GHOSTman wrote:If we could get fair and achievable workloads out of this i'm sure everyone would welcome it. I just can't see how we can trust royal mail to abide by it. We need a watertight agreement with no loop holes and no vague statements. from what i've read on here, looks like there is plenty of room for Royalmail to exploit. The big question is will the Royalmail leapord change its spots or continue to be a cheater?
i suppose this is it in a nutshell. why can't we have more detailed descriptions of how we will be working so that we know exactly what we are voting on, so we have it written down precisely for future reference?
i don't care too much about the money, but i don't want to be worked to death.
And that is what the whole dispute was supposed to be about - fair workloads.
I lost count of how many banners there were on tv the saying 'This Dispute is not about Pay'
The details will be available very soon on methods, standards etc..... it maybe a very good point to ask your rep to raise at the briefing!!!
GHOSTman wrote:If we could get fair and achievable workloads out of this i'm sure everyone would welcome it. I just can't see how we can trust royal mail to abide by it. We need a watertight agreement with no loop holes and no vague statements. from what i've read on here, looks like there is plenty of room for Royalmail to exploit. The big question is will the Royalmail leapord change its spots or continue to be a cheater?
i suppose this is it in a nutshell. why can't we have more detailed descriptions of how we will be working so that we know exactly what we are voting on, so we have it written down precisely for future reference?
i don't care too much about the money, but i don't want to be worked to death.
And that is what the whole dispute was supposed to be about - fair workloads.
I lost count of how many banners there were on tv the saying 'This Dispute is not about Pay'
The details will be available very soon on methods, standards etc..... it maybe a very good point to ask your rep to raise at the briefing!!!
FAIR WORKLOADS?
Run, rabbit run. Dig that hole, forget the sun.
And when at last the work is done. Don't sit down, it's time to dig another one
lovejoy wrote:
A 3.5 hr span will not protect jobs. the indoor element is skrinking - whether we like it or not and we have a choice - raise the span or become a PT industry.
This agreement does not give RM the green light to carry to push you even further. longer deliverys will be based on different methods. From what I have seen/heard of the CDV (shared vans) guidlines these are almost done.
Answer me this - do you honestly believe that delivering 3.5 hrs with a 16kg bag on your shoulder is easier than 4hrs15 in a shared van and using a HCT?
The span had to be lifted to protect FT jobs but it is about getting delivery members the right equipment - vans, HCTs, Electric HCTs etc
Sorry to be pedantic i try to aviod carrying 16kg bags if i can help it and i certainly don't ever carry them for 3.5 hrs. 16 kg is the weight limit for the first 2 bags.
Answer me this, what happens at a future buisness savings when RM say to achieve there savings delivery spans will be longer still than 4hrs15 and the national agreement says there are no set agreemnet on delivery spans.....go through the IR framework...call me cynical but delivery spans increase again don't they....even without the buisness savings......what happens when there is a high sick level and duties need to be coverd. again there is no limit on delivery work "get it done"
Hadn't previously appreciated the logic of a 1 hour reduction on working week thought it was a gimic, get it now.
The improvment in VR terms is good especially as so many MC's will be going.
but i'm afraid from me delivery spans is the worst part of this deal. no delivery span no deal!
When it comes to RM savings they will be done via the agreed revision process and not like now.
On the what if someone goes sick arguement - you work until your time - also the agreed work standards will assist here because you and your rep will be able to point out that your 8hrs (or 7hrs 48:) ) are covered.
In the revision process it is basically the unit that sets the span based on what type of duties they want. This will become clear soon as something called a 'menu of options' for duties is going out. Don't forget that although the removal of the 3.5 hr span may mean there will be some longer spans there can also be shorter ones based on double prep, smaller delivery etc
No you are right lovejoy the dispute was not about pay - but it wasn't about a pay cut either. This is what it was about:
vlcsnap-2009-11-08-19h04m13s11.png
I don't see anything in this agreement that guarantees job security in fact in offices that have a greater than 75/25 split there is the possiblity that RM may cut the staff, even you state that the VR arrangements are taken care of and that means job losses not security.
Benefit from change - where are we going to benefit from this agreement
A better working environment - lower paid, increased workload, at present unseen revision tools.
This will not do and it is not what we went out for last October.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
My instinct does tend to think you can't tame the beast that is Royalmail 2010 with an agreement that is too vaguely worded...they always try to steamroller any agreements they can. We would need our union to make a major improvement from HQ down to grass roots level for us to stand any chance of fighting back against Royalfail on fair workloads.
GHOSTman wrote:My instinct does tend to think you can't tame the beast that is Royalmail 2010 with an agreement that is too vaguely worded...they always try to steamroller any agreements they can. We would need our union to make a major improvement from HQ down to grass roots level for us to stand any chance of fighting back against Royalfail on fair workloads.
In some parts of the UK you have a point.... When the guidelines are ready, couple with the agreement it will be the most comprehensive delivery document ever so to call is vague is not true - in my opinion.
lovejoy wrote:the indoor element is skrinking - whether we like it or not and we have a choice - raise the span or become a PT industry.
Is it really? Then why are we working for 3-4 hours indoors now when it used to be 90 minutes and out for 7am? IPS takes longer than 90 minutes now. Is introducing walk sequencing machines going to reduce the indoor workload to the point where we have time to complete the inevitable longer deliveries?
I lost count of how many banners there were on tv the saying 'This Dispute is not about Pay'
It wasn't. But I bet you everything I have that nobody expected the CWU to come out with a pay cut for us.
Look Lovejoy,laughable pay deal aside and it is laughable.
What the majority of this deal comes down to is trust,trust without safegaurds.
Acas do not have the resources or manpower to properly oversee this agreement.
So it all comes down to is basically the same question as 2007,a deal you also thought was strong enough.
Do we place our trust in Royal Mail and the CWU?
I can't even think of a smart a*sed answer for that one.
dvbuk55 wrote:No you are right lovejoy the dispute was not about pay - but it wasn't about a pay cut either. This is what it was about:
vlcsnap-2009-11-08-19h04m13s11.png
I don't see anything in this agreement that guarantees job security in fact in offices that have a greater than 75/25 split there is the possiblity that RM may cut the staff, even you state that the VR arrangements are taken care of and that means job losses not security.
Benefit from change - where are we going to benefit from this agreement
A better working environment - lower paid, increased workload, at present unseen revision tools.
This will not do and it is not what we went out for last October.
You don't see anything tat protects jobs?? have a 2nd look..... a sww, agreed standards (I appreciate you do not have these to look at), an agreed revision process, D2D into workload.
VRs equal jobs losses - of course but those who leave should do so on the right terms.
I am off to bed. Hopefully get on late tomorrow - so no need to start a 'wheres lovejoy' thread as one thing I don't do is shy away from the debate.
what we are also forgetting is the "bonus culture"
in the same way that this is a cancer in the banking industry
it is also rampant among our managers
most get a big fat juicy bonus for the number of hours they cut from their budgets
and so greed sets in, and we see the horror stories that have been posted on this website
1. Door-to-door must be incorporated in any new delivery agreement; it is not beneficial to separate the issue. Any change will stand a better chance of being accepted as part of an all-encompassing agreement on deliveries.
2. A number of questions remain, including whether door-to-door should form part of measured workload, how to tackle payment issues and the possible automation of the product. Communication with members will be vital. It must be made clear that we can no longer afford to refuse work, but that a balance will be sought that protects pay and jobs and limits the opportunity for the competition.
This is taken as an extract from the CWU Delivery Model - well thats them out of the window then.
lovejoy wrote:
When it comes to RM savings they will be done via the agreed revision process and not like now.
On the what if someone goes sick arguement - you work until your time - also the agreed work standards will assist here because you and your rep will be able to point out that your 8hrs (or 7hrs 48:) ) are covered.
In the revision process it is basically the unit that sets the span based on what type of duties they want. This will become clear soon as something called a 'menu of options' for duties is going out. Don't forget that although the removal of the 3.5 hr span may mean there will be some longer spans there can also be shorter ones based on double prep, smaller delivery etc
It mentions 'the menu of options' in the agreement, but 'the menu' itself is not part of the agreement, unlike the 'no longer any delivery span' which is part of the agreement
Haven't fully looked at the revision process, but based on experience i'm unconvinced that RM will stick to it.
on the sickness stream your mail leave your packets USO comes first!
I think we will have to agree to disagree Lovejoy, but thanks for responding. I stick by my no delivery span no deal!
ps. no need to respond Lovejoy i see your in demand....we may give you's stick (dingo & the Truth) but we always want to hear what you have to say.
My unwavering belief in this unions values has gone from 100% to 10% from sat morn to sun afternoon,and plumetted to 0% after reading lovejoys comments and answers this evening.
This ain't no baseball game, you get only one chance and you blew it.
BELIAL wrote:I would guess that the pro rata payment reflects the changes to duty structures that RM intend to introduce.
If the plan is for an evenish split pt/ft in delivery then pt duties will consist only of the outdoor element, therefore all D2D prep will be done by FT workers.
Like a lot of the stuff in this "agreement" it does depend on RM making huge time savings from sequenced mail.
I can't see any of this working. We save roughly 10 mins. prepping sequenced mail ;30% of our mail arrives unsorted , there just is not the spare capacity/time saving available to cope with this extra workload in my office.
Likewise with CDV's ,if they think they will save time on replenishment and conveyance they will be sadly disappointed, that time has already been saved via private car use and "creative" bag drops
All of which our union knows, but I'm not to sure if any local managers have come clean to their bosses ,so senior management might be in for the shock of their lives if these plans come to fruition
Good observation ,there probably is something in this: No use of cars means less flyers less, men coming in early etc.
shared vans or cars ,toilet break will mean a slowing down of the process, I can tell you know if everyone used vans in our office royal mail would not make the savings envisaged ,they rely on own car use.
BELIAL wrote:I would guess that the pro rata payment reflects the changes to duty structures that RM intend to introduce.
If the plan is for an evenish split pt/ft in delivery then pt duties will consist only of the outdoor element, therefore all D2D prep will be done by FT workers.
Like a lot of the stuff in this "agreement" it does depend on RM making huge time savings from sequenced mail.
I can't see any of this working. We save roughly 10 mins. prepping sequenced mail ;30% of our mail arrives unsorted , there just is not the spare capacity/time saving available to cope with this extra workload in my office.
Likewise with CDV's ,if they think they will save time on replenishment and conveyance they will be sadly disappointed, that time has already been saved via private car use and "creative" bag drops
All of which our union knows, but I'm not to sure if any local managers have come clean to their bosses ,so senior management might be in for the shock of their lives if these plans come to fruition
Good observation ,there probably is something in this: No use of cars means less flyers less, men coming in early etc.
shared vans or cars ,toilet break will mean a slowing down of the process, I can tell you know if everyone used vans in our office royal mail would not make the savings envisaged ,they rely on own car use.
Well that also means no lump sums......sucsessful deployment of revision.
