Owning your delivery ( a return to job and finish )

[Glenno]

Get real " jetblack " do you not get WTLL (oh sorry you don't,looking at your previous posts) it is built in to the New Work Model that they are spouting, read other posts to clarify, havn't got time to post a link

[Interested-seeker]

Everything posties enjoy about the job and that isn't as much as it used to be is being targeted by RM, in my opinion deliberately. They as in us like an earlier start with a mid afternoon finish, so let's f**k that up and hopefully lots of the older crew will f**k off, then we can replace them with people on lower pay and worse terms! RM know a lot of us would struggle with open ended finish times, some who don't want it and some with after work commitments. Do they care. An easy cull.

Sadly, I think that you are totally spot on.

[jetblack]

Get real " jetblack " do you not get WTLL (oh sorry you don't,looking at your previous posts) it is built in to the New Work Model that they are spouting, read other posts to clarify, havn't got time to post a link

Oh, OK 'Glenno'. I'm still on 'job and finish', as is everyone I know - so it might be best if I retreat from this particular thread.
Re. Work time listening - we get a letter thru once a week that for the large part covers dog bites and keeping a straight back whilst lifting. You kind of become desensitised to it after a while - so apologies if I've missed something important boss.

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest if they are fielding this - inevitable after we rolled over for privatisation (cos it was 'illegal' to strike over it and all that) - just that I personally have not heard anything about these particular proposals.
Is it a part of current and ongoing negotiations between RMG and the union ? Genuine question.

We are all on the same side.

[Brandy]

I have never known a company chop and change work practices so much,just to try and save money,never giving a thought to the ramifications of what they may entail. I wonder what happens to those who come up with these ideas,especially when it looses RM money,promotion most likely!!!! Remember Consignia! Dread to think what that cost to put right after it turned out to be such a failure.

[elteleltel]

I spoke to a Hermes delivery guy who does 5 days a wk and earnt 593 quid last month after tax etc .
Had to pay for own fuel out of that.
If that's where Route ownership is heading we are doomed .
I agree with earlier post that RM want the longer serving employees out to make way for new ones on poor contracts .
Nearly 20 yrs for me and 15 too go ...maybe

[deltaforce]

So is this ''owning your own delivery'' an idea that has actually been fielded by RM as of yet ?

No, apparently it something we've all been asking for, according to royal mail.

[mw7485]

Surely there would have to be a decent pay for this monstrosity? If we are talking franchise wage then
Surely they will prob make us go self employed ?

This is in no way franchising. A franchise is a genuine business opportunity - this most certainly is not.

A franchise transfers the risk from the employer to the employee, "genuine business opportunity" just being a way of making it look good to the employee.

Not so. A franchise creates risk for both the franchisee and franchiser - the risk doesn't exist until the franchisee exists - ie, takes out the franchise. A franchise provides access to a proven business model and support to help mitigate the risk the franchisee has incurred in becoming a franchise. The aim being that the franchisee has the capacity to leverage the past successes of the business model to gain an "upside" (or a reward). If successful, the brand is strengthened, the franchisee makes money and everyone wins. This is the genuine business opportunity I mentioned. The risk to the franchiser is the watering down of their brand if the franchise fails or is not executed correctly. I was simply pointing out that route ownership is not a franchise - nothing like it, and to call it a franchise is plain wrong. There is virtually no "upside" in terms of reward, and the business model isn't proven (no route ownership exists at the moment). I don't know who coined the term franchising in relation to route ownership, but it is an incorrect use of the business concept of franchising and disingenuous in its use.

I agree that route ownership is about risk delegation - but that is the main thrust of what the Royal Mail are trying to do; mitigate the risk from their current business model as much as possible and push it down the food chain - to us. In business, this is generally viewed as lazy management - which I think we can agree is something that Royal Mail absolutely excel at.

[Interested-seeker]

It is not only our jobs at risk. I think that there will also be a management cull in place once route ownership begins.

[Glenno]

It was also indicated that in delivery, Royal Mail want to introduce ‘self-managed groups’. In essence, what this means is that deliveries will be grouped together. Where members of these groups go on annual or sick leave, this group will perform the delivery between themselves. These groups will take ownership of all work requirements for these grouped deliveries. For those of you who have been in Royal Mail for some time and prior to 1996, this may sound familiar – Royal Mail tried to introduce, as it was known at the time ‘Team-working’ during 1996 and formed part of the Employee Agenda dispute. Obviously, this was defeated, however what it does show, is that Royal Mail are devoid of new ways of thinking and revert to ‘old style’ thinking and methods.

https://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communi ... =1&t=79189" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lounge Lizard]

Surely there would have to be a decent pay for this monstrosity? If we are talking franchise wage then
Surely they will prob make us go self employed ?

This is in no way franchising. A franchise is a genuine business opportunity - this most certainly is not.

A franchise transfers the risk from the employer to the employee, "genuine business opportunity" just being a way of making it look good to the employee.

Not so. A franchise creates risk for both the franchisee and franchiser - the risk doesn't exist until the franchisee exists - ie, takes out the franchise. A franchise provides access to a proven business model and support to help mitigate the risk the franchisee has incurred in becoming a franchise. The aim being that the franchisee has the capacity to leverage the past successes of the business model to gain an "upside" (or a reward). If successful, the brand is strengthened, the franchisee makes money and everyone wins. This is the genuine business opportunity I mentioned. The risk to the franchiser is the watering down of their brand if the franchise fails or is not executed correctly. I was simply pointing out that route ownership is not a franchise - nothing like it, and to call it a franchise is plain wrong. There is virtually no "upside" in terms of reward, and the business model isn't proven (no route ownership exists at the moment). I don't know who coined the term franchising in relation to route ownership, but it is an incorrect use of the business concept of franchising and disingenuous in its use.

I agree that route ownership is about risk delegation - but that is the main thrust of what the Royal Mail are trying to do; mitigate the risk from their current business model as much as possible and push it down the food chain - to us. In business, this is generally viewed as lazy management - which I think we can agree is something that Royal Mail absolutely excel at.

By "a franchise transfers the risk from the employer to the employee" I meant that the franchisee takes a greater risk than the franchiser.
,I agree with you that route ownership in Royal Mail would not be what is understood to be a franchise. -

[Lounge Lizard]

Surely there would have to be a decent pay for this monstrosity? If we are talking franchise wage then
Surely they will prob make us go self employed ?

This is in no way franchising. A franchise is a genuine business opportunity - this most certainly is not.

A franchise transfers the risk from the employer to the employee, "genuine business opportunity" just being a way of making it look good to the employee.

Not so. A franchise creates risk for both the franchisee and franchiser - the risk doesn't exist until the franchisee exists - ie, takes out the franchise. A franchise provides access to a proven business model and support to help mitigate the risk the franchisee has incurred in becoming a franchise. The aim being that the franchisee has the capacity to leverage the past successes of the business model to gain an "upside" (or a reward). If successful, the brand is strengthened, the franchisee makes money and everyone wins. This is the genuine business opportunity I mentioned. The risk to the franchiser is the watering down of their brand if the franchise fails or is not executed correctly. I was simply pointing out that route ownership is not a franchise - nothing like it, and to call it a franchise is plain wrong. There is virtually no "upside" in terms of reward, and the business model isn't proven (no route ownership exists at the moment). I don't know who coined the term franchising in relation to route ownership, but it is an incorrect use of the business concept of franchising and disingenuous in its use.

I agree that route ownership is about risk delegation - but that is the main thrust of what the Royal Mail are trying to do; mitigate the risk from their current business model as much as possible and push it down the food chain - to us. In business, this is generally viewed as lazy management - which I think we can agree is something that Royal Mail absolutely excel at.

By "a franchise transfers the risk from the employer to the employee" I meant that the franchisee takes a greater risk than the franchiser.
,I agree with you that route ownership in Royal Mail would not be what is understood to be a franchise. -

[loverman shabba]

So is this ''owning your own delivery'' an idea that has actually been fielded by RM as of yet ?

No, apparently it something we've all been asking for, according to royal mail.

royal mail fantasy land. i guarantee not 1 postie has asked for it

[Darren Bent]

I think it is load of porkies. If I was to own a delivery I would want to freedom to decide how many delivery a week or what hours to work but that is about likely as Manchester City decided to stop spending money on new players.

[Janet Brum]

It looks to me like RM used this delivery owning as a distraction from the main event, the upcoming strike.
Keep them busy with other stuff, so they thought

[fishtank]

It looks to me like RM used this delivery owning as a distraction from the main event, the upcoming strike.
Keep them busy with other stuff, so they thought

I think in some ways you're right, they've thrown into the mix a proposal with no clear definition and allowed the staff to invent the biggest scariest monster their imagination could come up with. What that gives them scope to do is come back with a much milder version of that monster and the staff will breathe a sigh of relief.

I don't think this has anything to do with franchising , I don't think it's about covering sick leave or annual leave, I think it's simply a case of reducing extended delivery overtime and balancing work hours perhaps with some kind of annualised hours or even a more controlled weekly hours monitoring. If you like it's simply a resurrection of "swings and roundabouts" from P&M 2007 but with far more focus on hours actually worked. The title of the thread seems to have confused some people, by a return to job and finish what I meant was you'll be allowed to job and finish but you won't score out of it because any time gained will be logged and balanced against any overtime worked, either on a weekly, monthly or the nuclear option...annually.

Some offices already do this, it's called "banking hours" but it's unofficial and there is no agreement primarily because we don't trust their monitoring systems but these data trials are a game changer.