Going on Strike

[Dolph]

You were posting quite reasonably for a while but all of a sudden, plop, the head has gone right back up the managements ass.

That is not really a counter to any of my points. Do you think that staff should be paid for hours they do not work without any obligation at all? The alternative, as I've said, to an hours bank, is redundancy or hours cuts with loss of pay, this is the nature of the economy.

If you really want people to think that you are neutral and you see both sides then at least pretend that you do in this thread instead of arguing the toss with everything I have to say.

I do see both sides, and I am neutral in initial stance, however I disagree with the CWU on the basis that the demands are based on unreasonable expectations due to previous protection from economic reality.

And if you think banked hours with the dishonest ranks that make up RM management is a good think then you're off your rocker.

Fine, then if management and workers can't make it work, go to the next valid alternative and start the redundancies or the forced reductions in pay to levels matching hours worked, rather than hours currently paid for.

 

[Jeff Lynne]

It doesn't have to make it 10 hours less work if it was not running to capacity previously. If the work was actually taking 9 hours less than contracted, then there's only 1 hours less work to find to fit the new shift pattern.



And I've not had an undisturbed holiday in the last 18 months, because there has always been something that's come up. It's the nature of work that sometimes we don't get exactly everything that we want.

1st point, even if it's 9 hours and not ten that needs to be absorbed, it's still 9 hours work that everyone else has to do. Added to that over time it's not just one job thats been cut like this, it's ten, so thats ten less people to do 90 hours more work on top of what they already do. Are you going to just side with them just to be argumentative? It seems that way to me.

Not sure if you've understood my second point or whether you're just twisting it to suit your own agenda but if I've got a rigidly timetabled duty, which I have then where do I find the extra 30 mins from to cover the extra indoor work? All it does is means that I go out later, people get their mail later and I finish over my time and don't get paid for it.

 

[Jeff Lynne]

If so, this would mean that you do indeed work the 48 hours for which you are paid. So which is it? You work 48 hours a week, or you don't? I imagine you're a salaried worker, right?

I pretty much work my 48 hrs but I make a bit of time on lighter days. I'm not salaried.

 

[Jeff Lynne]

Given the militant nature of the workforce and the long history of reluctance/refusal to change, I would say the blame has to be shared. Most of the current situations are compromises made under previous strike action/threat of strike action to try and keep even more ludicrous working conditions than they have now. There have been ongoing attempts to change working practices by management that have been fought every step of the way by the CWU and its members.

What do you expect us to do? Bend over, pull our trousers down and get the lube out? FFS

 

[Dolph]

1st point, even if it's 9 hours and not ten that needs to be absorbed, it's still 9 hours work that everyone else has to do. Added to that over time it's not just one job thats been cut like this, it's ten, so thats ten less people to do 90 hours more work on top of what they already do. Are you going to just side with them just to be argumentative? It seems that way to me.

The example I gave was that the job took 31 hours, not 40, hence it is only 1 hour that needs to be absorbed, and if all the other jobs are similarly inefficent, then it is not a problem.

I'm not siding with them to be argumentative, I'm siding with the realist. If the shift patterns and the amount of available work do not coincide then something needs to be done to address that. Reducing the number of available manhours does not put unreasonable extra load on the remaining staff if the manhours were in excess in the first place. It does put extra work on those who remain, but it is not unreasonable to expect people to have enough work to cover their full working day. In a role where workflow is inconsistent, a banking system is a very good, employee friendly solution to the problem of weeks where there is not enough work to go around, and weeks where there is excessive work to go around. The alternative is to reduce salaries and working hours or cut posts and use overtime when appropriate.

I'm looking at all sides of the business, best solutions for employer and employee, not one or the other.

Not sure if you've understood my second point or whether you're just twisting it to suit your own agenda but if I've got a rigidly timetabled duty, which I have then where do I find the extra 30 mins from to cover the extra indoor work? All it does is means that I go out later, people get their mail later and I finish over my time and don't get paid for it.

How often does this happen vs you finishing under time (as you have already stated in this thread)? How does your 'rigid timetable' allow you to finish early?

 

[Foxtrot Charlie]

The problem now is that we've taken on the extra work to achieve last years savings and now they're saying, well, you can do that so now we need to take another 500 hours out of the office so they're making us do more additional unpaid work. If it takes us beyond our time they won't pay us overtime.

Putting aside the 500 hours, are you saying that the previous extra work that was asked of employees was achieved within the original set working hours?

 

[Dolph]

What do you expect us to do? Bend over, pull our trousers down and get the lube out? FFS

No, I expect a little bit of realism and understanding from the workforce before they drive RM into bankruptcy.

You have all had unrealistic and unsupportable employment conditions in the past, that is not a reason for them to continue now that royal mail has to live in the real world rather than the artificial one of an enforced monopoly.

 

[Jeff Lynne]

The example I gave was that the job took 31 hours, not 40, hence it is only 1 hour that needs to be absorbed, and if all the other jobs are similarly inefficent, then it is not a problem.

Stop it, you're making up facts to suit your own argument.

None of the jobs that have been cut have been because of that, they've turned full time jobs to part time jobs simply to save on hours. The majority of delivery postmen are part time these days and whats more they've taken it a step further by creating jobs where the job is (supposed to be) thrown off and bagged up so that the part timer can come in, pick up the bags and go out on delivery. They're on 24 hrs.

 

[Jeff Lynne]

Putting aside the 500 hours, are you saying that the previous extra work that was asked of employees was achieved within the original set working hours?

I couldn't tell you. They just use the threat as a stick to beat us with and justify taking hours out of the office. It has been said that they're deliberately quote more hours than they can possibly do without though, thus making the task impossible.

 

[Jeff Lynne]

No, I expect a little bit of realism and understanding from the workforce before they drive RM into bankruptcy.

You have all had unrealistic and unsupportable employment conditions in the past, that is not a reason for them to continue now that royal mail has to live in the real world rather than the artificial one of an enforced monopoly.

Source?

 

[RDM]

Good Lord, maybe this kind of thread needs discussion in Speakers Corner because GD only attracts this kind of clueless input.

You were posting quite reasonably for a while but all of a sudden, plop, the head has gone right back up the managements ass.

I guess you probably miss the irony of your statement...

 

[Dolph]

Stop it, you're making up facts to suit your own argument.

None of the jobs that have been cut have been because of that, they've turned full time jobs to part time jobs simply to save on hours. The majority of delivery postmen are part time these days and whats more they've taken it a step further by creating jobs where the job is (supposed to be) thrown off and bagged up so that the part timer can come in, pick up the bags and go out on delivery. They're on 24 hrs.

None of the above counters the rationale I have given. Matching manhours to work needed is required in every job, the use of a variety of full time and part time workers to suit the hours requirement is something that happens in every job. There is no reason why RM should be any different in this regard.

Source?

Every RM strike in recent years and the working practices that were exposed as a result?

 

[Foxtrot Charlie]

At the end of the day I would say that the volume of mail is going to drop over the up and coming years, more and more people are opting for online billing for example just as more and more companies are encouraging customers to sign up with a financial incentive.

Royal Mail know this but and and trying to streamline operations to deal with the changes, however to me and many other it seems archaic working practices and unrealistic demands by the CWU is harming Royal Mail.