Tabletop Revision figures

[DGH]

So what's going to happen if an office fails to see efficiency improvements?

[Woody Guthrie]

So what's going to happen if an office fails to see efficiency improvements?

It will be blamed on the staff.
What will be more interesting is what Royal Mail will do if they don't see productivity and efficiency improvements across the board or many revisions drag on and on because let's be brutally honest the members have already got the sugar so why take the medicine?

I don't see much motivation for the turkeys to vote for Christmas.

[Martin Walsh]

DGH that is the perils of collective bargaining

If you want

Pay rises
Shorter working week
Job security
No franchising
No break up the company
No two tier workforce
No later out on delivery times
That PDA OA and AHDC is not linked to what your paid
That we have changed Royal Mail’s parcel strategy
That we have removed national league tables for performance
We have protected MTSF
That we will still have the IR framework
That we will work to develop new opportunities including sundays

Then there will always have to be something the employer gets in an agreement and in return we have committed to :

Yearly revisions

Productivity improvement based on a local specific standard of performance based on their own floor distances and unique issues.

If an office chooses not to participate in the agreement then clearly they do not have a veto on the national agreement. They are bound by the collective agreement.

The only chance the 6 day uso survives is if it becomes more productive and costs in.

We would want to convince any office that it is worthwhile agreeing the revision they get the SWW , the part timers get the additional 2.6% pay increase and we are in better position next April to get a further pay increase SWW and to enter in the consultation on the USO.

Of course Royal Mail may use the reduced stage IR framework if they wanted to get to the pinch point on the revision.

[DGH]

Royal Mail may use the reduced stage IR framework if they wanted to get to the pinch point on the revision

I don't know what that is, sorry. Could you explain it please?

I wasn't so much supposing concerted or multiple individual wilful attempts to subvert the terms of the agreement, more the (in my view quite likely) possibility that the efficiency savings just can't be made and/or sustained.

If roughly half an office is full time then that office will need to improve efficiency by 1.5% overall just to stand still (I understand that it's possible they may already have done that, but it's also possible they might not have done).

Given indoor work is going to shrink and vans will likely be taking larger packets, delivery spans will need to increase. I'm not at all certain that's sustainable when my office's typical delivery span is already 5 hours per day. Especially for those who do not drive as they'll necessarily have longer loops than their driver in a van share.

[Martin Walsh]

DGH we have agreed WIPWH as a productivity measure lots of planning values and science behind it. However the principle is Weighted Traffic divided by what hours your unit has available equals your WIPWH

So most offices have seen traffic increase since 2019. Providing they do not see the same percentage increase in work hours they would improve WIPWH.

So for example if an office has seen 10% traffic growth and their hours have increased by 2% they would have seen their productivity increase.

The IR framework has returned to the original agreed tiers from 1992 which is the framework is exhausted after 3 stages local , Area and Divisional. Which means National and the external mediation process is being removed.

[Acca Dacca]

We would want to convince any office that it is worthwhile agreeing the revision they get the SWW , the part timers get the additional 2.6% pay increase and we are in better position next April to get a further pay increase SWW and to enter in the consultation on the USO.

Can you elaborate how this works please? Maybe I am picking it up wrong but it reads like the PT only get the increase if their office meets the criteria for the SWW being brought in, through a revision rather than it being implemented nationally for every office - which I thought was the case.

How can part timers in one office be paid differently from part timers in another office if they are doing the same hours?

Are you saying that if Office A implements a revision the SWW is implemented for those working in that office and their PT members get the bump in pay but if Office B doesnt manage to have a smooth revision the PT members in that office wont get the bump in pay?

So part timers in office A doing 30 hours are paid more than part timers in office B doing 30 hours?

Apologies if picking this up completely wrong and thanks for taking time out to explain whats going on

[Martin Walsh]

Acca , Royal Mail estimates the Reduction of the hour costs 83 million. This is because approximately 43% of all staff will get a pay increase as a result of the increase in the full timers hourly rate.

The Agreement states that every office has to conduct a revision to improve or maintain productivity to achieve the SWW. The table top offices have 6 categories with a range of performance. Whereas the structural is based on indoor and outdoor optimisation.

As you would expect the pay bill will increase to 358 million on the basis of the two pay rises and reduction in the hour ! They will want to reduce those cost by productivity improvements

[Acca Dacca]

Acca , Royal Mail estimates the Reduction of the hour costs 83 million. This is because approximately 43% of all staff will get a pay increase as a result of the increase in the full timers hourly rate.

The Agreement states that every office has to conduct a revision to improve or maintain productivity to achieve the SWW. The table top offices have 6 categories with a range of performance. Whereas the structural is based on indoor and outdoor optimisation.

As you would expect the pay bill will increase to 358 million on the basis of the two pay rises and reduction in the hour ! They will want to reduce those cost by productivity improvements

So are you confirming that part timers in one office could be paid less than the part timers in another office whilst doing the same number of hours and regardless of their personal feeling on any revisions etc

[Martin Walsh]

Let’s be clear the deployment of a revision has deployed the link to pay rises and reductions in previous working weeks.

In 2003 the single daily delivery introduced the move from 2 deliveries to one based on an improvement in pay and the 5 day week.

In 2007 the pay and mid deal was office specific for improvement in pay and lump sums.

In 2010 the same lump sum of 800 and then 200 based on deployment of a local revision.

This revision is no different it is based on a local revision being deployed and then they receive the improvement. The membership vote in huge numbers for the agreement and that is what is going to be deployed

[Zicomurphy]

Acca , Royal Mail estimates the Reduction of the hour costs 83 million. This is because approximately 43% of all staff will get a pay increase as a result of the increase in the full timers hourly rate.

The Agreement states that every office has to conduct a revision to improve or maintain productivity to achieve the SWW. The table top offices have 6 categories with a range of performance. Whereas the structural is based on indoor and outdoor optimisation.

As you would expect the pay bill will increase to 358 million on the basis of the two pay rises and reduction in the hour ! They will want to reduce those cost by productivity improvements

So are you confirming that part timers in one office could be paid less than the part timers in another office whilst doing the same number of hours and regardless of their personal feeling on any revisions etc

From the agreement....

The second hour of the shorter working week or equivalent benefit to be implemented at the point that a 2021 revision activity is deployed in a function/unit.
Less than full time employees and those on the new 35hrs full-time duties introduced in the 2018 Agreement will see their hourly rate increased in lieu of the shorter working week.


You can argue about the fairness of that but it was there in black and white in the agreement that all members had a chance to vote on.

[Acca Dacca]

Let’s be clear the deployment of a revision has deployed the link to pay rises and reductions in previous working weeks.

In 2003 the single daily delivery introduced the move from 2 deliveries to one based on an improvement in pay and the 5 day week.

In 2007 the pay and mid deal was office specific for improvement in pay and lump sums.

In 2010 the same lump sum of 800 and then 200 based on deployment of a local revision.

This revision is no different it is based on a local revision being deployed and then they receive the improvement. The membership vote in huge numbers for the agreement and that is what is going to be deployed

Im not trying to catch you out - the answer is yes, the pay increase is dependant on MY office having a revision - of which I have no control over.

So be it.

I assumed every office would have no say in whether they get a revision or not and it would be universal across the business and every unit would get the SWW and pay increase for PT - you have made it sound like its up to each individual office whether they do or not which is what made me ask what I did as I have no control over that and its down to other colleagues and management then.

What happens if management decide not to have a revision in 2021?

[Woody Guthrie]

There won't be any choice whether an office enters the revision process.

The question is whether agreement can be reached to exit the revision since it needs a vote by the members in the unit.

Obviously if an office can't reach agreement locally it will require the intervention of higher levels of engagement through the IR framework from both the union and management and if there still is no breakthrough we may get to the point where Royal Mail consider implementation without agreement and the members in the office would then have to decide how to deal with that.

Getting to that position is unusual and unlikely but it does happen. There really should have been a default implementation date for the SWW but I guess as Royal Mail have given the pay rise up front and have nothing else left to bribe the members with they probably felt they needed the power to hold back the SWW if necessary to add a little pressure and divide the members in the office along part-time / full-time lines.

What’s worrying in these situations is the pressure branches and senior reps will put on an office to accept a revision that isn't in their best interests just to tick another box. We've seen it before from people who don't have to suffer the consequences themselves.

[Cucumber]

Every revision that has taken place (and subsequently ended up a mess) in our DO has been voted on/passed using the 3 distinct groups of staff that exist.
There will be various duty types (some singleton/most shared van), various duty lengths (some 4.5hr, some 5.5hr), various 'bad' duties (long,lots of hills/apartments) various 'good' duties (short, flat, no apartments), huge differences in attendance patterns (some patterns never get weekends off, other patterns far more appealing).
The 3 groups of staff are (and these are split pretty evenly) - 1) only agree to any change if it benefits them or keeps a status quo, 2) not bothered either way and will just work their hours and go home and 3) get landed with the sh!tty end of the stick every single time.

So, forgive me being so negative (but this is based on the last 3-4 revisions), you only really need to get 25 or so staff 'on board' in an office of 100 to pass through any changes by a clear majority once the people that sit on the fence are taken into account.

[SpacePhoenix]

If revisions trigger a re-sign with the "35hr full timers" (full time in name only) be classed as full time or part time for the purpose of a re-sign? Locally all full time duties are deemed to be 38hrs

[clashcityrocker]

If revisions trigger a re-sign with the "35hr full timers" (full time in name only) be classed as full time or part time for the purpose of a re-sign? Locally all full time duties are deemed to be 38hrs

Won't they just be classed as 35 hour contracts, in the same way people on 30 hours, 25 hours, or whatever are?