themailman wrote:It's no secret that moving to 1 person per van has caused huge problems when it hasn't been (or can't be) managed effectively.
I know there are a few people on this site who, for want of a better word, have good 'contacts' within RM.
Do RM see this as sustainable going forward? Are they actively looking at the situation and trying to maybe create workable ways round it? 'You've been doing it for 2 months now, so just carry on', seems to be the mantra.
Pretty much the whole country is set to go back to work soon, in much changed environments with spacing etc. After an initial few weeks of semi social distancing, the majority of offices I've read about on here have returned to the old ways (apart from van share), with 'hot desking', a practice the government want to severely limit, being such a common thing within RM.
Of course RM don't see it as sustainable and i'm sure they are seeking advice on a daily basis on their H&S commitments.
Nobody is going to like it but the only way i can see offices where the majority of the walks are van shares moving on will be split shifts, how they work this is going to cause major problems.
Will it get the same hostile reception depending on who proposes it?
The union's primary goal has to be to protect jobs, how we do the job and how much we get paid to do it has to come second because without the first the second is meaningless.
How safe are our jobs without a long term sustainable strategy?
Can we keep throwing clogs at the machines simply because we like to do things the same way... our way?
I think you'll find that most of the world is winging it at the moment. I would hope that being a large scale employer RM have close contact with government officials and are privy to future plans but I don't envy anyone trying to sort out this mess.
Non RM but a friend of mine works in an office block which usual has 100 people, she's been told to expect to work from home till January!
A2B wrote:
Non RM but a friend of mine works in an office block which usual has 100 people, she's been told to expect to work from home till January!
If the building is going to be largely vacant for the next 6-9 moths, what business could justify the expense of such a white elephant?
If they can work from home then why bother going to the expense of maintaining the building at all?
The societies of consumption and squandering of material resources are incompatible with the idea of economic growth and a clean planet.
A2B wrote:
Non RM but a friend of mine works in an office block which usual has 100 people, she's been told to expect to work from home till January!
If the building is going to be largely vacant for the next 6-9 moths, what business could justify the expense of such a white elephant?
If they can work from home then why bother going to the expense of maintaining the building at all?
I agree, going to be a lot of office space to let in the near future.
It's funny that many of the teachers appear to have kicked up a fuss regarding going back to work,even though the worse of the pandemic seems to be over. The teachers union are asking the health and safety experts to the government if it's safe to operate and they have been given plenty of time to make their workplaces safe with reduced class sizes etc etc. And that is in spite of findings that children don't get the disease. They said they were spreaders,now experts are saying otherwise.
Just rewind two and half months back and what did our Union do on the governments news of being "key workers". They revelled in it and believed that their own expertise in health and safety was the be all and end all. What happened was chaotic as the managers formulated a half backed plan that is still piss**g off postie's to this day. I would say apart from Saturdays,social distancing is a joke because the business is doing it's usual putting profits before people. Those full timers working from home were asked to work their day off for no extra ended up coming back to the office. Those doing the delivery alone were tasked with prepping everything in the morning but they weren't paid any extra to get it done,same as all those extra parcels to be delivered
On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world.
postslippete wrote: Those full timers working from home were asked to work their day off for no extra ended up coming back to the office. Those doing the delivery alone were tasked with prepping everything in the morning but they weren't paid any extra to get it done,same as all those extra parcels to be delivered
Surely they were only being asked to work their 38 hours?
So you would be happy to give up for example 5 x 7.6hrs to work 6 x 6.3hrs?
Why would the delivery alone person be paid any extra? (unless it was overtime) the days of being paid ghost overtime need to go
Surely they were only being asked to work their 38 hours?
There's a couple of issues with that.
1. It's a business decision to start on the street not an employee request so there is no claw back of hours. The reason that's important is because it's a fine line between that and management sending staff home because it's quiet and then docking their pay or forcing them to pay back hours.
2. There's a huge difference between indoor hours and outdoor hours, would you fancy an extra 5 hours on delivery every week for no pay?
A2B wrote:I think you'll find that most of the world is winging it at the moment. I would hope that being a large scale employer RM have close contact with government officials and are privy to future plans but I don't envy anyone trying to sort out this mess.
Non RM but a friend of mine works in an office block which usual has 100 people, she's been told to expect to work from home till January!
I would be worried in her shoes. If her job can be done effectively from home for months on end then it can just as easily be done by someone else in India or Bangladesh for far less money.
themailman wrote:
Surely they were only being asked to work their 38 hours?
Well, whatever they were asked to do clearly didn't work! I guess unless you are on docket, most staff would prefer to work fewer days rather than work more days. There's a lot of staff who work less than their 38 hours on a yearly basis anyway!!
On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world.