2 IN A VAN AGAIN?

claretandblue · Post by **claretandblue** » 08 Jul 2020, 12:59

Woody Guthrie wrote:
claretandblue wrote:Our DOM was expecting 2 in a van to return yesterday, but he said the union blocked it.
I would doubt if the union had enough clout to "block" the business from returning to two in a van, I would also question whether there would be enough support amongst the national officers to do so.

The union after all would prefer the status quo pre- Covid-19 to some radical overhaul of working practices that could cost jobs.

I'm calling your DOM a liar, hope you don't mind.

He said it in front of our union rep, he didn't contradict him.

Post by **HTPostman** » 08 Jul 2020, 20:29

Forget FT vs PT, here in my office I’ve created a new battle, Me vs Ghost overtimers.

I’ve developed a novel strategy whereby when I do overtime I just ask to be paid the hours I do. To be fair I’ve done that since I started but as management tighten their belts and have hours taken out of the office I’m getting a lot of overtime in recent months Suddenly, Billy ‘I want 4 hours for 2 hours work’ isn’t getting asked quite so much. And for once I can’t be told I’m ruining the job as I’m only being paid for the hours I do. Which is as it should be.

Anyway I don’t think 2 in a van will come back just yet. I’m not fussed either way, prefer to work on my own but I’m not one to kick up a stink when I’m put with someone else.

clashcityrocker · Post by **clashcityrocker** » 09 Jul 2020, 12:20

citypostie wrote:
theelegend701 wrote:I hate the arrogance of full timers about time you all got brought down to earth and live in the real world like the rest of us I can't wait for you scum bags to get punished x
Fair enough and if I have to vote on a deal that makes me Monday to Friday and a load of part timers lose jobs because of it I'll vote in favour without a moment's hesitation x

Do you honestly believe it is part time jobs that will go?

glass joe · Post by **glass joe** » 09 Jul 2020, 16:08

Most of the guys in the top 20 of work seniority are full time. Get rid of the old staff replace with younger staff and give them more to do.

citypostie · Post by **citypostie** » 09 Jul 2020, 16:14

clashcityrocker wrote:
citypostie wrote:
theelegend701 wrote:I hate the arrogance of full timers about time you all got brought down to earth and live in the real world like the rest of us I can't wait for you scum bags to get punished x
Fair enough and if I have to vote on a deal that makes me Monday to Friday and a load of part timers lose jobs because of it I'll vote in favour without a moment's hesitation x
Do you honestly believe it is part time jobs that will go?

I'm sure lots of full timers who retire are sacked etc won't be replaced, but if the USO goes I'm guessing a large percentage will be part time duties like the day off covers. And I'm guessing a large percentage of the easier to get rid of staff (probation period etc.) Are part timers. If your suggesting they will be targeting senior full timers who will cost them money to get rid of via evr or just dump them all and more than likely cause uproar from the cwu then I don't agree with you

Post by **priority102** » 09 Jul 2020, 16:25

2 in a van will ONLY come back IF and WHEN RM Management and the CWU decide it will, AND NOT UNTIL THEN, AND NOT UNTIL THOSE TWO BODIES ONLY DECIDE IT. So all those who sit on here making it a daily debate why not focus on something else for a change?

clashcityrocker · Post by **clashcityrocker** » 09 Jul 2020, 16:26

More than 3 million unemployed and government incentives to take on staff.
Those new jobs will be part time delivery or later start parcel delivery.
Increasing automation will mean deliveries either have to be excessively long or less than full time hours.

Any full timer who thinks their employment is secure must have been talking to the rep from cloud cuckoo land.

Post by **SpacePhoenix** » 09 Jul 2020, 16:35

If RM were to get rid of a load of staff in deliveries, wouldn't RM look at getting rid of those who can't drive first?

citypostie · Post by **citypostie** » 09 Jul 2020, 16:44

clashcityrocker wrote:More than 3 million unemployed and government incentives to take on staff.
Those new jobs will be part time delivery or later start parcel delivery.
Increasing automation will mean deliveries either have to be excessively long or less than full time hours.

Any full timer who thinks their employment is secure must have been talking to the rep from cloud cuckoo land.

Probably more secure than someone who hasn't got a permanent contract and can get rid of at any time without a reason or with any comebacks though?

A2B · Post by **A2B** » 09 Jul 2020, 17:42

SpacePhoenix wrote:If RM were to get rid of a load of staff in deliveries, wouldn't RM look at getting rid of those who can't drive first?

They would like to in an ideal world but then again they would like every single delivery worker to be the same height, weight and shoe size but that's not going to happen either.

How in your opinion would RM be legally able to "get rid" of non drivers?

mags999 · Post by **mags999** » 09 Jul 2020, 17:52

bring back the bag boxes for the non drivers

citypostie · Post by **citypostie** » 09 Jul 2020, 18:12

mags999 wrote:bring back the bag boxes for the non drivers

I used to do the old parcel/bags/bulk call and postie drops in a crew bus. Don't think it'd be as easy now with the way parcels have gone and don't think I could be bothered with the daily arguements about if something's a driver's parcel or not! I always ended up winning though by either putting in the box with the bags or dropping the bags off late

Cucumber · Post by **Cucumber** » 09 Jul 2020, 18:46

A2B wrote:
SpacePhoenix wrote:If RM were to get rid of a load of staff in deliveries, wouldn't RM look at getting rid of those who can't drive first?
They would like to in an ideal world but then again they would like every single delivery worker to be the same height, weight and shoe size but that's not going to happen either.

How in your opinion would RM be legally able to "get rid" of non drivers?

I know non drivers that are genuinely worried about their future employment in RM due to the fact they don't drive. I'm concerned for mine for other reasons. Are you saying that their job is as safe/unsafe because it would be legally difficult to lay off staff who don't drive? Surely that difficulty would extend to all staff regardless of driving ability or contracted hours? Full time staff worried about being replaced by 1.5 part time staff etc.

A2B · Post by **A2B** » 09 Jul 2020, 19:44

Cucumber wrote:
A2B wrote:
SpacePhoenix wrote:If RM were to get rid of a load of staff in deliveries, wouldn't RM look at getting rid of those who can't drive first?
They would like to in an ideal world but then again they would like every single delivery worker to be the same height, weight and shoe size but that's not going to happen either.

How in your opinion would RM be legally able to "get rid" of non drivers?
I know non drivers that are genuinely worried about their future employment in RM due to the fact they don't drive. I'm concerned for mine for other reasons. Are you saying that their job is as safe/unsafe because it would be legally difficult to lay off staff who don't drive? Surely that difficulty would extend to all staff regardless of driving ability or contracted hours? Full time staff worried about being replaced by 1.5 part time staff etc.

Simple answer is yes i am saying that but it's just my opinion and i can't quote anything legally binding to back it up.

What i would say is IF there are to be any compulsory redundancies (don't forget the latest rumour said there's not) everything will have to be done by the letter of the law.

Personally i don't drive for RM and have no intention of doing so and i don't consider my job to be under threat because of that, i like my job and wouldn't want to lose it but driving would take away the part of the job i like.

world class male · Post by **world class male** » 09 Jul 2020, 20:52

A2B wrote:
Cucumber wrote:
A2B wrote:
SpacePhoenix wrote:If RM were to get rid of a load of staff in deliveries, wouldn't RM look at getting rid of those who can't drive first?
They would like to in an ideal world but then again they would like every single delivery worker to be the same height, weight and shoe size but that's not going to happen either.

How in your opinion would RM be legally able to "get rid" of non drivers?
I know non drivers that are genuinely worried about their future employment in RM due to the fact they don't drive. I'm concerned for mine for other reasons. Are you saying that their job is as safe/unsafe because it would be legally difficult to lay off staff who don't drive? Surely that difficulty would extend to all staff regardless of driving ability or contracted hours? Full time staff worried about being replaced by 1.5 part time staff etc.
Simple answer is yes i am saying that but it's just my opinion and i can't quote anything legally binding to back it up.

What i would say is IF there are to be any compulsory redundancies (don't forget the latest rumour said there's not) everything will have to be done by the letter of the law.

Personally i don't drive for RM and have no intention of doing so and i don't consider my job to be under threat because of that, i like my job and wouldn't want to lose it but driving would take away the part of the job i like.

i would assume that legally they cannot make you redundant just because you can't/won't drive IF you were employed originally as a posty only,
most newer employees stipulates you must drive, they will chip away getting rid of the older full timers filling with part timers and in turn the CWU will vanish.
i can see by 2025 80% of posties with be part time working all the hours god sends