staff turnover

[norris9]

I didnt say it was fine, i was pointing out that Labour have been trying to defend those on the bottom rung of the employment ladder. Neither are completely ideal but, 25 hours a week guaranteed pay plus the ability to do overtime is better than the lottery of a zero hour contract where you are never sure whether you will get any work at all from week to week.

I have never really understood this whole argument against zero hours contracts. Zero hours contracts are great if you have other commitments. Maybe you work from home a few hours a day and need additional income.

If you need a secure 25+ hours a week work, then why on earth would you get a zero hours contract job?

[26l34]

Because you can’t pick and choose in today’s jobs market.

[itinerant]

I have never really understood this whole argument against zero hours contracts. Zero hours contracts are great if you have other commitments. Maybe you work from home a few hours a day and need additional income.

This is fine if employers operate fairly. From what I have seen it's generally a one way street with flexible working from the employer but not the employee. If your boss rings you and asks you to do a shift and you say "no sorry i am not free" you can find you suddenly stop getting work !

If you need a secure 25+ hours a week work, then why on earth would you get a zero hours contract job?

Agreed but people do not always have a choice and take a zero hours contract job as they need money and cannot find anything else.

Zero hour contracts are always touted as being great and flexible and I am sure there are some cases where this is true but the real driver of course is cost saving for the employer and nothing else. It's always about money and there has been a squeeze on working conditions for years. Just looks at some of our competitors where you have to provide your own vehicle, business insurance and other expenses yourself and are lucky if you net £5 an hour after costs. Great business model for the employer

[Gasman11]

I didnt say it was fine, i was pointing out that Labour have been trying to defend those on the bottom rung of the employment ladder. Neither are completely ideal but, 25 hours a week guaranteed pay plus the ability to do overtime is better than the lottery of a zero hour contract where you are never sure whether you will get any work at all from week to week.

I have never really understood this whole argument against zero hours contracts. Zero hours contracts are great if you have other commitments. Maybe you work from home a few hours a day and need additional income.

If you need a secure 25+ hours a week work, then why on earth would you get a zero hours contract job?

A study last year found that the flexibility argument accounts for only 28% of those employed on zero hour contracts and 44% wanted more working hours and a greater degree of job security. Around 800,000 people are not guaranteed any hours by their employer and 30% of workers had no other option but to accept a zero hours contract because of the lack of job opportunities. Zero hour contracts are great, in the main for employers.

[FacesOfStone]

I had a temporary job on a zero hours contract a few years ago. I loved walking 30 minutes in December only to be told that, actually, there was no work for me after all. So, I think they’re bullshit. With that said, I wouldn’t outlaw them entirely - I would just make it illegal to employ staff on that basis. People who wanted that lop-sided version of 'flexibility' would still be able to, but the pathway to it would be via employee request.

[26l34]

Governments love them too - they can boast about all the jobs they’ve created, ignoring how so many of them pay so little. If Mail Centres have got 150 casuals on the books that’s technically 150 people with a job - never mind that only 15 might be working at any one time.

Part time jobs are fine - give someone the stability of an 8, 16 or 24 hours a week contract and at least they can plan their lives around that. Increasingly these contracts are being replaced by zero hours - you might get 24 hours if you’re lucky, but often not, and you’ve few to no rights.

My MC could easily take 20 people on on part time contracts but they don’t want to give us the rights that’d go with it, they like having a disposable workforce that’ll jump through hoops. They’re probably the biggest employer in town so folk don’t have much choice and if the job centre tells you to take the job or lose your benefits for a month, what are you going to do?

[Newbie001]

Yeah, heard an Asda employee do his nut today. They've cut his hours and are giving him grief cause hes got a second job and not at there beck and call. Sure a few posties are in same position.

[bardeh]

I've been in the job close to six months now, and I'm interviewing tomorrow for another job. If it goes well I'll be handing in my notice ASAP. I've actually gotten a lot out of the job - I've lost a lot of weight, and am in the best shape I've been in years.

But.

28 hours a week isn't enough. I run my own business on the side, but I'm normally too tired after a day's walking to put as much time into it as I had planned when I applied for RM.

Getting moved around day to day and week to week sucks.

Working Saturdays sucks.

Not being able to plan my social life because I never know when my day off is sucks.

The fact that some duties in my office are piss-easy, and some are literally impossible to finish on time. Guess which ones I find myself put on more often than not?

Worktime learning is a HUGE waste of time. I know it's only ten minutes per week, but I utterly resent wasting my life watching propaganda videos.

While I generally don't mind the physical nature of the job, and actually feel loads better after a groggy morning once I get out into the fresh air and start walking, I can already feel a few niggles and twinges in my knees some days. I'm only 33, and I could do without permanently damaging my joints at this young of an age.

[Celgar]

New posties usually either leave really quickly or stay for years and years if not forever. There is no middle ground. Our lastest new postie left because they were consistently working beyond duty time but were not receiving any extended/overtime payment. Some people will stand this situation and work for free and others won't.

[itinerant]

New posties usually either leave really quickly or stay for years and years if not forever. There is no middle ground.

I agree with this although there are some exceptions. In my case it is ... DOGS!!

I have been with RM coming on for 2 years now. After getting through the first few tough weeks I have come to really enjoy the job and have never felt so fit (I used to run half marathons back in the day). I had thought this would be me for the long term (joined in my mid-40s after giving up a desk job of 30 years).

However I have had a number of run ins with dogs in the last year and have been lucky to avoid serious injury on a couple of occasions and it has made me consider whether it is worth the risk.

Bardeh's point about knee joints is also a valid one!

[rambo1]

Personally i think new starters have it pretty easy compared to when i started in 2004.
In my office most of them are kept on a duty/rota for months, always the ''nice" areas, never the "shitholes".
Almost all the vacant duties are part-time so there's a chance they can get a duty straight away.
Meanwhile FT reserves like myself can't get a duty and only ever deliver to the less desirable areas.
DOM wonders why he gets a s**t HYS score.
CWU rep not really interested.

And you would like it more if the new starters would be put on shitholes duties as you say and leavde in few weeks?
Your attitude is not great my friend...

No, i just think its very different to how things were for me back in the day. When i started i was on what was considered the worst duty in the office for the first 6 months. Didn't complain just got on with it, started at correct time was always last out and always last finished everyday.

Then one day the DOM thought "well he hasn't complained yet", so eventually i was put on different duties and realised how easy some people had it. From then on it was a different duty everyday. Fortunately I'm not someone who gets stressed or flustered easily.

Just my opinion.

Well, you're still there 15 yrs on. Not many new starts do 15 weeks normally now. What does that tell ya. Who had it easier? Just saying. ...

[PostmanBitesDog]

I didnt say it was fine, i was pointing out that Labour have been trying to defend those on the bottom rung of the employment ladder. Neither are completely ideal but, 25 hours a week guaranteed pay plus the ability to do overtime is better than the lottery of a zero hour contract where you are never sure whether you will get any work at all from week to week.

I have never really understood this whole argument against zero hours contracts. Zero hours contracts are great if you have other commitments. Maybe you work from home a few hours a day and need additional income.

No, they're horrible. Some corporations in another country (link below) introduced zero-hour contracts a few years ago. Then in March 2016 that country's government stepped in and abolished zero-hour contracts. And for good reason. Let's hope Britain does the same.

March 10, 2016: Zero Hour Contracts Officially History
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=11603459

[k979aaa]

I didnt say it was fine, i was pointing out that Labour have been trying to defend those on the bottom rung of the employment ladder. Neither are completely ideal but, 25 hours a week guaranteed pay plus the ability to do overtime is better than the lottery of a zero hour contract where you are never sure whether you will get any work at all from week to week.

I have never really understood this whole argument against zero hours contracts. Zero hours contracts are great if you have other commitments. Maybe you work from home a few hours a day and need additional income.

No, they're horrible. Some corporations in another country (link below) introduced zero-hour contracts a few years ago. Then in March 2016 that country's government stepped in and abolished zero-hour contracts. And for good reason. Let's hope Britain does the same.

March 10, 2016: Zero Hour Contracts Officially History
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=11603459

Not unless the government changes in the next two months.

[yubin282]

Personally i think new starters have it pretty easy compared to when i started in 2004.
In my office most of them are kept on a duty/rota for months, always the ''nice" areas, never the "shitholes".
Almost all the vacant duties are part-time so there's a chance they can get a duty straight away.
Meanwhile FT reserves like myself can't get a duty and only ever deliver to the less desirable areas.
DOM wonders why he gets a s**t HYS score.
CWU rep not really interested.

And you would like it more if the new starters would be put on shitholes duties as you say and leavde in few weeks?
Your attitude is not great my friend...

No, i just think its very different to how things were for me back in the day. When i started i was on what was considered the worst duty in the office for the first 6 months. Didn't complain just got on with it, started at correct time was always last out and always last finished everyday.

Then one day the DOM thought "well he hasn't complained yet", so eventually i was put on different duties and realised how easy some people had it. From then on it was a different duty everyday. Fortunately I'm not someone who gets stressed or flustered easily.

Just my opinion.

Well, you're still there 15 yrs on. Not many new starts do 15 weeks normally now. What does that tell ya. Who had it easier? Just saying. ...

I disagree

[Postie45]

staff turnover for new entrants is actually a good thing for RMs bullying culture of management, those that stand up to it or dont accept it leave and those that they can bully and manipulate stay.