Dragging it out

[motherhubbard]

The management don't - and so are powerless.

Only because they chose to be - force their hand with a grievance, or if everyone is of the same opinion put in a group grievance for unfair application of standards.

Unfair application of what standards?
There are no outdoor standards as Fishtank pointed out earlier and the indoor standards aren't applicable over one minute.

So only in RM can you do as little as you please.
Now most of us are grown ups and are prepared to do an honest days work for an honest days pay. Some are not. And if you are paired with one or rely on one for your indoor work, life becomes very tiresome very quickly. Protecting those people shouldn't be a union priority.

[fishtank]

Protecting those people shouldn't be a union priority.

It isn't though, like everybody else they are protected only from the application of unfounded opinion, especially from colleagues who despite what they think have no authority to make those judgements, how tiresome is it to get paired with a runner, a break skipper or a doorstepper? I would imagine there are far more members pressured into this behaviour by their partner than the spurious basis of this thread and yes...the union is obliged to protect the flyers from comments and judgement just the same.

Bullying and harassment is not something we should accept even if the target is out of order and I'm afraid this thread is nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with targeting colleagues.

[Ralph Wiggum]

Why do you think you have the right to question and complain about a work colleague just because he is not 'as fast' as you!

How DARE, he/she not rush round like a headless chicken to keep up with 'your speed'.

Its a good job you are not my p&l partner as we would only be having this conversation once.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

The management don't - and so are powerless.

Only because they chose to be - force their hand with a grievance, or if everyone is of the same opinion put in a group grievance for unfair application of standards.

Unfair application of what standards?
There are no outdoor standards as Fishtank pointed out earlier and the indoor standards aren't applicable over one minute.

So only in RM can you do as little as you please.
Now most of us are grown ups and are prepared to do an honest days work for an honest days pay. Some are not. And if you are paired with one or rely on one for your indoor work, life becomes very tiresome very quickly. Protecting those people shouldn't be a union priority.

Even when there are no agreed standards there are still standards that an employer can reasonably expect.

If a manager suspects someone of being deliberately inefficient, or even just no longer being capable of working efficiently due to other reasons than ill health or Equality Act matters, then there is a process available to them. It's called Non-culpable Inefficiency http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... 36&t=37750" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - takes a long time though

[motherhubbard]

Protecting those people shouldn't be a union priority.

It isn't though.

With all due respect, given that you profess to never having seen anyone deliberately work slowly, then you wouldn't know what the union's priorities are in such a unit where such people exist, would you?

[motherhubbard]

It's called Non-culpable Inefficiency

It would be interesting to find out if anybody has ever been sacked under the NCI route.
The process may as well not exist. Like most things in RM it isn't fit for purpose.

[jetblack]

Protecting those people shouldn't be a union priority.

I'm afraid this thread is nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with targeting colleagues.

I can see what you're driving at - but you are turning this into an emotive topic. Who exactly is being targeted here - the guy letting his colleagues take the strain and being rewarded handsomely for it or the one working hard and getting paid peanuts ? It isn't always as clear cut as it might appear.

What needs to be remembered is that this is a zero sum game. What I mean is, is that whilst ever the union backs the scammer, they are, by implication, posing questions about the performance of the guy who is doing his job properly and is legit. People have done the very same thing on this thread.

You can't have it both ways - if the guy finishing 1.5 hours per day later is going about things the right way, then the next step is to say that the guy who is finishing early (earlier) is cutting corners. Thats the problem.


Again - just to be clear, where there's just and proper cause for the OT (which on many many occasions there will be) I (for one) have absolutely no problem at all - in fact, far from it, I think they are entitled and should be backed.

But for me, where there isn't just cause, its not good enough to say "Well, they're in the Union - we'll back them". Its a bit too easy - and its wrong. FWIW I don't believe, in all likelihood this is the position taken by the union in practice. For eg., is it not the case that the unions solicitors won't fight someones corner at an employment tribunal if its a lost cause ? Thats what I've heard anyhow.
Pragmatism is the order of the day.

[fishtank]

Protecting those people shouldn't be a union priority.

It isn't though.

With all due respect, given that you profess to never having seen anyone deliberately work slowly, then you wouldn't know what the union's priorities are in such a unit where such people exist, would you?

Perhaps it would make more sense to say that a particular union rep in a particular unit where it's alledged that a particular member is deliberately going slow may have a skewed sense of priorities. If the union rep is protecting the member from unfounded allegations and harassment from other members of staff though I don't really think I need to be there mother.

The original post seems very fishy, a member deliberately drags his feet around a delivery to score some dodgy overtime and tells everyone he's deliberately dragging his feet around a delivery to score some dodgy overtime, management know but do nothing about the situation and the union rep is in on the scam? I think a more likely scenario is that the guy is slow and the OP wants to finish early/earlier/on time, the rest is just embellishment so he doesn't come across as a bit of a.....

[motherhubbard]

For eg., is it not the case that the unions solicitors won't fight someones corner at an employment tribunal if its a lost cause ? Thats what I've heard anyhow.
Pragmatism is the order of the day.

I think you need to have more than a 50% chance of winning to have any chance of any union backing.

[Kings Norton]

I find that the people that work slow and are in no rush are loners they have nobody to go home to nobody to talk to from one night to another so that's basically why they don't want to get the job done and piss about all day.
You will also find that these clowns are big Dr Who or Star Wars fanatics that play with models after work when they get back to their bedsit.. The ones that rush about are completley different they want to get to a pub/bookies or have anther job and need to pick kids up. But for my money these loners want shoe up the hole for acting the goat day in day out..

[bustedflush]

I find that the people that work slow and are in no rush are loners they have nobody to go home to nobody to talk to from one night to another so that's basically why they don't want to get the job done and piss about all day.
You will also find that these clowns are big Dr Who or Star Wars fanatics that play with models after work when they get back to their bedsit.. The ones that rush about are completley different they want to get to a pub/bookies or have anther job and need to pick kids up. But for my money these loners want shoe up the hole for acting the goat day in day out..

Or they are 'Trekkies'.

Or maybe they need the OT for their next scale model of an Inter City 125....

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Protecting those people shouldn't be a union priority.

I'm afraid this thread is nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with targeting colleagues.

I can see what you're driving at - but you are turning this into an emotive topic.

Because it is. First they came for the ............................

Who exactly is being targeted here - the guy letting his colleagues take the strain and being rewarded handsomely for it or the one working hard and getting paid peanuts ? It isn't always as clear cut as it might appear.

But it's not the Unions job to police the workforce Its the managers job. We pay subs so they can represent us, not tell us to work harder. Also to defend us when the manager does his job, either properly or not.

What needs to be remembered is that this is a zero sum game. What I mean is, is that whilst ever the union backs the scammer, they are, by implication, posing questions about the performance of the guy who is doing his job properly and is legit. People have done the very same thing on this thread.

The Union ARE NOT backing him. They are, if they do, defending his rights as an employee. Every time we surrender the rights of someone we disagree with or have no respect for, we are chipping away at our own rights.

You can't have it both ways - if the guy finishing 1.5 hours per day later is going about things the right way, then the next step is to say that the guy who is finishing early (earlier) is cutting corners. That's the problem.

But that's the Managers area of responsibility, not the Unions. Use the Union to get the manager to do the job, not the Union by removing the workers rights.

Again - just to be clear, where there's just and proper cause for the OT (which on many many occasions there will be) I (for one) have absolutely no problem at all - in fact, far from it, I think they are entitled and should be backed.

I agree with you, but I take issue that you are asking the Union to, effectively, punish this member, not the real people whose job it is.

But for me, where there isn't just cause, its not good enough to say "Well, they're in the Union - we'll back them". Its a bit too easy - and its wrong. FWIW I don't believe, in all likelihood this is the position taken by the union in practice. For eg., is it not the case that the unions solicitors won't fight someones corner at an employment tribunal if its a lost cause ? Thats what I've heard anyhow.

This is a false analogy, they are still representing the member and advising them of their rights, but as members are warned throughout the process, and in various communications to all members, they will only pass a case to their solicitors if there is a greater than 50% chance of succeeding. The Union will still allow reps to assist the member on a voluntary basis, just that they won't cover the costs.

There is no agreement anywhere that the Union won't represent you if you don't work as hard as your colleagues want you to.

Pragmatism is the order of the day.

Pragmatism - isn't that what the police meant when they used the argument - "Well he's guilty of something, so we'll pin this on him".


Is it wrong what you suggest is happening. Yes, it is, but the CWU are not there to punish workers, they are there to defend them. If you remove someone's rights as punishment because you disagree with them where do you draw the line. How many people won't the Union represent because they don't take their breaks or because they won't use the mandatory equipment? The CWU represent people accused of theft, do we want their rights surrendered as soon as the IB/Managers accuse them.

[motherhubbard]

But it's not the Unions job to police the workforce Its the managers job.

Postie A and postie B are on a van share together.
They complain bitterly every Weds - Sat that they won't complete with their heavy packets and want them taken off.
Every day they park up round the back of B&Q for 45 minutes. (Not their meal relief)
What does the rep do?
The manager then decides that to recoup the money he is spending on overtime covering their packets he wants to lapse an extra duty on Monday and Tuesday.
What does the rep do?

Now I know in Fishtank's "best of all possible worlds" this can't happen but it is a real life scenario. The only thing I haven't done is fill in the names of the posties.
In your world the union isn't there to police the workforce - so does he argue their case and implicate himself in their charade? Or what?
The extra lapsing on Monday and Tuesday will take away overtime potential from other posties.

[motherhubbard]

And the rep is currently dealing with one precautionary suspension after theft from a HCT.
One long term sick (back injury) where the business are looking for IHR but the postie doesn't want it.
A good friend of his in the DO has just been diagnosed with cancer and the prognosis isn't good.
And a table top revision is in the offing.

How much of the reps time should be dedicated to postie A and postie B?

[jetblack]

What needs to be remembered is that this is a zero sum game. What I mean is, is that whilst ever the union backs the scammer, they are, by implication, posing questions about the performance of the guy who is doing his job properly and is legit. People have done the very same thing on this thread.

The Union ARE NOT backing him. They are..... defending his rights as an employee.

No - they are defending his "right" to abuse his rights as an employee - big difference. And in so doing they are undermining my legitimate rights. Just like the Norman Mailler situation I quoted earlier.

To be fair, we don't pay our union subs to fund latter day Saints - I don't anyhow. I pay my subs to my trade union because I happen to believe in trade unionism, the solidarity of the working man/woman being the way to better our terms and conditions of employment and to protect us from exploitation. Not to pay for the representation of individuals who don't give a monkeys about working together, about the collective, the unity of the working class.

You say, "But you don't know he's guilty".
I say "I do - I caught him in bed with my wife"
You say "Let a court decide - and I'll defend him"
I say "Then why am I paying you my money ?"

Not much further we can go with this I reckon.

Thing is, in principle I agree with you - but I have actually experienced myself how people with the same approach as yourself have been played by those less scrupulous than the both of us.

..........

Yep - exactly my point.