saturday deliveries

[redlen]

Permnent

As in permanent for 12 month fixed term as it has a termination date as a sunset clause

Been trying to get my nephew a substantive contract for the previous 18 months that does not expire after 12 months

Just because there are limited vacancies at this moment does not mean it is the norm.

The previous comments from Mail Centre workers confirms no new full/part time contracts being offered, only agency currently filling the shortfall

[Jefferson Starfish]

I don't think there's anything to say they have to go down the VR route first.

Yes there is.
It's called Managing the Surplus Framework.
If you're removing actual jobs from the business it has to be used.
It's a big thick document.
I'll send you a copy if you want.

Many newbies are on short term contracts

Are they?
Show me your working.
Not just in your mailcentre but as you seem to be speaking in general terms, the whole business.
How many short term contracts as a percentage of the entire workforce will do.

All new starts at my DO are on short term contracts to begin with.

You know as well as me Fishtank, that in practice natural wastage is what reduces the headcount more than anything else.

The company won't be paying out VR to the longest serving when they don't have to. They'd rather give that to the shareholders or keep it for themselves.

[Woody Guthrie]

As in permanent for 12 month fixed term as it has a termination date as a sunset clause

No permanent as in the usual legal definition of permanent.
Not fixed term.

The previous comments from Mail Centre workers confirms no new full/part time contracts being offered, only agency currently filling the shortfall

Your comment was..

Most new entrants now in deliveries are on short term 12 month temporary contracts. You only have to look at the Royal Mail job's portal to confirm with the job description.

That's clearly not true as I've shown.
Agency staff have been used in mailcentres since the beginning of time, there is nothing new in that.

[Woody Guthrie]

You know as well as me woody, that in practice natural wastage is what reduces the headcount more than anything else.

We're not talking about an issue that could be resolved through natural wastage.

Although I would question the 20% figure we would be talking about a reduction that could only be achieved through redundancy if it were to be done in one move.

Unless the business goes completely nuclear (which given the comms lately isn't impossible) it would be done under existing agreed MTSF terms.

It's fine saying it would be cheaper just to cull the last in the door but that's a short term solution that would lead to longer term structural problems, if you don't get rid of your older, more expensive staff (that's where all your allowances and extra leave is) you end up with a very high staff/age ratio and more importantly a very high staff/cost ratio.

VRs are expensive but so is the alternative of an expensive,ageing workforce.

[redlen]

I don't think there's anything to say they have to go down the VR route first.

Yes there is.
It's called Managing the Surplus Framework.
If you're removing actual jobs from the business it has to be used.
It's a big thick document.
I'll send you a copy if you want.

Many newbies are on short term contracts

Are they?
Show me your working.
Not just in your mailcentre but as you seem to be speaking in general terms, the whole business.
How many short term contracts as a percentage of the entire workforce will do.

All new starts at my DO are on short term contracts to begin with.

You know as well as me Fishtank, that in practice natural wastage is what reduces the headcount more than anything else.

The company won't be paying out VR to the longest serving when they don't have to. They'd rather give that to the shareholders or keep it for themselves.

Have to agree with your comment

"All new starts at my DO are on short-term contracts to begin with".

That has been my experience over the previous 18 months as well with advertised vacancies

Though redundancy issues are normally decided through the MTSF Agreement, the statement by the CEO Simon Thompson at the AGM is worrying. Royal Mail is losing a million a day and cannot rule out compulsory redundancies. That is fact as a matter of public record. Furthermore, have no doubt he is thinking of Fire and Rehire options on inferior terms and conditions if he can justify the financial stability of the business is in jepordy

simon.jpg

[Woody Guthrie]

Are we just spouting hypotheticals now?
The Sphinx could increase his stake in Royal Mail, make an offer for the entire business, sell off GLS, shut us down and disappear into the sunset laughing all the way to the bank.

We really need to try to stay a little more focused, deal with the facts and not try to scare the children.

There are people reading these threads genuinely frightened for their jobs and the last thing they need is a bunch of keyboard know it alls telling them what WILL happen when what they mean is what might happen if this and that happens.

At the moment we are protected to a certain degree by previous agreements, if and when that changes it might be a different conversation.

[redlen]

Referenced facts are not keyboard warriors. People are entitled to know all the options on the table.

As for previous agreements protections?

The CWU are about to issue a fresh ballot, as Royal Mail wants to tear up those previous agreement protections through Executive Action just like the implemented 2% pay rise. They have already stated their goals, such as sick pay, attendance agreement and legacy payments.

[IloveMYredTROLLEY!]

Van drivers just delivering parcels on Saturdays, that in theory didn't go through the letterbox, was trialled in summer 2020 for about a month, if I recall correctly.

It sent the call rate and prep time for letters through the roof on Mondays, to the extent overtime or cutting off was heavily the norm.

Since then we've had the full time contract hours reduced to 37, in my depot Mondays and Tuesdays don't automatically attract 40mins meal relief any more, because the contract hours are now less than 7hrs1min.

Given Monday used to be 7hrs30mins, it's hard to see how what happened in the trial won't be even more of an issue now with less time and d2d levels are now similar to pre-pandemic levels.

... If this comes to fruition.

[mw7485]

I know abandoning Saturday letter deliveries in out office led to an unmitigated disaster on Mondays! And, that was with pandemic mail levels (considerably lower than now), and before they put the farce of a revision in and made all the walks bigger. Somebody hasn't thought this through - what a surprise.

[SpacePhoenix]

I know abandoning Saturday letter deliveries in out office led to an unmitigated disaster on Mondays! And, that was with pandemic mail levels (considerably lower than now), and before they put the farce of a revision in and made all the walks bigger. Somebody hasn't thought this through - what a surprise.

Might just be the normal summertime drop-off but if you exclude any Amazon stuff, mail levels are actually down. As the cost of living crisis really bites over the next few months I'm expecting that we'll see the amount of mail go down further

[redlen]

Amazon prime last week turned out to be a real damp squib with expected volumes that did not materialise

[SpacePhoenix]

Amazon prime last week turned out to be a real damp squib with expected volumes that did not materialise

We had a big surge of Amazon, we don't normally get very much as Amazon deliver their own stuff here normally apart from the rural areas. Does your DO cover an urban or rural area?

[2yearpostie]

Amazon prime last week turned out to be a real damp squib with expected volumes that did not materialise

We had a big surge of Amazon, we don't normally get very much as Amazon deliver their own stuff here normally apart from the rural areas. Does your DO cover an urban or rural area?

90% of my areas stuff is Amazon.

[Ozzvaldo]

I work in an LAT office scheduled to be a parcel hub. We've lost 9 staff since November (out of a total of 89) and despite having multiple delivery failures everyday (2 full and 6
part yesterday), the COMs insist that the higher ups aren't allowing them to recruit against this shortage. 3 of my 5 deliveries this week have been on van shares where one of the deliveries was failed the previous day. The offices we currently do LATs for are also running short staffed. Reading these boards, it's obviously not a situation unique to this area.

Nobody seems to have a clue what our staffing requirements (or those of the non-LAT offices we cover) will be when and if, any, some, or all, of the changes proposed by the board commence. The assumption is that it's a "wait and see" situation by cynical upper management that are quite happy to rake in customers' money whilst deliberately not providing the service for which we are paid.

There are more knowledgeable people on this forum with respect to agreements and the law, but it seems to be that a very nice buffer of vacancies has been developed by RM to mitigate against potential VRs should the proposed changes be instituted.