Ward now wants rid of 6 day USO?

[qwerty2]

Honestly dont know why anyone would want to drive for this company every work time learnings the same every other day in ours, drivers being threatened with conduct for not doing van checks or speeding or some other misdemeanor much better being non driver no hassle or responsibility only bigger loops which isn't to bad.

It's in the contract ie after 2010 everyone needs a driving licence.

So they can’t just get rid of people who started before that who don’t drive?

[SpacePhoenix]

Honestly dont know why anyone would want to drive for this company every work time learnings the same every other day in ours, drivers being threatened with conduct for not doing van checks or speeding or some other misdemeanor much better being non driver no hassle or responsibility only bigger loops which isn't to bad.

It's in the contract ie after 2010 everyone needs a driving licence.

So they can’t just get rid of people who started before that who don’t drive?

What %/number of staff are there in DOs who started before 2010?

[thefox]

Honestly dont know why anyone would want to drive for this company every work time learnings the same every other day in ours, drivers being threatened with conduct for not doing van checks or speeding or some other misdemeanor much better being non driver no hassle or responsibility only bigger loops which isn't to bad.

Why are they not doing van checks an why are they SPEEDING.deserve all they get in my opinion.

Its mostly the type who are to scared to leave mail and so start early,skip breaks, run round the duty and so not doing van checks saves them a few minutes,that type of creature.

[thefox]

Honestly dont know why anyone would want to drive for this company every work time learnings the same every other day in ours, drivers being threatened with conduct for not doing van checks or speeding or some other misdemeanor much better being non driver no hassle or responsibility only bigger loops which isn't to bad.

It's in the contract ie after 2010 everyone needs a driving licence.

So they can’t just get rid of people who started before that who don’t drive?

What %/number of staff are there in DOs who started before 2010?

Thats a large % in our office although theres only about 5 of us dont drive.

[FilthyBloke]

Honestly dont know why anyone would want to drive for this company every work time learnings the same every other day in ours, drivers being threatened with conduct for not doing van checks or speeding or some other misdemeanor much better being non driver no hassle or responsibility only bigger loops which isn't to bad.

It's in the contract ie after 2010 everyone needs a driving licence.

So they can’t just get rid of people who started before that who don’t drive?

What %/number of staff are there in DOs who started before 2010?

Thats a large % in our office although theres only about 5 of us dont drive.

Which also surprises me that RM have never forced through that change that you must be a driver. In this day and age, with letter volumes so low, anyone who can’t drive for what is effectively a parcel company, isn’t fit for purpose.

Maybe the next revision/agreement they will go after that 5%.

[Nickvilla20]

Honestly dont know why anyone would want to drive for this company every work time learnings the same every other day in ours, drivers being threatened with conduct for not doing van checks or speeding or some other misdemeanor much better being non driver no hassle or responsibility only bigger loops which isn't to bad.

It's in the contract ie after 2010 everyone needs a driving licence.

So they can’t just get rid of people who started before that who don’t drive?

What %/number of staff are there in DOs who started before 2010?

Thats a large % in our office although theres only about 5 of us dont drive.

Which also surprises me that RM have never forced through that change that you must be a driver. In this day and age, with letter volumes so low, anyone who can’t drive for what is effectively a parcel company, isn’t fit for purpose.

Maybe the next revision/agreement they will go after that 5%.

They have no need to go after non drivers. More or less everyone who has been employed on delivery in the past 10 years needs to have a driving licence.

It’s seems park and loop is here to stay so there is enough work for non drivers and trying to sack someone for not having a driver’s license opens a huge legal can or worms.

[Acca Dacca]

Honestly dont know why anyone would want to drive for this company every work time learnings the same every other day in ours, drivers being threatened with conduct for not doing van checks or speeding or some other misdemeanor much better being non driver no hassle or responsibility only bigger loops which isn't to bad.

It's in the contract ie after 2010 everyone needs a driving licence.

So they can’t just get rid of people who started before that who don’t drive?

What %/number of staff are there in DOs who started before 2010?

Thats a large % in our office although theres only about 5 of us dont drive.

Which also surprises me that RM have never forced through that change that you must be a driver. In this day and age, with letter volumes so low, anyone who can’t drive for what is effectively a parcel company, isn’t fit for purpose.

Maybe the next revision/agreement they will go after that 5%.

What a horrible post

Do you even know what Park and Loop is?

[FilthyBloke]

Honestly dont know why anyone would want to drive for this company every work time learnings the same every other day in ours, drivers being threatened with conduct for not doing van checks or speeding or some other misdemeanor much better being non driver no hassle or responsibility only bigger loops which isn't to bad.

It's in the contract ie after 2010 everyone needs a driving licence.

So they can’t just get rid of people who started before that who don’t drive?

What %/number of staff are there in DOs who started before 2010?

Thats a large % in our office although theres only about 5 of us dont drive.

Which also surprises me that RM have never forced through that change that you must be a driver. In this day and age, with letter volumes so low, anyone who can’t drive for what is effectively a parcel company, isn’t fit for purpose.

Maybe the next revision/agreement they will go after that 5%.

What a horrible post

Do you even know what Park and Loop is?

Yes. One has to drive and they both have to do loops or packets. But if the driver is off sick or in annual leave then you’ll need to either swap people around in the office or cater to these non drivers. The way the company seems to be looking at changes and flexibility to suit them it wouldn’t surprise me if they did go after the non flexible non drivers.

[Nickvilla20]

As I said in my previous post park and loop is around for the foreseeable future so anybody who doesn’t drive will be fine.

If they made all duties singletons imagine all the extra vans you need plus all the vans for the afternoon DPR duties as with us starting later we won’t be back in time for them to get a van.

Within the next few years 99% of delivery staff will be able to drive so it’s a non issue.

[FilthyBloke]

As I said in my previous post park and loop is around for the foreseeable future so anybody who doesn’t drive will be fine.

If they made all duties singletons imagine all the extra vans you need plus all the vans for the afternoon DPR duties as with us starting later we won’t be back in time for them to get a van.

Within the next few years 99% of delivery staff will be able to drive so it’s a non issue.

You’re probably right.

[Jen1]

What an absolute hypocritical load of bollocks

We’re supposedly going to have to have later start/finish times because of the green agenda

Even though that’ll mean more posties contributing to rush hour traffic and probably increasing the counties carbon footprint

But for some reason they are unable to lobby the government to get a time extension on that mail (that is being used as the excuse for later starts) that is usually flown (which I believe only makes up 5% of mail)

But they’re happy to continually harass the government to stop the 6 day uso

Even though part of the reason Royal Mail has a lower carbon footprint than other companies is because the majority of their deliveries are done on foot

Which obviously won’t be the case on a Saturday if we’re not delivering letters

Our round we average 4 miles of driving in the van and between 2 of us we cover on average 20miles on foot

So please don’t try and use the green agenda as an excuse to move our finish times you absolute soulless clowns

[k979aaa]

What an absolute hypocritical load of bollocks

We’re supposedly going to have to have later start/finish times because of the green agenda

Even though that’ll mean more posties contributing to rush hour traffic and probably increasing the counties carbon footprint

But for some reason they are unable to lobby the government to get a time extension on that mail (that is being used as the excuse for later starts) that is usually flown (which I believe only makes up 5% of mail)

But they’re happy to continually harass the government to stop the 6 day uso

Even though part of the reason Royal Mail has a lower carbon footprint than other companies is because the majority of their deliveries are done on foot

Which obviously won’t be the case on a Saturday if we’re not delivering letters

Our round we average 4 miles of driving in the van and between 2 of us we cover on average 20miles on foot

So please don’t try and use the green agenda as an excuse to move our finish times you absolute soulless clowns

Well they do and they jet around the world and claim this ambition of net ZERO and have electric vans which can only have six years battery use and will be scrapped as no one wants a electric van over six years old. Thing is the whole of RM is full of crack heads at the top for that is their remit get a big bonus f**k the service and party on buy a polestar and f**k it.

[thefox]

Honestly dont know why anyone would want to drive for this company every work time learnings the same every other day in ours, drivers being threatened with conduct for not doing van checks or speeding or some other misdemeanor much better being non driver no hassle or responsibility only bigger loops which isn't to bad.

It's in the contract ie after 2010 everyone needs a driving licence.

So they can’t just get rid of people who started before that who don’t drive?

What %/number of staff are there in DOs who started before 2010?

Thats a large % in our office although theres only about 5 of us dont drive.

Which also surprises me that RM have never forced through that change that you must be a driver. In this day and age, with letter volumes so low, anyone who can’t drive for what is effectively a parcel company, isn’t fit for purpose.

Maybe the next revision/agreement they will go after that 5%.

In what way do you think they will come after us filthy,offer v.r perhaps or give us a deadline to be able yo drive?

[thefox]

Because if its v.r even at statutory redundancy then my dom had best watch his fingers in case i bite them of him

[Mr Rush]

What %/number of staff are there in DOs who started before 2010?

The median start date in my office is 2002. 75% joined before 2010 (heavy turnover of newbies since P&L, wonder why). Of just under 100 OPGs, there are 11 non-drivers remaining with start dates ranging from 1995 to late 2010.

anyone who can’t drive for what is effectively a parcel company, isn’t fit for purpose.

It can effectively be a giant red tomato, but it actually isn't.