CWU 'drive for 35' hr week

Post by **POSTMAN** » 24 Mar 2016, 14:26

http://www.cwu.org/media/news/2016/marc ... ve-for-35/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A shorter working week will be a "priority aim" during the forthcoming national negotiations with Royal Mail, this week's CWU postal policy forum decided.

Following a debate on the issue, delegates adopted policy aiming to achieve a 35-hour gross basic working week by 2020, with no reduction in pay.

The shorter week should be reached on a phased basis, with each annual step being linked to automation deployment and Royal Mail's strategy, and with the intention of protecting full-time jobs going forward, the policy states.

Speaking in favour of the position, deputy general secretary Terry Pullinger warned: "This will be a big issue with the business, but we will argue that we need to go forward on a mutual interest basis."

Terry added that there was a significant body of independent research that indicates that a shorter working week, linked to improvements in working practices and organisation, led to people being able to work better and more effectively while reducing fatigue and that the union would use this evidence in talks with the company.

On the issue of pay, the forum resolved that, if a one-year pay settlement was reached in the 2016 talks, then this should be 'de-coupled' from the range of other longer term issues under discussion.

During the debate on this issue, assistant secretary Davie Robertson explained that 'de-coupling', in the event of a one-year pay deal, would be the fairest way forward, because the longer-term issues will vary considerably across the different business groups and could take some considerable time to resolve.

A lengthy discussion took place over issues in delivery, with particular focus on company plans for 'single-wave' operation, 'optimised mail preparation' (OMP) and the possibility of increased delivery span.

Policy was adopted opposing the 'single-wave' idea as "artificially delaying the work in the network" and as a strategy "based on job losses and the creation of a predominately part-time flexible workforce."

Policy was carried which committed the union to "explore an alternative strategy which allows work to be delivered from 7am on one or two or three deliveries."

Such a strategy would "allow for bespoke services to be delivered later to grow the business and allow the opportunity to grow in the parcels business and protect full-time jobs."

Assistant secretary Bob Gibson told the forum that "we're all about getting the best deal for our members and, in light of the big impact on indoor workload, we must do something about delivery span."

On OMP, policy agreed was to insist upon a "full national agreement" before any further deployment.

Protecting existing rights and agreements was also a high priority for delegates, who vowed to launch a national campaign, including an industrial action ballot, against any attempt by the business to close the defined benefit pension scheme, and also to secure a better pension settlement for those in the current defined contribution scheme.

And the forum also resolved to defend the MTSF agreement to ensure that "there is no depreciation of the terms and conditions which are covered by the MTFS agreement."

Assistant secretary Ray Ellis reminded the audience that, over the 14 years since MTSF was introduced, no-one covered by the agreement had been made compulsorily redundant, which he described as "a proud achievement of this trade union and in stark contrast to the situation in wider industry."

Congratulations were given to those who organised, took part in, and made a success of last October's People's Post Rally in Manchester. A similar event is planned for Birmingham in June and the forum pledged to "maximise attendance and participation, ensuring the People's Post campaign goes from strength to strength."

The union's commitment to fight for full renationalisation was re-affirmed, and this will remain a "central tenet" of the People's Post campaign going forward.

Summing up at the close of business, after a busy two-day event, Terry Pullinger thanked delegates for the "quality and thought" of their contributions to the debates and said: "We've united this union around policy.‎ Now we need to unite the whole membership behind securing the policies we've agreed."

* Full details of policy documents agreed will be available to branches in due course.

gary1975 · Post by **gary1975** » 26 Mar 2016, 19:22

I'm sure all part timers would welcome this a four hours a week pay rise.

genesis · Post by **genesis** » 27 Mar 2016, 16:34

In a lot of jobs,civil service springs to mind, they do not get paid for their breaks, thus giving them a shorter working week. I wonder how it would work in royal mail.would the 35 hour week be any shorter really?
Also if there is a six hour delivery , There would not be any need for so many delivery postmen . Just trying to work out the cwu's reasoning on this.

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 27 Mar 2016, 17:40

The CWU thinking for this is simple, it's a gross 35 hour working week we are aiming for, we already have a net 36 hr 40 min so there wouldn't be much point in just losing the breaks.

The reason the union wants to reduce the working week is to keep as many full-time jobs in royal mail as possible, with a reduction in indoor workload we need to offset an increase in outdoor workload because a) the job may become physically impossible for many staff and b) any increase in outdoor workload obviously means a reduction in overall headcount.

There will inevitably be some increase in delivery spans at some point in the future but the more we can reduce the working week the less ridiculous that increase may be.

genesis · Post by **genesis** » 27 Mar 2016, 18:49

So given break times would be reduced to about 30 mins ,net full time job would be about 32 hours 30 mins .

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 29 Mar 2016, 15:41

genesis wrote:So given break times would be reduced to about 30 mins ,net full time job would be about 32 hours 30 mins .

So that's 4 Hours and 10 Minuets less walking if I had my way would have pushed for a 33 hour week with no loss of pay it could be done with a long enough deal and we would have the best terms and conditions in Europe if not the world.

Darren Bent · Post by **Darren Bent** » 30 Mar 2016, 20:15

and earlier start to 6am ;)

Post by **SpacePhoenix** » 30 Mar 2016, 20:17

Darren Bent wrote:and earlier start to 6am ;)

If anything it won't be too long before DOs are a latter start (probably 07:30-08:00), with a single duty starting earlier to do all 9am specials

Spedley · Post by **Spedley** » 30 Mar 2016, 20:46

So we get a decent pay rise this year and then 11% (in real terms) over 3 years taking us to 2020.

LET ME OUT!

A2B · Post by **A2B** » 30 Mar 2016, 21:00

How would that work with people already on a 35hr week? Last time we got a pay increase instead of a reduction in hours, i guess that wouldn't happen in this case

Post by **aposter** » 30 Mar 2016, 21:46

A2B wrote:How would that work with people already on a 35hr week? Last time we got a pay increase instead of a reduction in hours, i guess that wouldn't happen in this case

If the 'reduction' in working hours and hence also the effective 'pay rise' is gained through the loss of paid breaks, then peeps on a shorter than 39hr contract would also find their working week reduced pro rata, ie by the length of their current breaks and hence their hourly rate effectively increase.

Of course the net wage in all cases would remain unaltered as would the actual number of hours worked, but it looks good on paper, and can be wrapped up to look nice on a voting form.

A2B · Post by **A2B** » 30 Mar 2016, 22:04

Surely only a fool would vote for an agreement that takes away our paid meal relief

Martin Walsh · Post by **Martin Walsh** » 31 Mar 2016, 07:24

The CWU policy for a 35 gross working week maintains paid meal reliefs. A full timer on average works 36 hours and 20 mins and than the paid meal reliefs take them up to 39 hours.

The CWU policy is to reach the gross 35 hour week by 2020 which is a tall task especially as in the 31 years I have been in the job we have moved from 43 hours to 39 hours.

However it is the right policy indoor work is reducing , the new improvements to Tops 2000 , the relocation of automation and the improvement of the read rate in MDECs all will mean that Mail which normally would have gone onto the IPS will now come automated and sequenced.

Add to the fact that new automation is in the pipeline , plus through production control they want to monitor every second of your day than a shorter working week is vital.

Meal reliefs I believe will also need reviewing as the less hours you work per day will mean a shorter meal relief. I think we need to keep the 40 min average paid meal relief and maybe even increase it if spans become longer as indoor work reduces.

A 35 hour gross working week will mean potentially a 32 hour week. Based on a 5 day week attendance that will be a 7 hour 20 min attendance including a meal relief. This attendance would reduce the chances of a full 6 hour delivery span even if all indoor work was sequenced.

Now for part timers their hourly rate would increase and would get a significant pay rise from a reduction in the working week. Equally the gap between part time and full time hours would decrease as well.

The key point will be the absorption rates of the reduction in the working week as one hour off the working week without any absorption adds significant costs to the wage bill. Under the way forward absorption was 68% of the reduction. Of course the reality is you can do less in 35 hours than you can do in 39 hours.

Now the debate will be can we convince the members that for the next 4 years the priority is not pay but hours that is not too say there won't be a pay rise but you will have a lesser rise in order to reduce the working week and to safeguards jobs in the longer term. Obviously with every reduction in the working week the hourly rate goes which helps any pay rise.

So this is part of the union's strategy to combat the business's move to one wave , more automation , real hour recording of staff and Royal Mail's intention to reduce delivery to a purely outdoor model !

Communication will now be key. And also to dispel any myths. Paid meal reliefs will not be given up !

A2B · Post by **A2B** » 31 Mar 2016, 16:53

So potentially somebody on a 35hr contract could get a nice rise in their hourly rate whereas a fulltimer would receive a reduction in their working week but no added pay? That would go down well with some

Obviously all speculation at the moment

Martin Walsh · Post by **Martin Walsh** » 31 Mar 2016, 18:09

To protect full time jobs you need to reduce the working week. There are 4 pay deals between now and 2020 which the policy has to tackle. No one is saying that you won't get a pay deal but the priority must be a reduction in the working otherwise full time jobs will reduce dramatically !