revisions NOT being implemented.

[Big Daz]

If delivery methods never sees the light of day at my D.O the mbrs will be happy

And how will bikes deal with the increase in packets?

Simple have a extra duty or S/A duty delivering packets out in a van.

[dvbuk55]

If delivery methods never sees the light of day at my D.O the mbrs will be happy

And how will bikes deal with the increase in packets?

Simple have a extra duty or S/A duty delivering packets out in a van.

It is simple to say stick another duty in but you have to be able to justify it and simply saying we prefer bikes ain't gonna cut it...............sooner or later you're going to have start playing the tune called by the paymaster.

[Big Daz]

dvbuk you misunderstand

The question as In saw it was in terms of how to how to handle increase in packets if a delivery methods revisons were not to take place? More dedicated packet duties would be a contender. Our packet duties also drop off pouches so we could look at finding other ways to cover that work thus freeing up time for packet delivery.


Ive got no intention of proposing a deviation away from BT2010 but if RML were to say were not doing a methods revision then I will not object as my mbrs would not give me a mandate to object. That would not nesscarily mean not bringing in HCT for delivery duties near the D.O.

[dvbuk55]

dvbuk you misunderstand

The question as In saw it was in terms of how to how to handle increase in packets if a delivery methods revisons were not to take place? More dedicated packet duties would be a contender. Our packet duties also drop off pouches so we could look at finding other ways to cover that work thus freeing up time for packet delivery.


Ive got no intention of proposing a deviation away from BT2010 but if RML were to say were not doing a methods revision then I will not object as my mbrs would not give me a mandate to object. That would not nesscarily mean not bringing in HCT for delivery duties near the D.O.

I was merely commenting on your statement viz "Simple have a extra duty or S/A duty delivering packets out in a van". I was pointing out it is far from simple and needs to be justied.

[fishtank]

Ive got no intention of proposing a deviation away from BT2010 but if RML were to say were not doing a methods revision then.....

.....that would surely be a...deviation away from BT2010.
Or is it OK if they do it?

[Big Daz]

As far as the mbrs at my DO are concerned yes! They dont see how delivery method changes can improve things at our D.O and see it as waste of money.

One can only assume RML have done their maths homework and the overall cost* of the collection sortation and delivery of mail will be cheaper with delivery methods than having a extra dedicated packet duty.

* over all cost is OPG wages as determined by the number and type of duties, OPG uniform and equipment running costs (fuel, taxdisc and MOT) maintenace/replacement when needed.

The question is will they show the CWU detailed costings to prove the viabilty of delivery methods in any given D.O?

[dvbuk55]

As far as the mbrs at my DO are concerned yes! They dont see how delivery method changes can improve things at our D.O and see it as waste of money.

One can only assume RML have done their maths homework and the overall cost* of the collection sortation and delivery of mail will be cheaper with delivery methods than having a extra dedicated packet duty.

* over all cost is OPG wages as determined by the number and type of duties, OPG uniform and equipment running costs (fuel, taxdisc and MOT) maintenace/replacement when needed.

The question is will they show the CWU detailed costings to prove the viabilty of delivery methods in any given D.O?

It isn't the costings BD it's the modernisation. HCT, LCT and park and loop - you won't need a packet duty because the P&L will be taking care of the packets/parcels/large specials and tracked...........in fact you are more likely to be losing bulk duties not gaining one!

[Big Daz]

Whats the point of that then? RMl shi* themselves every day over finances but are happy to put in a more expensive set up in the name of modernising Perahps thats why they are ceasting unachiveable duties so as to make methods pay for itself?

[Danelectro]

Whats the point of that then? RMl shi* themselves every day over finances but are happy to put in a more expensive set up in the name of modernising Perahps thats why they are ceasting unachiveable duties so as to make methods pay for itself?

Well during the many months/years negotiations with CWU ,the financial implications should have
been sorted out and if as now looks likely the money isnt there,then its back to the drawing board to get a clear agreement .

Otherwise what your left with is akin to the pick n mix at Woolies and if thats the case ill have a quarter o soor plums
and stand on the gate.

[dvbuk55]

Whats the point of that then? RMl shi* themselves every day over finances but are happy to put in a more expensive set up in the name of modernising Perahps thats why they are ceasting unachiveable duties so as to make methods pay for itself?

The point? The point would be by abiding by the 2010 BT Agreement, negotiated by both parties and reported to be "the deal of the century"(I just love that statement, it so emphasises how out of touch these people are). Now the question is what are the CWU going to do about the apparent back tracking on the agreement and the promised financial rewards touted which will apparently not now be given. Are we to abide by some of the agreement, all of the agreement or none of the agreement, after all if the money isn't there why should we uphold those elements that are only beneficial to RM. What about those offices that have been through the mill over the last 6 months who have incorporated almost 100% of the DM and WSM revisions?

[smokerjim]

DVB, if I read you correctly, are you saying that he who pays the piper calls the tune, but if the tune caller is skint, the piper tells him to feck off? ( Sorry, it popped into my head & I had to share it )

Personally, if an agreement has been made ( BT2010 ), and it is to be reached in 3 seperate stages ( £200, £600, £200 ), then I think it is only fair that as the piper, we only play the tunes we've been paid for. I won't brook any arguements, and I expect the local union to take a similar view....I not so confident the higher levels of the union take a similar view though but if they like their slot on the gravy train, they'll have to step up sooner or later

[dvbuk55]

DVB, if I read you correctly, are you saying that he who pays the piper calls the tune, but if the tune caller is skint, the piper tells him to feck off? ( Sorry, it popped into my head & I had to share it )

Personally, if an agreement has been made ( BT2010 ), and it is to be reached in 3 seperate stages ( £200, £600, £200 ), then I think it is only fair that as the piper, we only play the tunes we've been paid for. I won't brook any arguements, and I expect the local union to take a similar view....I not so confident the higher levels of the union take a similar view though but if they like their slot on the gravy train, they'll have to step up sooner or later

You read it correctly smoker BUT as you are aware the money follows the revision and you won't know if you're going to get the money and if you are then when. It took 3 months toing and froing to get the £200. Not a lot of info coming from the top though is there, no statement on the current position and what they intend doing about the problems.

[fishtank]

This agreement for what it is worth,was voted for and accepted in it's entirety.
Why would we allow Royal Mail to cherry pick it now just because they don't like the results?
This whole embarrassing situation is farcical....how can either party be trusted by the membership now?
We were told that the agreement required trust...what it really required was gullibility.

[dvbuk55]

This agreement for what it is worth,was voted for and accepted in it's entirety.
Why would we allow Royal Mail to cherry pick it now just because they don't like the results?
This whole embarrassing situation is farcical....how can either party be trusted by the membership now?
We were told that the agreement required trust...what it really required was gullibility.

And where exactly did the gullibility begin I wonder..........a new understanding, an element of trust, working together, full inclusion in planning and a RM/CWU partnership. I mean.........some of us thought it a crock of crap at the time it's taken others a little longer. Wonder if Plan B will be wheeled out now

[maisymoo04]

ourz goes live monday