Villadaft wrote: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.postslippete wrote: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?
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.
You've got the wrong end of the stick. When I said "revision" I didn't mean another re-sign and re-pick for a completely different duty - what I meant was a revision of all the duties that posties are doing to account for changes in delivery, for example, new builds which in many cases can account for a whole new housing estate. What I'm saying is that the posties will all still be on their own deliveries but with a revision to balance all the duties out in the office. Yes, we know there will always be some guys who cheat themselves or are way quicker than others but one or two of the duties in our office are just massively bigger than many others, and its clear for all to see. Does what I am saying sound fair to you?
