State of work is scary and so far from guidelines

[Woody Guthrie]

What are you on about SP?, where did I mention suspending delivery?

We're talking about not accepting non-essential mailings from bulk customers in order to clear the pipeline for essential deliveries and to reduce the pressure on what will be a skeleton front line staff.

Don't really appreciate being called selfish either SP, very low.

[SpacePhoenix]

We're talking about not accepting non-essential mailings from bulk customers in order to clear the pipeline for essential deliveries and to reduce the pressure on what will be a skeleton front line staff.

The only bulk postings we get through, come through as DSA and we don't get many, near enough all letter bulk postings are normally stuff from councils or utility bills. Not everyone has the internet, so both still need to go by post.

[Sigung_Steve]

Just on masks, understand your concern, but there is lots of "proper" guidance saying these are really only useful in a clinical setting. Plus there aren't many around, and the NHS needs them just a bit more than the public/us, I'd say.

[Woody Guthrie]

We're talking about not accepting non-essential mailings from bulk customers in order to clear the pipeline for essential deliveries and to reduce the pressure on what will be a skeleton front line staff.

The only bulk postings we get through, come through as DSA and we don't get many, near enough all letter bulk postings are normally stuff from councils or utility bills. Not everyone has the internet, so both still need to go by post.

You're confusing bulk postings with bulk customers.

Sky, talktalk, Tesco, screw fix, virgin media, specsavers and matalan are all examples of bulk customers who feed a great deal of non essential mail into our system on a daily basis whether it's through our D2D stream or DSA. In these special and unique set of circumstances we could do without it.

Surely even you can understand that.

[SpacePhoenix]

We're talking about not accepting non-essential mailings from bulk customers in order to clear the pipeline for essential deliveries and to reduce the pressure on what will be a skeleton front line staff.

The only bulk postings we get through, come through as DSA and we don't get many, near enough all letter bulk postings are normally stuff from councils or utility bills. Not everyone has the internet, so both still need to go by post.

You're confusing bulk postings with bulk customers.

Sky, talktalk, Tesco, screw fix, virgin media, specsavers and matalan are all examples of bulk customers who feed a great deal of non essential mail into our system on a daily basis whether it's through our D2D stream or DSA. In these special and unique set of circumstances we could do without it.

Surely even you can understand that.

They don't make up that much of the overall amount of mail. Most of the time we just have two people sorting manual letters. You're forgetting that when we get the inevitable total lockdown (like in France or Italy) then people will only be able to get stuff via the post

[paulsmd]

Do masks actually work not according to any thing ive read

Yes, they do work not 100%. You just have to look at Japan where most people will wear them.
They are about two weeks ahead of us with this Cov 19 virus. And only had 44 people die from it.
We had more then that in the last 24hrs. So yes they do work.

[blobneb]

Do masks actually work not according to any thing ive read

Yes, they do work not 100%. You just have to look at Japan where most people will wear them.
They are about two weeks ahead of us with this Cov 19 virus. And only had 44 people die from it.
We had more then that in the last 24hrs. So yes they do work.

Not disagreeing on whether they help but I think there's more than just masks separating our response from Japan and other SE Asian countries.

[postieblueshirt]

Do you genuinely believe that Ofcom is going to fine us if we say we're reducing the service to protect lives? The USO is meaningless at the moment.

Until the government or OFCOM give RM permission to reduce the services, the USO isn't meaningless. If anything I think they'll be more insistent on the USO being upheld, not all elderly people will have a phone, for some of them the post might be their only connection with the outside world.

You're obsessed by the power of Ofcom SP. They're a quasi-government department funded by the people they are charged with overseeing. In a national crisis they're about as powerful as a security guard on a building site.

Do you think there are USO police waiting to smash through the windows at RM HQ?

All they could do is fine us, do you think under the present circumstances that fine would stick? The government are ripping up the rule books on government social intervention and fiscal policy, they're throwing money at companies to keep them afloat and shutting others down while guaranteeing the wages of their staff.

Do you genuinely think in the middle of that s**t storm Ofcom are going to fine us without the government telling them to STFU.

Yes we will be delivering crucial things like government advice and NHS documentation but if the company decides to tell specsavers to do one until this crisis is over nobody would or could drag RM over the coals for it without looking ridiculous.

Now a different question is whether RM has the balls to do it, not because they're afraid of Ofcom but because they are afraid of losing the work.... permanently.

The post is going to be the only method of communication for some elderly people. Don't know if you've got any relatives that are over 70 but how would you feel if the post was the only communication they had and it was cut off? Stop being so selfish.

If someone is self isolating then the post is the only way that they can get non-food stuff as the food deliveries from the supermarkets can't cope. You must want the elderly and those at risk to suffer as without the post they'd have to go out and risk getting the virus

i think some people need to adapt to the fact were not depended on in the same way anymore the world has changed we are just another delivery company now and not a valued public service.Those days are gone and im not a new postie im 26 years in and nobody looks at us in that way anymore and i spent the last 10years delivering rural were no more liked than dpd yodel whatever

[kookoo32]

We had a bloke come back to work on Monday who had just returned from holiday in Italy. Last week we raised concerns with the DOM and lino about him coming back. They took it up the food chain and were told that seeing as he was showing no symptoms he could return. We were fuming - do these idiots not know you can be asymptomatic? Anyway sure enough he returned to work on Monday - time will tell if this was the right decision.

This shows to me management aren't taking this seriously enough. Why risk the health of every member of your workforce and those they come into contact with just to get one man back to his work? It's negligence.

I'm still raging about this. Fuming in fact.

[MinTee]

Got a pair on a walk, ones kid is showing symptoms and quite ill, he himself has a cough so he’s gone into self isolation. Lady he’s paired with has a condition and high risk, so she went off too. Management twisted her arm and begged her to come in cause they’re so short staffed.

Also no cleaning products, sanitisers, almost run out of soap in toilets, no gloves, no masks. Management don’t give a toss.

[PostmanBitesDog]

It worries me greatly that so many don't seem to want to look after their own health and others around them.

We all need to be more vigilant when it comes to cleanliness and a healthy body. A warning alarm with flashing lights outside the DOs toilets would help.

Didn't Wash Hands.jpg

But seriously, maintaining personal hygiene is nothing to sneeze at.

[Timecode]

I Still think when I turn up to work tomorrow nothing will have changed....

I do wonder how far it will go with just ignoring guidelines.... Until a manager has a loved one sick perhaps? is that the reality of it?

[jd9442]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ewanmcg/stat ... 7909125121" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[yellowbelly]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ewanmcg/stat ... 7909125121

What a find JD!! Absolutely awesome!!! I urge everybody to get this on their phones, print it off and shove it in their managers face tomorrow,
maintaining a social distancing of course!!!!

Employment Rights Act 1996
You are here:
UK Public General Acts1996 c. 18Part VRights not to suffer...Section 44

Health and safety cases.
(1)An employee has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that—
(a)having been designated by the employer to carry out activities in connection with preventing or reducing risks to health and safety at work, the employee carried out (or proposed to carry out) any such activities,
(b)being a representative of workers on matters of health and safety at work or member of a safety committee—
(i)in accordance with arrangements established under or by virtue of any enactment, or
(ii)by reason of being acknowledged as such by the employer,the employee performed (or proposed to perform) any functions as such a representative or a member of such a committee,
[F1(ba)the employee took part (or proposed to take part) in consultation with the employer pursuant to the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 or in an election of representatives of employee safety within the meaning of those Regulations (whether as a candidate or otherwise),]
(c)being an employee at a place where—
(i)there was no such representative or safety committee, or
(ii)there was such a representative or safety committee but it was not reasonably practicable for the employee to raise the matter by those means,he brought to his employer’s attention, by reasonable means, circumstances connected with his work which he reasonably believed were harmful or potentially harmful to health or safety,
(d)in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent and which he could not reasonably have been expected to avert, he left (or proposed to leave) or (while the danger persisted) refused to return to his place of work or any dangerous part of his place of work, or
(e)in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent, he took (or proposed to take) appropriate steps to protect himself or other persons from the danger.

[sindba]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ewanmcg/stat ... 7909125121

What a find JD!! Absolutely awesome!!! I urge everybody to get this on their phones, print it off and shove it in their managers face tomorrow,
maintaining a social distancing of course!!!!

Employment Rights Act 1996
You are here:
UK Public General Acts1996 c. 18Part VRights not to suffer...Section 44

Health and safety cases.
(1)An employee has the right not to be subjected to any detriment by any act, or any deliberate failure to act, by his employer done on the ground that—
(a)having been designated by the employer to carry out activities in connection with preventing or reducing risks to health and safety at work, the employee carried out (or proposed to carry out) any such activities,
(b)being a representative of workers on matters of health and safety at work or member of a safety committee—
(i)in accordance with arrangements established under or by virtue of any enactment, or
(ii)by reason of being acknowledged as such by the employer,the employee performed (or proposed to perform) any functions as such a representative or a member of such a committee,
[F1(ba)the employee took part (or proposed to take part) in consultation with the employer pursuant to the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996 or in an election of representatives of employee safety within the meaning of those Regulations (whether as a candidate or otherwise),]
(c)being an employee at a place where—
(i)there was no such representative or safety committee, or
(ii)there was such a representative or safety committee but it was not reasonably practicable for the employee to raise the matter by those means,he brought to his employer’s attention, by reasonable means, circumstances connected with his work which he reasonably believed were harmful or potentially harmful to health or safety,
(d)in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent and which he could not reasonably have been expected to avert, he left (or proposed to leave) or (while the danger persisted) refused to return to his place of work or any dangerous part of his place of work, or
(e)in circumstances of danger which the employee reasonably believed to be serious and imminent, he took (or proposed to take) appropriate steps to protect himself or other persons from the danger.

It might work to put the wind up your manager, but don't rely on it any further than that.

We're not lawyers, we have no idea how this would hold up at a tribunal.