Tabletop Revision figures

[Cucumber]

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

Apart from duties that NEED to be full time to allow for time sensitive deliveries (mostly businesses I'd imagine), is there really any need for part time and full time delivery duties anymore in this brave new word we are heading into? I've seen some crazy situations where people are 'blocked' from singing for a vacant delivery duty because it MUST be a full time person that does it - ignoring the fact it has been covered by temp/agency staff for months.

[wallan]

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?

There should also be enough dutys for staff on 25, 30 etc hour contracts who only want to work there contracted hours
Jobs advertised by RM as having fixed duty times i.e of 9am - 2pm , 10am-3pm should also be catered for

[Sugar]

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.

You're forgetting the pressure put on the office rep by those that are only in it for themselves and don't give a cr@p if some other co-workers are getting screwed by a badly done revision. Seen it, been through and suffered because of it. People will only be looking at the SWW and a pay rise, especially if another DO in the area has already gotten theirs, and this is potentially a $hit show waiting to happen. Especially when the data inputted off the PDA's isn't reliable because of all the corner cutting runners out on delivery carving the job up and not doing it correctly.

This could be a bigger disaster for OPG's than the van share revision was years ago.

[Cedar_Room]

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

Apart from duties that NEED to be full time to allow for time sensitive deliveries (mostly businesses I'd imagine), is there really any need for part time and full time delivery duties anymore in this brave new word we are heading into? I've seen some crazy situations where people are 'blocked' from singing for a vacant delivery duty because it MUST be a full time person that does it - ignoring the fact it has been covered by temp/agency staff for months.

This can work both ways.

A couple of years ago I covered a PT/30hr duty for almost 18-months whilst the duty holder was on long term sick.

When he eventually left the business the duty was advertised & I was told I couldn’t sign for it due to being full time,despite the fact that I knew the walk like the back of my hand,got on well with my partner & had gotten to know all the customers & all their little quirks.

The fella that ended up getting this duty had less then 2yrs service,whilst I had over 15yrs in...

[Cucumber]

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

Apart from duties that NEED to be full time to allow for time sensitive deliveries (mostly businesses I'd imagine), is there really any need for part time and full time delivery duties anymore in this brave new word we are heading into? I've seen some crazy situations where people are 'blocked' from singing for a vacant delivery duty because it MUST be a full time person that does it - ignoring the fact it has been covered by temp/agency staff for months.

This can work both ways.

A couple of years ago I covered a PT/30hr duty for almost 18-months whilst the duty holder was on long term sick.

When he eventually left the business the duty was advertised & I was told I couldn’t sign for it due to being full time,despite the fact that I knew the walk like the back of my hand,got on well with my partner & had gotten to know all the customers & all their little quirks.

The fella that ended up getting this duty had less then 2yrs service,whilst I had over 15yrs in...

I agree, it seems crazy that the delivery parts of some duties are ring fenced for either PT or FT for no apparent reason. We've had full time staff leave, then their duty covered by PT staff, then they are told they can't sign for it even if no one else wants it.

[yubin282]

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

Apart from duties that NEED to be full time to allow for time sensitive deliveries (mostly businesses I'd imagine), is there really any need for part time and full time delivery duties anymore in this brave new word we are heading into? I've seen some crazy situations where people are 'blocked' from singing for a vacant delivery duty because it MUST be a full time person that does it - ignoring the fact it has been covered by temp/agency staff for months.

This can work both ways.

A couple of years ago I covered a PT/30hr duty for almost 18-months whilst the duty holder was on long term sick.

When he eventually left the business the duty was advertised & I was told I couldn’t sign for it due to being full time,despite the fact that I knew the walk like the back of my hand,got on well with my partner & had gotten to know all the customers & all their little quirks.

The fella that ended up getting this duty had less then 2yrs service,whilst I had over 15yrs in...

I agree, it seems crazy that the delivery parts of some duties are ring fenced for either PT or FT for no apparent reason. We've had full time staff leave, then their duty covered by PT staff, then they are told they can't sign for it even if no one else wants it.

Yeah it's a joke i've often thought its done on purpose to have some kind of control over FT staff. Hopefully revisions will put an end to it and those with only a few years service will lose their duties and people like myself (16 years service) can actually get a regular duty instead of a float, i'm waiting patiently for the new female employees to end up in the 'shitholes' instead of me being moved from my float to accommodate them.

..and if they can sort out saturdays off for reserves that would be fair for everyone.

[Zicomurphy]

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.

Is that agreed practice that an office gets to vote on a revision before it gets implemented? In over 30 years in the job every revision we’ve had has been signed off by the DOM and the unit rep with the actual members having no final say.

[Cedar_Room]

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

Apart from duties that NEED to be full time to allow for time sensitive deliveries (mostly businesses I'd imagine), is there really any need for part time and full time delivery duties anymore in this brave new word we are heading into? I've seen some crazy situations where people are 'blocked' from singing for a vacant delivery duty because it MUST be a full time person that does it - ignoring the fact it has been covered by temp/agency staff for months.

This can work both ways.

A couple of years ago I covered a PT/30hr duty for almost 18-months whilst the duty holder was on long term sick.

When he eventually left the business the duty was advertised & I was told I couldn’t sign for it due to being full time,despite the fact that I knew the walk like the back of my hand,got on well with my partner & had gotten to know all the customers & all their little quirks.

The fella that ended up getting this duty had less then 2yrs service,whilst I had over 15yrs in...

I agree, it seems crazy that the delivery parts of some duties are ring fenced for either PT or FT for no apparent reason. We've had full time staff leave, then their duty covered by PT staff, then they are told they can't sign for it even if no one else wants it.

Yeah it's a joke i've often thought its done on purpose to have some kind of control over FT staff. Hopefully revisions will put an end to it and those with only a few years service will lose their duties and people like myself (16 years service) can actually get a regular duty instead of a float, i'm waiting patiently for the new female employees to end up in the 'shitholes' instead of me being moved from my float to accommodate them.

..and if they can sort out saturdays off for reserves that would be fair for everyone.

The sting in the tail is that since all of this has happened a handful of the PT’s have had an uplift in hours,from 30 to 35hrs & still retained their 30hr duties. So,when it came to myself the duty had to strictly match the hours but when it comes to them it’s sort of overlooked. I haven’t made a song & dance about it as I’m not the sort of person to go around getting people ousted from their walks but surely the same rule should apply to everyone?

[yubin282]

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

Apart from duties that NEED to be full time to allow for time sensitive deliveries (mostly businesses I'd imagine), is there really any need for part time and full time delivery duties anymore in this brave new word we are heading into? I've seen some crazy situations where people are 'blocked' from singing for a vacant delivery duty because it MUST be a full time person that does it - ignoring the fact it has been covered by temp/agency staff for months.

This can work both ways.

A couple of years ago I covered a PT/30hr duty for almost 18-months whilst the duty holder was on long term sick.

When he eventually left the business the duty was advertised & I was told I couldn’t sign for it due to being full time,despite the fact that I knew the walk like the back of my hand,got on well with my partner & had gotten to know all the customers & all their little quirks.

The fella that ended up getting this duty had less then 2yrs service,whilst I had over 15yrs in...

I agree, it seems crazy that the delivery parts of some duties are ring fenced for either PT or FT for no apparent reason. We've had full time staff leave, then their duty covered by PT staff, then they are told they can't sign for it even if no one else wants it.

Yeah it's a joke i've often thought its done on purpose to have some kind of control over FT staff. Hopefully revisions will put an end to it and those with only a few years service will lose their duties and people like myself (16 years service) can actually get a regular duty instead of a float, i'm waiting patiently for the new female employees to end up in the 'shitholes' instead of me being moved from my float to accommodate them.

..and if they can sort out saturdays off for reserves that would be fair for everyone.

The sting in the tail is that since all of this has happened a handful of the PT’s have had an uplift in hours,from 30 to 35hrs & still retained their 30hr duties. So,when it came to myself the duty had to strictly match the hours but when it comes to them it’s sort of overlooked. I haven’t made a song & dance about it as I’m not the sort of person to go around getting people ousted from their walks but surely the same rule should apply to everyone?

Damn Right

[yubin282]

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

Apart from duties that NEED to be full time to allow for time sensitive deliveries (mostly businesses I'd imagine), is there really any need for part time and full time delivery duties anymore in this brave new word we are heading into? I've seen some crazy situations where people are 'blocked' from singing for a vacant delivery duty because it MUST be a full time person that does it - ignoring the fact it has been covered by temp/agency staff for months.

This can work both ways.

A couple of years ago I covered a PT/30hr duty for almost 18-months whilst the duty holder was on long term sick.

When he eventually left the business the duty was advertised & I was told I couldn’t sign for it due to being full time,despite the fact that I knew the walk like the back of my hand,got on well with my partner & had gotten to know all the customers & all their little quirks.

The fella that ended up getting this duty had less then 2yrs service,whilst I had over 15yrs in...

I agree, it seems crazy that the delivery parts of some duties are ring fenced for either PT or FT for no apparent reason. We've had full time staff leave, then their duty covered by PT staff, then they are told they can't sign for it even if no one else wants it.

Yeah it's a joke i've often thought its done on purpose to have some kind of control over FT staff. Hopefully revisions will put an end to it and those with only a few years service will lose their duties and people like myself (16 years service) can actually get a regular duty instead of a float, i'm waiting patiently for the new female employees to end up in the 'shitholes' instead of me being moved from my float to accommodate them.

..and if they can sort out saturdays off for reserves that would be fair for everyone.

The sting in the tail is that since all of this has happened a handful of the PT’s have had an uplift in hours,from 30 to 35hrs & still retained their 30hr duties. So,when it came to myself the duty had to strictly match the hours but when it comes to them it’s sort of overlooked. I haven’t made a song & dance about it as I’m not the sort of person to go around getting people ousted from their walks but surely the same rule should apply to everyone?

It's a Royal Mail thing. Can't do the job, we'll give you something easy to do while the rest of your colleagues get shafted. God help some people when they can't hit 100 BSI, they can barely hit 10 BSI no doubt the better more able employees will have to cover for them.

[ted_e_bear]

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

I've said this before but why do RM go all out to make things as difficult as possible ?
Surely it would have been far easier to continue matching an increase in hours to full time to whatever the current rate is rather than this 35hrs that it might be sometime in the future guff !

[GRS]

When should the DOM have/had the figures needed to start the revision( the traffic numbers for the period being used and % of efficiency savings required)? I was under the impression that those figures had been given to offices already but our DOM says he hasn’t had anything yet. Is he trying to stall or would the figures have gone to the Area Manager who hasn’t bothered to forward them on?

[Martin Walsh]

GRS they were sent out to the Service Delivery Leads and OMs 2 weeks ago. The CWU sent them to Divisional Reps at the same time and to Area Reps and Branch’s last week.

There is also a share point where you can get all the relevant information.

Obviously some of Royal Mail management don’t like the output especially the number of hours the revision with have and they believe the PDA shows and office don’t need that amount.

However that is the agreement and WIPWH is generated by weighted traffic and work hours so as traffic has been boosted the hours required is then more.

[SpacePhoenix]

Has the processing of mech mail with the D+4 taken into account. The machines won't know what DPs have mail until all outward and inward sort plans have been run. Once the machines know which DPs don't have mail, all the inward would need to be run again, with the machine sorting any DSA with no other mail for a DP to a dedicated "holding selection". That's going to take time and then what's left has to be sequenced so we'll probably be dispatching the mail at least a couple of hours later, so DOs will probably end up starting at least a couple of hours later

[DGH]

Maybe the sorting plans will change? Just as a for instance, and completely off the top of my head, maybe the machines will be re-programmed so they can be 'loaded with 'real' mail at the front and 'DSA mail' at the back - in the same run - and as it scans the 'real' mail it'll remember those addresses? While that example may not be practical now (and may never be), perhaps it might, or there will be a cleverer solution.

One thing's for sure though, RM aren't going to be sending all the DSA mail manual, so something in MCs is going to change in a big way.