Is this right? I certainly know its not fair

[gary1975]

My office has the usual managers pets get all the ot ive lost count how times my name is top of ot list only to be bypassed by a yes man, are we saying that they should get a contract increase because they get the overtime that I want but can't get because of corrupt managers im senior to them so seniority is the only thing I have to get me those hours when they become available.

[TiredPostman]

Kick up a fuss with the union and your manager over the fact you've been doing 'Full time' hours on a PT contract, get the union to raise it for you, and what should happen is if your hours over a 6/12 month period show you have been doing them hours constantly - their meant to make your contract up to FT.

If that route does not work, let them know and think that you will be cutting off everyday due to only working your hours... their make up your contract after a while when their desperate!

[Pompey Boy]

Our office has made up 6 part timers up to 39 hours. I have no issue with this. I have missed out on the old bull of seniority. Regularly doing full time hours and above. This is where im thinking of putting in a grievance.

A few of the ones that have been made up are old timers who took BUY DOWNS. So firstly they chose to jump down to part time in the first time. They were financially rewarded for doing so and now have been financially rewarded yet again by getting the increase in hours back! To make it worse the union rep has had a hand in this. Ive voted yes but right now i couldnt careless about a strike. This whole thing stinks. What are my options?
Regular 50+ hours a week. Shafted on my rwo and leave weeks. The rage i feel is indescribable.

Interesting. When POMC closed some 600 drivers who didn't want to transfer to SOMC went over to deliveries. They received a buy down payment to cover 2 years. Once he had transferred, I know that one of them asked the deliveries rep if he could buy down to a 30 hour contract and then at some stage to back to full time if he wanted. The rep said that there was no buy down - the person could go onto a 30 hour contract if he wanted, but there would be no lump sum. The rep also said that there would be no way back up to full time hours once a 30 hour contract had been agreed.

I know that some of the 600 drivers who went to SOMC took buy downs, but were told that they could go back to 40 hour contracts after the buy down period had ended (2 years).

Your situation makes me think that some pinny wearers must be involved, just like when POMC closed and alot of processing people got looked after.

[Newbie001]

Have sympathy. But as one poster mentioned, take away seniority then it would be down to managers to choose. Think the main thing is that the six month reviews are obviously not happening in most offices. This is where CWU is failing miserably.

[Pompey Boy]

I think the worst one at POMC was the case of a Guvnor. When it was announced that POMC was closing and that processing staff were transferring to SOMC he took EVR. Anyway several months down the line he came back to POMC as a Christmas casual, then got made a p/t RM employee, then full time to organise the UTR at the rural offices. Finally, just before the last processing people moved out of POMC he got made up to full time Guvnor (not acting) and guess what - when POMC officially closed he got a nice big pay off again!

[clashcityrocker]

Kick up a fuss with the union and your manager over the fact you've been doing 'Full time' hours on a PT contract, get the union to raise it for you, and what should happen is if your hours over a 6/12 month period show you have been doing them hours constantly - their meant to make your contract up to FT.

That is an oversimplification.
If you covered one long term sick for 6 months and then another long term sick for another 6 months you wouldn't get an increase in your contracted hours because the hours don't exist going forwards.
Similarly if you were covering maternity leave or a vacancy, then similarly those hours won't exist going forward.
Some offices like to run with vacancies to ensure there is overtime available. It doesn't mean full time contracts are available.

Lastly if you are doing overtime because your office is grossly inefficient then why would full time contracts be handed out.
We have p/t staff that are brought in 2 hours early everyday to help with the indoor workload because the indoor staff are working at half the rate expected when the revision was put in.
Some of those p/t staff go home 1 - 2 hours early every day. Some of them think they should be given a 39 hour contract when they are working 30 - 35 hours/week.

The hours have to be sustainable. In some cases they are not which is why people are not being made up. It isn't because the reviews are not taking place or because the agreement is being ignored.

[Stormproof]

I took Buy Down a couple of years ago. RM buy your hours off you for 3 years and after that time if you are lucky enough you can get made back up. I don't intend to go back to F/T as I like doing a 3 day week but if I wanted to I can because I fulfilled my part of the contract. I did'nt get anywhere near the amount of money that has been mentioned but I'm only 15 years in.

[postslippete]

I personally don't think that doing overtime makes you any more valuable or important to Royal Mail than someone else who doesn't. Royal Mail managers are encouraged to offer overtime to everyone and to try and allocate it equally. At least that is what I understand it to be, and if no one else is bothered about doing it, and you are, then at least managers know who to get in touch with. Who would do the overtime if you didn't??

Our manager does ours

[Pompey Boy]

I took Buy Down a couple of years ago. RM buy your hours off you for 3 years and after that time if you are lucky enough you can get made back up. I don't intend to go back to F/T as I like doing a 3 day week but if I wanted to I can because I fulfilled my part of the contract. I did'nt get anywhere near the amount of money that has been mentioned but I'm only 15 years in.

The buy downs that the POMC 600 drivers got had nothing to do with length of service. It was the difference between their 600 money and postie money over 2 years with loss of allowances not taken into account.

[kingeric]

Sorry to hiJack the thread slightly but just wanted a quick bit of information over a similar issue.

My partner has been waiting for full time hours for around 6 years now. Around 18months ago the office made up 4/5 part timers. My partner just missed out. The part timers were going to be reserves but ended up staying on their walks for a couple of months to get Xmas out of the way. After Xmas they were told they would be made reserves. All but one of these guys refused and said they would go back to part time hours instead and stay on their walk.

These guys have never been replaced. Since then we have had a revision and a few more full timers leave and part timers are being made up again. My partner was told that these guys would be put to the back of the queue after last time but it seems they are being first asked again and my partner looks like she will miss out again. She is a good worker and I'd personally like to keep her with me so wouldn't be too upset but it doesn't seem right that the same guys will probably do the same trick of getting full-time then dropping down after Xmas again and she has a family to feed so if I could help her I would like to.

Any ideas?

[jetblack]

It should be those regularly doing the hours who are offered the option of getting more contracted hours (and that could be done by seniority, fair enough).

What you describe is simply outrageous and the union should not support on condone it in any way.

Postie 1 has been part- time for 15 years and only worked her contracted hours because she was the primary carer for her two children.

Postie 2 has been part-time for 10 years and has done 20 hours overtime a week because he's single and has no other commitments.

Who should the union support and why?

We can always find examples of this sort FT - emotive ones, that is.

How about this :- posties A and B both have exactly the same home life and commitments. Postie A started on 1st september 2000 on 8 hours a week, whereas postie B started on 2nd Septemebr 2000 and has consistently done 45 hours per week since.
Postie A is the more senior.

Its ridiculous.

You say, but postie A only does 8 hours cos 'she' is a single parent etc. I say, it aint necessarily so. And even if it were, and even given well meaning rules that don't seek to discriminate against part time workers, what about discrimination against full time workers (some of whom might also be single parents believe it or not) ?

Seniority should be based on total hours worked under the employ of RMG. It may be difficult logistically - that is, it may be difficult to work out. But where there is a will there is a way.

[Acca Dacca]

It should be those regularly doing the hours who are offered the option of getting more contracted hours (and that could be done by seniority, fair enough).

What you describe is simply outrageous and the union should not support on condone it in any way.

Postie 1 has been part- time for 15 years and only worked her contracted hours because she was the primary carer for her two children.

Postie 2 has been part-time for 10 years and has done 20 hours overtime a week because he's single and has no other commitments.

Who should the union support and why?

We can always find examples of this sort FT - emotive ones, that is.

How about this :- posties A and B both have exactly the same home life and commitments. Postie A started on 1st september 2000 on 8 hours a week, whereas postie B started on 2nd Septemebr 2000 and has consistently done 45 hours per week since.
Postie A is the more senior.

Its ridiculous.

You say, but postie A only does 8 hours cos 'she' is a single parent etc. I say, it aint necessarily so. And even if it were, and even given well meaning rules that don't seek to discriminate against part time workers, what about discrimination against full time workers (some of whom might also be single parents believe it or not) ?

Seniority should be based on total hours worked under the employ of RMG. It may be difficult logistically - that is, it may be difficult to work out. But where there is a will there is a way.

And what happens when golden boys and managers favourites get offered all the OT?

[jetblack]

It should be those regularly doing the hours who are offered the option of getting more contracted hours (and that could be done by seniority, fair enough).

What you describe is simply outrageous and the union should not support on condone it in any way.

Postie 1 has been part- time for 15 years and only worked her contracted hours because she was the primary carer for her two children.

Postie 2 has been part-time for 10 years and has done 20 hours overtime a week because he's single and has no other commitments.

Who should the union support and why?

We can always find examples of this sort FT - emotive ones, that is.

How about this :- posties A and B both have exactly the same home life and commitments. Postie A started on 1st september 2000 on 8 hours a week, whereas postie B started on 2nd Septemebr 2000 and has consistently done 45 hours per week since.
Postie A is the more senior.

Its ridiculous.

You say, but postie A only does 8 hours cos 'she' is a single parent etc. I say, it aint necessarily so. And even if it were, and even given well meaning rules that don't seek to discriminate against part time workers, what about discrimination against full time workers (some of whom might also be single parents believe it or not) ?

Seniority should be based on total hours worked under the employ of RMG. It may be difficult logistically - that is, it may be difficult to work out. But where there is a will there is a way.

And what happens when golden boys and managers favourites get offered all the OT?

Fair point - but seperate issue.

[gary1975]

It should be those regularly doing the hours who are offered the option of getting more contracted hours (and that could be done by seniority, fair enough).

What you describe is simply outrageous and the union should not support on condone it in any way.

Postie 1 has been part- time for 15 years and only worked her contracted hours because she was the primary carer for her two children.

Postie 2 has been part-time for 10 years and has done 20 hours overtime a week because he's single and has no other commitments.

Who should the union support and why?

We can always find examples of this sort FT - emotive ones, that is.

So what about the senior pt staff who want the hours but can't get them because managers give the overtime to yes men,
Why should the yes men or woman be made up

How about this :- posties A and B both have exactly the same home life and commitments. Postie A started on 1st september 2000 on 8 hours a week, whereas postie B started on 2nd Septemebr 2000 and has consistently done 45 hours per week since.
Postie A is the more senior.

Its ridiculous.

You say, but postie A only does 8 hours cos 'she' is a single parent etc. I say, it aint necessarily so. And even if it were, and even given well meaning rules that don't seek to discriminate against part time workers, what about discrimination against full time workers (some of whom might also be single parents believe it or not) ?

Seniority should be based on total hours worked under the employ of RMG. It may be difficult logistically - that is, it may be difficult to work out. But where there is a will there is a way.

[gary1975]

It should be those regularly doing the hours who are offered the option of getting more contracted hours (and that could be done by seniority, fair enough).

What you describe is simply outrageous and the union should not support on condone it in any way.

Postie 1 has been part- time for 15 years and only worked her contracted hours because she was the primary carer for her two children.

Postie 2 has been part-time for 10 years and has done 20 hours overtime a week because he's single and has no other commitments.

Who should the union support and why?

We can always find examples of this sort FT - emotive ones, that is.

How about this :- posties A and B both have exactly the same home life and commitments. Postie A started on 1st september 2000 on 8 hours a week, whereas postie B started on 2nd Septemebr 2000 and has consistently done 45 hours per week since.
Postie A is the more senior.

Its ridiculous.

You say, but postie A only does 8 hours cos 'she' is a single parent etc. I say, it aint necessarily so. And even if it were, and even given well meaning rules that don't seek to discriminate against part time workers, what about discrimination against full time workers (some of whom might also be single parents believe it or not) ?

Seniority should be based on total hours worked under the employ of RMG. It may be difficult logistically - that is, it may be difficult to work out. But where there is a will there is a way.

And what happens when golden boys and managers favourites get offered all the OT?

Fair point - but seperate issue.

How's it a seperate issue