West Park walk out

[t3mcIUQWE2]

West Park walked out today over FT contracts being handed out not following seniority.

A member of staff was given FT after a couple of years whilst staff who have been there over 10 years weren't offered it. Coincidently he is a temporary manager.

[Lounge Lizard]

Is that Plymouth ?

[t3mcIUQWE2]

Is that Plymouth ?

Yes.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Picture posted in the 4 Pillars section https://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communi ... 62&t=81437" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[TheTrolleyMan]

West Park walked out today over FT contracts being handed out not following seniority.

A member of staff was given FT after a couple of years whilst staff who have been there over 10 years weren't offered it. Coincidently he is a temporary manager.

F***ing disgrace

[Acca Dacca]

This is the reason imo the union promised reflective contracts never materialised

PT postman A has been in 3 years and been asked to work day off every week for past 2 years

PT postman B has been in for 8 years and never got asked as he has a floater

Union says that if you have been working OT over r a long period you will get sick pay, holiday pay and a contract to reflect this

Sounds good

Until a FT contract gets offered to Postie A and not B who has seniority and this happens - cries of favouritism etc

[Brandy]

What a shambles this company is becoming.Its a disgrace

[ernieshoe]

This is the reason imo the union promised reflective contracts never materialised

PT postman A has been in 3 years and been asked to work day off every week for past 2 years

PT postman B has been in for 8 years and never got asked as he has a floater

Union says that if you have been working OT over r a long period you will get sick pay, holiday pay and a contract to reflect this

Sounds good

Until a FT contract gets offered to Postie A and not B who has seniority and this happens - cries of favouritism etc

In the real world the part timer that gets made up to full time would be the one that offers the company the most value and is the best at his / her job.
Seniority - 1970's noncense dragging the company down.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

This is the reason imo the union promised reflective contracts never materialised

PT postman A has been in 3 years and been asked to work day off every week for past 2 years

PT postman B has been in for 8 years and never got asked as he has a floater

Union says that if you have been working OT over r a long period you will get sick pay, holiday pay and a contract to reflect this

Sounds good

Until a FT contract gets offered to Postie A and not B who has seniority and this happens - cries of favouritism etc

In the real world the part timer that gets made up to full time would be the one that offers the company the most value and is the best at his / her job.
Seniority - 1970's noncense dragging the company down.

Actually, if you read up on the story this is a Junior Guy who is a reserve manager so perhaps the Seniority rule and the strike action stopped a bit of nepotism or favouritism within manager circles.

Personally, I agree that seniority isn't perfect, but until RM improve their management culture and style, Seniority as imperfect as it is is the better option,

[fishtank]

This is the reason imo the union promised reflective contracts never materialised

PT postman A has been in 3 years and been asked to work day off every week for past 2 years

PT postman B has been in for 8 years and never got asked as he has a floater

Union says that if you have been working OT over r a long period you will get sick pay, holiday pay and a contract to reflect this

Sounds good

Until a FT contract gets offered to Postie A and not B who has seniority and this happens - cries of favouritism etc

In the real world the part timer that gets made up to full time would be the one that offers the company the most value and is the best at his / her job.
Seniority - 1970's noncense dragging the company down.

No in the real world an office has a budget and an established staff in post mix. If there are part-time staff regularly working full-time hours covering full-time jobs the mix is wrong. It is not about the individual it's about office planning. This should be discussed at the regular resource meeting. If the office needs to recruit more full-time posts it should first be offered internally. This is done using seniority in almost every business in the country not to pander to the union but to protect management from accusations of favouritism and/or discrimination and the business from an expensive legal bill. It's simply good business sense. I don't know where you work ( I doubt it's royal mail ) but other than very small businesses in cases like ours where no special skills, education or training are involved an HR department will always advise internal recruiting uses seniority.

[clashcityrocker]

No in the real world an office has a budget and an established staff in post mix. If there are part-time staff regularly working full-time hours covering full-time jobs the mix is wrong. It is not about the individual it's about office planning.

So what I don't understand (if the reports on here are correct) is how so many offices can have got the planning so wrong.
Either the model week is incorrect or the efficiency expected has never materialized. (Or there was a lottery syndicate win in the office?)
Planners, managers and senior reps - how can they all have got the revisions so wrong? Surely somebody would have noticed?

And while there seems to be an obsession with getting people made full time, (from 25 hours to 39 in most cases?) wouldn't it be better to spread the increase in hours over more people.
Instead of 3 people getting full time contracts, 10 people could get an extra 4 hours/week.

[fishtank]

So what I don't understand (if the reports on here are correct) is how so many offices can have got the planning so wrong.

While there's no doubt some revisions were based on ridiculous planning assumptions and were wrong from the start I think in most cases it's been an evolutionary thing. Offices that started with a reasonable mix of full and part-time staff have lost full-time members and had these contracts replaced by part-time contracts, I don't think reps have fought hard enough to maintain hours and the business has been too quick to remove hours based on falling letter volumes without taking into account the genuine impact or lack of it on resourcing needs. If you consider a 5% reduction in letters that might equate to as little as 1 minute of prep per delivery, that could mean 100 minutes a day in a large delivery office which could cost a full-time contract but are you really going to realise those 60 seconds per delivery? Of course not so you're taking out hours that make you look more efficient on paper but you're not any more efficient in reality and you're paying part-timers to come in early to cover the full-time contract you've lost.

[DGH]

In the real world the part timer that gets made up to full time would be the one that offers the company the most value and is the best at his / her job.
Seniority - 1970's noncense dragging the company down.[/quote]

No in the real world an office has a budget and an established staff in post mix. If there are part-time staff regularly working full-time hours covering full-time jobs the mix is wrong. It is not about the individual it's about office planning. This should be discussed at the regular resource meeting. If the office needs to recruit more full-time posts it should first be offered internally. This is done using seniority in almost every business in the country not to pander to the union but to protect management from accusations of favouritism and/or discrimination and the business from an expensive legal bill. It's simply good business sense. I don't know where you work ( I doubt it's royal mail ) but other than very small businesses in cases like ours where no special skills, education or training are involved an HR department will always advise internal recruiting uses seniority.[/quote]


Not really. In most businesses big or small, seniority takes second place to willingness and aptitude. Discrimination and the fear of that have little to do with it and no sensible company will fear it if they act reasonably.

In the real world if a part-timer has worked regularly for more hours than they are contracted then they are entitled to be offered a contract for those hours after 6 months. There are exemptions to this designed to protect small businesses that are exploited by larger ones but it is the individual worker who is so entitled.

If someone on, say, a 20 hour contract has worked 39 hours a week for 6 months they should be offered a 39 hour contract. That person. Not someone else who happens to have been there longer but who has never worked more than contracted hours.

Really the union should recognise that. And RM should follow the intention of the law, not abuse it.

[Acca Dacca]

This is the reason imo the union promised reflective contracts never materialised

PT postman A has been in 3 years and been asked to work day off every week for past 2 years

PT postman B has been in for 8 years and never got asked as he has a floater

Union says that if you have been working OT over r a long period you will get sick pay, holiday pay and a contract to reflect this

Sounds good

Until a FT contract gets offered to Postie A and not B who has seniority and this happens - cries of favouritism etc

In the real world the part timer that gets made up to full time would be the one that offers the company the most value and is the best at his / her job.
Seniority - 1970's noncense dragging the company down.

Did you miss the part I said Postman B never gets asked?

Of course you did as it doesn't suit your agenda

[Acca Dacca]

Not really. In most businesses big or small, seniority takes second place to willingness and aptitude. Discrimination and the fear of that have little to do with it and no sensible company will fear it if they act reasonably.

In the real world if a part-timer has worked regularly for more hours than they are contracted then they are entitled to be offered a contract for those hours after 6 months. There are exemptions to this designed to protect small businesses that are exploited by larger ones but it is the individual worker who is so entitled.

If someone on, say, a 20 hour contract has worked 39 hours a week for 6 months they should be offered a 39 hour contract. That person. Not someone else who happens to have been there longer but who has never worked more than contracted hours.

Really the union should recognise that. And RM should follow the intention of the law, not abuse it.

Again

What if person with more seniority had never been asked? What if they had a floater so weren't required to work day off through no fault of their own? What if manager simply didn't like him/her personally so never offered OT?

Its not black n white