superports wrote:I can't figure out how I will be expected to do the same amount of work in an hour less. Hopefully the union will clarify.
It reminds me of an argument I had with a Dom about a duty that was timed at 4 hrs back in the days when we had a 3.30hr maximum.
I said how do we resolve this and his answer was...walk faster.
Good old managers logic. I remember a postie telling a manager his pouch bag was too heavy, the managers solution was to tell him to take a few bundles out and carry them under his arm.
superports wrote:I can't figure out how I will be expected to do the same amount of work in an hour less. Hopefully the union will clarify.
It reminds me of an argument I had with a Dom about a duty that was timed at 4 hrs back in the days when we had a 3.30hr maximum.
I said how do we resolve this and his answer was...walk faster.
Good old managers logic. I remember a postie telling a manager his pouch bag was too heavy, the managers solution was to tell him to take a few bundles out and carry them under his arm.
I would of asked him to demonstrate what he ment. Plus how he would post a letter in a low letter box while carrying bundles.
Jefferson Starfish wrote:You're missing the fact that we won't be losing an hours pay when we drop down to 38 hours per week! Or when that goes down to 37 hours.
Yes they will reduce our work time by one hour and they will still pay us for the hour. When you stop for a minute and consider the idea it doesn't make any sense. Then you realise the work we did in that hour will still arrive into the office and we will still do that work.
John Lydon once said something along the lines of : "Do you ever get the feeling you've been used?" .
I agree !!
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Surely if the trials are done properly, any new working methods that are either unworkable or cost more time will be rejected leaving the way we do things now as the best option. I often feel that there is too much pessimism on here. To me the glass is half full not half empty, an hour off the working week is probably achievable, cut the wtll sessions down a little, no signing in and out anymore, maybe even no docket to complete because the monitoring will automatically pay you from the time you walk in until you walk out again.......;)
The reduction in hours is actually going to benefit RM by flushing out further the duties that still make time. Its an extra 10 minutes a day in RMs back pockets, and 20 mins per day when we go down to 37 hours. 10-20 mins doesnt sound like a lot but when you multiply it by the whole country its a great saving. Of course people who dont finish already wont finish then plus an extra 10 minutes of work not done, but the amount of people who dont complete everyday is the minority. Overall it could work out to both parties benefit - shorter working week for posties, RM boosts efficiency. Only bad for the people who like to make time everyday.
rogersh wrote:When the hours reduced from 40 to 39 were there similar concerns. How did it resolve if i assume it was the same scenario?
How did it get resolved? The start times were moved forward by 12 minutes per day which with a 5 day working week is the one hour of SWW. Obviously just because the CWU change our hours the work is still there. The end result was that we ended up running over time at the end. Posties have made an attempt to sort it out but RM are resistant to paying overtime for that work to be completed. Therefore as a general rule the work gets done unpaid.
When/if the next two hours of SWW are taken the start time will be moved forward an addition two lots of 12 minutes and yet more work will not fit into paid duty time.
The views I express here are mine alone and do not represent the views of Royal Mail Group.
