly and don't take this too personally folks but...get a life.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

[motherhubbard]

if I was paired with someone who was particularly slow and I wanted to finish on my time I wouldn't moan and bitch about it, I would just do it.

That is easy to say when you are big enough and experienced enough to do it - not so easy when you are young and inexperienced and not fully informed of your rights.
And why should anyone have to go through the stress of having to follow the cutting off procedure every day when all they want to do is go to work, do their job and go home.

And while I understand TBT's post, if the problem lies between a full timer and a part timer, then it is easily seen as the union protecting the rights of a full timer over the rights of a part timer and that is divisive.
I obviously don't have the figures, but I would guess that the vast majority of reps are full timers and I would guess that a lot of part time staff feel that they are woefully represented by this union.

[k979aaa]

if I was paired with someone who was particularly slow and I wanted to finish on my time I wouldn't moan and bitch about it, I would just do it.

That is easy to say when you are big enough and experienced enough to do it - not so easy when you are young and inexperienced and not fully informed of your rights.
And why should anyone have to go through the stress of having to follow the cutting off procedure every day when all they want to do is go to work, do their job and go home.

And while I understand TBT's post, if the problem lies between a full timer and a part timer, then it is easily seen as the union protecting the rights of a full timer over the rights of a part timer and that is divisive.
I obviously don't have the figures, but I would guess that the vast majority of reps are full timers and I would guess that a lot of part time staff feel that they are woefully represented by this union.

Therefore the cutting off procedure is wrong and not fit for the purpose of today's need's management should ensure before commencement that the duty's can be done because they are the one's who make us lapse other duties and often with people who don't know those duties! We need a new procedure with the next pay and conditions deal one where the onus is upon those who put the work on the individuals are responsible and not that of the worker's to inform them they cannot complete the workload!