work to rule

Post by **osgoody1970** » 15 Jul 2017, 12:46

with the announcement that royal mail will close the current pension scheme, and the possible chance of industrial action imminent, it has left me wondering if a work to rule, would enhance the life of the delivery postman!!! after a strike of say, fri-sat, mon tues, the first week and then a work to rule thereafter, it would leave delivery postman, no chance of completing their walks, and so doing the job properly would result in less stress and less rushing around!!! obviously you would have managers trying to bully, but, if you have no chance of completing, would it stop the runners? and show them, the job is worth doing properly???...your thoughts????

Post by **baldrick** » 15 Jul 2017, 13:09

A work to rule would be regarded by RM as unofficial industrial action and would result in people being suspended or sacked. That would mean having to take unofficial strike action which would enable RM to take legal action against the CWU.
The CWU needs to ballot not just for strike action but also for an overtime ban.

rehabron · Post by **rehabron** » 15 Jul 2017, 13:26

osgoody1970 wrote:with the announcement that royal mail will close the current pension scheme, and the possible chance of industrial action imminent, it has left me wondering if a work to rule, would enhance the life of the delivery postman!!! after a strike of say, fri-sat, mon tues, the first week and then a work to rule thereafter, it would leave delivery postman, no chance of completing their walks, and so doing the job properly would result in less stress and less rushing around!!! obviously you would have managers trying to bully, but, if you have no chance of completing, would it stop the runners? and show them, the job is worth doing properly???...your thoughts????

Could you imagine the queue that would develop at the keycase if every collection driver systematically went through every key number on their handed key ring and compared they were correct for the route. just a small point in relation to doing the job properly.

doorstepped · Post by **doorstepped** » 15 Jul 2017, 14:10

Can't work to rule, but can work to your time.
( perhaps if we all did we would not need to threaten strike action )

Strikes need to be staggered. Mon - MC Tue - Logistics Wed - Delivery etc etc

no point in all striking on the same day, maximum disruption would be caused by staggering the different sectors on a daily basis.

Post by **osgoody1970** » 15 Jul 2017, 14:19

if we got a yes vote in a ballot, then you can work to rule, as well as strike action, but if you have no chance of completing your walk, there is then no rush, i'm not activating, anyone slowing down deliberately, but do the job properly, surely, it takes the stress out of day to day life on delivery, there being you know wot time you start, and more importantly, what time you finish!!!

Darwinsdad · Post by **Darwinsdad** » 15 Jul 2017, 14:57

Maybe I'm being a bit thick here, but when I see work to rule, what goes round in my head is surely you should be doing that anyway. Starting on your start time, taking your breaks, using trollies, correct procedure for cutting off etc. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick and it means something completely different?

Edited to add: No, I'm not a manager and have no inclination to be one, I quite enjoy this second career of not being paid enough to think/make decisions

centenaryman · Post by **centenaryman** » 15 Jul 2017, 15:00

When we went through the last major strike,,,approx. 8-10 years ago....when we went back to work the d.o.m was determined not to allow us overtime...wether that came from above or whatever.

so each morning after the strike we were only allowed to sort enough for a days work LOL.
the yorks pilled up and they would manage the yorks in order they came into to the office so on that score working to rule wasn't needed they made us work to rule LOL

worktotime · Post by **worktotime** » 15 Jul 2017, 15:48

I'm all for work to rule , you don't lose money and can you imagine the stuff that would be left in the offices nationally which would be a kick in the arse to our leaders , or and offcom might have summat to say as well , if we do strike lets not f**k about with these 1 day strikes , everybody out at the same time for however long it takes its s**t or bust imo , as we all know about the 1 day strikes you would still get the idiots going in early the next day for free to get there mail in , weve seen it before in our orifice, so was a waste of time.

Postie45 · Post by **Postie45** » 15 Jul 2017, 17:08

everyone can do work to rule now, its called doing the job properly..... allegedly of course

olilew · Post by **olilew** » 16 Jul 2017, 00:54

baldrick wrote:A work to rule would be regarded by RM as unofficial industrial action and would result in people being suspended or sacked. That would mean having to take unofficial strike action which would enable RM to take legal action against the CWU.
The CWU needs to ballot not just for strike action but also for an overtime ban.

If our union called a work to rule it would not be unofficial. This would bring RM to it's knees but we would still get paid. It's the answer for me.

Destiny · Post by **Destiny** » 16 Jul 2017, 07:08

Pointless when job & finish is still in play at so many offices, plus widely encouraged at my own.
You want support there, where most wouldn't still on the old practices.
Strike!!

streets97 · Post by **streets97** » 17 Jul 2017, 13:41

Baldrick, how would work to rule mean you could get suspended or even sacked. I would like to see this in court. The judge says "so Mr postman you started on your proper start time, you had all your meal break, you worked at the standard set out by RM and the CWU you finished on your finish time, so it's not your fault you can't manage the workload, it's RM's fault for giving you too much work to do in the hours that they are willing to pay you for. Case dismissed

Momo90210 · Post by **Momo90210** » 17 Jul 2017, 15:52

streets97 wrote:Baldrick, how would work to rule mean you could get suspended or even sacked. I would like to see this in court. The judge says "so Mr postman you started on your proper start time, you had all your meal break, you worked at the standard set out by RM and the CWU you finished on your finish time, so it's not your fault you can't manage the workload, it's RM's fault for giving you too much work to do in the hours that they are willing to pay you for. Case dismissed

never a truer word spoken

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 17 Jul 2017, 16:07

Momo90210 wrote:
streets97 wrote:Baldrick, how would work to rule mean you could get suspended or even sacked. I would like to see this in court. The judge says "so Mr postman you started on your proper start time, you had all your meal break, you worked at the standard set out by RM and the CWU you finished on your finish time, so it's not your fault you can't manage the workload, it's RM's fault for giving you too much work to do in the hours that they are willing to pay you for. Case dismissed
never a truer word spoken

I disagree, Baldrick has it generally correct. Unless the CWU ballot for "Action Short of a Strike" a Work to Rule is illegal.

Now if one person decides to work within the rules, and does so without collusion, threats or intimidation, that is fine, no problems at all.

But if the whole office decides to do it en masse the that is Unofficial Industrial Action, which is illegal.

Also putting pressure on, or even just suggesting it, other posties to follow your example could be considered as attempting to start un-official industrial action.

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 17 Jul 2017, 17:43

A work to rule is not the same as doing the job properly, a work to rule means you do the bare minimum instructed by your contract in order to effect a reduction in performance, our contracts are far too vague and our members are far to ignorant of what's actually in their contract to go down this route and all that would happen is that some people would be taken off pay and some would be in very real danger of losing their jobs.