Seniority is a Joke

[Postie45]

sickness is sickness, if people are taking the p!ss then that needs to be dealt with, but its nothing to do with seniority

[Murdoch]

i did make quite a few reasoned arguments about how its a fair system because it does apply to everyone and you would benefit from it given time. Its just that we go through this type of thread every so often, and no one can really provide a good alternative which would be legitimately fairer. If you do it by hours as someone has mentioned is that fair to someone who has family and cant do as many hours ? There is no perfect system at least this one ends up with everyone being on the same playing field.
What are these duties youre talking about where seniority wouldnt be the only consideration ? for almost all duties we require the same skill set, so how would you break ties for them ?

No you didn't, reread you post.

you opened up with a strawman argument.

Then you made a generalisation about EVERYBODY starting as reserves (which is simply not the case).

Then you made made it personal with the "pipe down and grind it out" comment. Because you took my comments personally in the first place and became defensive. You feel you've earned something, I get it. My assertion is, it doesn't matter what you feel you've done to "earn" that seniority, none of it mattered.

Then you made some generic point about entitlement, which had no relevance to my argument whatsoever.

[Postie45]

Of course a lot of it is generalisation this whole topic of the validity of seniority deals with the breadth of the company not individual cases, this a huge company and the vast majority will be a reserve starting out and possibly for a year or so afterwards - thats typical, doesnt mean its ALWAYS the case. I gave a list of the things that its typical a newer postie will tend to go through when they start, and those are the same things posties went through when they started many years ago too. Therefore, people are treated very equally under this system, UNLESS you decided to leave before seniority kicks in for you. My point remains this is the fairest system.

What do you mean none of it mattered ? the seniority system is earned by gaining more seniority, by remaining employable and doing a good enough job that RM valued you enough to keep you on, that matters in itself.

[arnold cheshire]

What the he'll has your rant got to do with seniority?

Well said

[simply_the_best]

So the Op goes on a rant about sickness and seniority and the unfairness of it all yet want's good attendance rewarded with an extra years senoirity

[redneck]

Of course a lot of it is generalisation this whole topic of the validity of seniority deals with the breadth of the company not individual cases, this a huge company and the vast majority will be a reserve starting out and possibly for a year or so afterwards - thats typical, doesnt mean its ALWAYS the case. I gave a list of the things that its typical a newer postie will tend to go through when they start, and those are the same things posties went through when they started many years ago too. Therefore, people are treated very equally under this system, UNLESS you decided to leave before seniority kicks in for you. My point remains this is the fairest system.

What do you mean none of it mattered ? the seniority system is earned by gaining more seniority, by remaining employable and doing a good enough job that RM valued you enough to keep you on, that matters in itself.

Clearly sets out the case for continued seniority in dishing out duties

[Acca Dacca]

Everyone moans about seniority until they have some

Then its great

[DGH]

Thought experiment.

Imagine seniority was scrapped in April (and there was nothing that could be done to prevent that) and jobs were then allotted by management but with the proviso that there would be a thorough revision in each office that would make the walks more or less balanced. Imagine also that there would be no resistance to you saying you needed to 'cut off' if necessary.

Now I know it's only hypothetical. But in those circumstances, what would be so terrible?

[Woody Guthrie]

It wouldn't be terrible but what would be the point?
There is no upside for the business in removing seniority only more work for management, more bickering among staff and more accusations of favouritism.

[DGH]

Right. It wouldn't be terrible.

You only have to look through this forum and see all the comments about 'favourites' to see that favouritism is a widespread problem, real or perceived. Yet seniority merely avoids addressing that problem, it doesn't solve it (if it did people wouldn't be moaning about it).

Seniority has some merit. But it's at best acting mitigating favouritism to a degree. However it's also actively preventing any incentive amongst staff to make sure walks are balanced. That's just as unfair and anything that seniority promotes. Indeed, why should it be new and junior staff, often with insecure job tenure, who are having to argue the toss daily with managers because their walks are too big? Especially while senior colleagues who have achievable walks, or sometimes walks with spare time available, and who are in a much better position to argue if necessary (because of their experience and greater job security) don't have to do that.

Seniority worked best when the majority of people were joining RM before the age of 30 (generally before 25) and working for RM until retirement. Them days is gone.

Because of my particular circumstances, the negative aspects of seniority have never particularly impacted upon me and I now have plenty, but I see junior staff constantly harassed and struggling while their senior colleagues shrug and look on. It's a shame.

[Murdoch]

Of course a lot of it is generalisation this whole topic of the validity of seniority deals with the breadth of the company not individual cases, this a huge company and the vast majority will be a reserve starting out and possibly for a year or so afterwards - thats typical, doesnt mean its ALWAYS the case. I gave a list of the things that its typical a newer postie will tend to go through when they start, and those are the same things posties went through when they started many years ago too. Therefore, people are treated very equally under this system, UNLESS you decided to leave before seniority kicks in for you. My point remains this is the fairest system.

What do you mean none of it mattered ? the seniority system is earned by gaining more seniority, by remaining employable and doing a good enough job that RM valued you enough to keep you on, that matters in itself.

I don't think anybody can argue that seniority is a "fair" system. However, since you've now used the term "fairest system", I'll agree with you, in so much as within the context of how poorly RM is managed, it's probably the least worst of all the options.

To answer, what I meant by "none of it mattered", that's fairly clear.

You think all of the factors I stated earlier (which should count for something, like they would in the real world) comes as a by product of more seniority, the longer you've been with the company, the more you would deserve the improved contract that might become available. Because everybody starts off the same, and everybody grinds it out the same.

What, I'm saying is that the seniority system doesn't factor that in at all. Literally the only thing that matters is how long you've been there, not what you've done when you've been there. I don't dispute that the vast majority of people who have worked with the company for decades have worked their socks off. What I'm arguing is that there are people that work their socks off, for years, and get stuck in crap contract, because the seniority system hasn't landed favourably for them. Hell, there are people on this forum desperate for FT, that have been with the company for over a decade.

So in short, you think it counts as a by-product of being with the company, I think it should count as an inherent part of the system.

Also, my argument wouldn't hold too much ground if contracts were actually improved in relation to what people actually worked. This was supposed to be the case, but it rarely if ever actually happens, and if it does it's usually on a temp basis. If a reserve has been working Full-time hours on a 20 hour contract for years, and never quite makes the cut whenever a better contract comes up (and I know countless examples of this happening), then I can't see how anybody can argue that there isn't something fundamentally broken with the way RM operates.

[postslippete]

The fact that you get more weeks annual leave the longer you have worked there should be a decent enough reward for long service in my view. But regardless of who picked what in an office there should still be a full and frank revision of all the duties every 2 years or so. That would prevent a situation from developing where those guys thought they were signing up to a 'cushy' duty for years on end. You're never going to please everyone but only by having an ongoing revision will at least accommodate any new builds and estates that sprout up. Surely by balancing out walks in an office will not only be fair but also more productive. It depends, of course, how well an office is managed for that to happen.

Oh, and reward the guys that give good attendance week in-week out and just watch how sickness levels improve by taking all these measures on board. Not really rocket science is it?

[Villadaft]

The fact that you get more weeks annual leave the longer you have worked there should be a decent enough reward for long service in my view. But regardless of who picked what in an office there should still be a full and frank revision of all the duties every 2 years or so. That would prevent a situation from developing where those guys thought they were signing up to a 'cushy' duty for years on end. You're never going to please everyone but only by having an ongoing revision will at least accommodate any new builds and estates that sprout up. Surely by balancing out walks in an office will not only be fair but also more productive. It depends, of course, how well an office is managed for that to happen.

Oh, and reward the guys that give good attendance week in-week out and just watch how sickness levels improve by taking all these measures on board. Not really rocket science is it?

So some poor soul gets cancer one year and needs time off, you're going to punish them by giving them a worse pick than a healthy person.
Rubbish we all start at the bottom of the seniority list and work our way up, I never understand how some folk can't grasp that.

[Woody Guthrie]

The rewarding of good attendance is a minefield of legal difficulties which is why RM pulled the "win a car" scheme and why most major employers stay well away.

It also encourages staff to come to work with genuine illnesses which is dangerous for the individual and has a knock on effect due to the spread of illness through a unit.

You do nobody any favours by coming in when you're ill, not you, your colleagues or the business.
More zero than hero.

[Alatar]

Seniority has nothing to do with fairness. It was brought in, in the late 1800s to stop corruption. Postman were bribing managers to give them the best duties so they used seniority because it's a system that is hard to influence. Your start date doesn't change so a manager can't be bribed to move you up the list. Before the way forward it was based on when you started in your office. If you transferred you lost your seniority and full timers were alway senior to part timers no matter when they had started.