Woody Guthrie wrote:You are absolutely obsessed with start/finish times tommy to the point where you completely ignore the real reason we're losing hours in delivery offices and that's the reduction in indoor workload due to continuing automation.
All of the hours that have come out of my office in the last 20 years have been based on these facts, no hours have been removed on the basis of posties finishing early, how do you explain that?
Woody, I am not really that obsessed in all honesty! I am a realist who see's things as they are and the impact it can have on others. Whereas you seem to prefer sticking up for the actions of colleagues that behave in an intimidating manner towards others. I can see the problems created by people's drive to finish early.
You do not agree and you make that plainly clear. I firmly believe, it is generally speaking the weaker (newer!) members who need and rely on decent union representation, the longer service guys in general do not care a jot as selfishness rules the day in a delivery office.
I have based my opinions on past experience! You may have been more fortunate with the senior managers you have dealt with. I have witnessed it at first hand from the introduction of the full revisions many years ago now.
Like many other units I suspect, all attempts to overturn any planners figures at the review stage failed, not surprisingly!
I sat in many meetings since then where the area DSM chaired meetings and before starting any discussions asked the DOM to produce ALL the previous 2 months signing on sheets. HE stressed and made it very clear that time worked prior to starting times were an irrelevance. His argument was furthe enhanced when the OT payments were also introduced.
The DOM had fabricated figures ( how could anyone dispute spread sheet figures at a meeting sprung with having no benefit of prior research and proof?) that were never questioned by him, people'searly starts and non claims for OT were ignored.
Any review periods were still obscured by the same problems, as a Union we were beaten because the posties were unprepared to change. Yeh, there were protestations after the hours ( we are a relatively small unit ) were lost but the main losers were the PT staff due to many selfish FTs attitudes and expectations of work load plied onto PTs rather than them, by that I mean their lot was the least effected.
I do not wish to dispute how things worked out in your Unit, well done if fairness was achieved.
My question is! What about the units poorly represented? Or even not represented at all? They have been ignored by the CWU in a way that large well organised units are NOT. In my opinion those smaller, less well represented are treated with contempt by many managers and the Union are not blameless.
You may be right in assuming I am obsessed, because it is grossly unfair on SOME people being intimidated while others are not. Forgive me if I am wrong in assuming you seem to see no wrong in others actions at the sufferance of weaker, lesser seniority types in a DO who get the shitty end of the stick.
Maybe some day your unit members will see the error of your ways, then again if the figures stack up in your favour the old school FTs will guarantee your position at the next Union Rep election.
Good luck, but spare a thought for those units who do not enjoy the fruits of your expertise as a Union Rep, or any of those with NO representation whatsoever.