postman sacked for signing for goods

custardy

mazza111 wrote: »

Has the complaining to the management not resolved this issue ? Surely even if the postie knows the complaint has come from you, then it should make him even more determined to do it right? The mind boggles.

Like the guy who complained that I was dropping rubber bands :eek: I'm actually very careful with them, however if one snaps, I am not going to chase it down the street with 16kg on my back. I now doubly check to make sure none are dropped near his house, broken ones or not. Although, have spotted some bands there thanks to my relief :rotfl:

I have to admit, I signed something for 2 customers on Saturday, one was creosoting her fence, the other was weeding the garden and covered in mud. I know I should have waited for them to clean up, but tbh there just isn't the time.

im the same with rubber bands,but you do lose some
i have even dropped a few on my own driveway when getting home (as i have a shirt pocket full) but of course that would be treated as carelessly dropping them in others driveways
that signing is a bit different as the customer is present,same as i used to sign for a guy on my duty with no hands,or add the surname for the old guy who could only make a mark

NonGeographicalMan

macfly wrote: »

My point is that some of the rules are ludicrous, even from a customer point of view. Breaking them becomes the right thing to do in many cases.

But which rules do you consider those ludicrous rules to be as you have not specified them. Surely the rule that says if a non signed for letter or parcel cannot go through a customer letter box and there is no one in at the customer address to accept it then a card must be left and the item taken back to the delivery office is a very good one. Similarly the rule that nobody except a person answering the door at the customer address can sign for an item (therefore not the postie) is a very reasonable and essential one. If there are to be any exceptions to standard procedure and the postman is to be allowed to sign and leave the item somewhere else that is deemed secure by the customer then Royal Mail must have a prior official signed agreement with the customer on file to that effect. Then if in that situation the postman himself signs to indicate delivery he is surely acting as an authorised representative of the customer to whom the item is addressed.

I can see why some of the deviations from standard practice could be helpful to some customers but in my opinion they must only be allowed if the customer himself has formally agreed on them with Royal Mail. Otherwise neither the sender of the item or the customer can be sure of a reliable secure service.

I agree that what I believe is a current rule that where a postman has started clearing a letter box or finished clearing it but not yet left the site that he is apparently not supposed to accept a letter from a customer turning up at that point is a bad and a stupid one, if indeed such a rule actually exists?

custardy

NonGeographicalMan wrote: »

But which rules do you consider those ludicrous rules to be as you have not specified them. Surely the rule that says if a non signed for letter or parcel cannot go through a customer letter box and there is no one in at the customer address to accept it then a card must be left and the item taken back to the delivery office is a very good one. Similarly the rule that nobody except a person answering the door at the customer address can sign for an item (therefore not the postie) is a very reasonable and essential one. If there are to be any exceptions to standard procedure and the postman is to be allowed to sign and leave the item somewhere else that is deemed secure by the customer then Royal Mail must have a prior official signed agreement with the customer on file to that effect. Then if in that situation the postman himself signs to indicate delivery he is surely acting as an authorised representative of the customer.

I can see why some of the deviations from standard practice could be helpful to some customers but in my opinion they must only be allowed if the customer himself has formally agreed on them with Royal Mail. Otherwise neither the sender of the item or the customer can be sure of a reliable secure service.

I agree that what I believe is a current rule that where a postman has started clearing a letter box or finished clearing it but not yet left the site that he is apparently not supposed to accept a letter from a customer turning up at that point is a bad and a stupid one, if indeed such a rule actually exists?

thats right,it saves any questioning if an item goes missing
customer is asked where they posted it,oh i handed to a driver clearing a post box
not i posted it in X postbox
i leaves a level of ambiguity
i know its semantics but its about self preservation.anyone who thinks RM wouldnt sack someone for deemed minor issues doesnt know the RM of now

NonGeographicalMan

custardy wrote: »

anyone who thinks RM wouldnt sack someone for
deemed minor issues doesnt know the RM of now

But if being sacked for signing for an item when no customer is there or leaving a parcel item sitting in an unsecure place when the customer is not at home actually risks the sack then why would so many posties routinely do it?

Clearly stealing the mail is an instant dismissal offence as probably is throwing the contents of a bag of mail in a rubbish skip but I assume these other lower level offences like signing as though you are the customer or leaving mail in an insecure place not agreed by the customer and not taking it back to the sorting office and leaving a card only at best obtain a minor reprimand and a note on the Postie's file. Otherwise there would be almost no Posties left by now as every other Postie out there seems to transgress these rules every single week

In my opinion it is still very hard for a postie to get sacked for anything other than stealing the mail or deliberately binning it to save themselves work and that is why transgressions of the rules are still so commonplace.

NonGeographicalMan

custardy wrote: »

thats right,it saves any questioning if an item goes missing customer is asked where they posted it,oh i handed to a driver clearing a post box not i posted it in X postbox

i leaves a level of ambiguity i know its semantics but its about self preservation.anyone who thinks RM wouldnt sack someone for deemed minor issues doesnt know the RM of now

But a Royal Mail employee who has keys for postboxes and loads of mail on his/her van is surely in a massive position of trust anyway. Since postboxes do not give receipts for posting then I cannot really see any scope for an issue to arise unless one believes that somebody would obtain a Royal Mail uniform and a Royal Mail van just to steal mail in this way. But if they were willing to go that far then surely they could just get a chisel and break the lock on the postbox and steal the mail when no witnesses are to hand instead as that would be a lot more reliable and a lot less hassle than trying to impersonate a postbox collection Royal Mail employee?

The fact that this is clearly regarded as a pointless and useless rule is surely shown by the fact that no postman clearing a postbox ever actually enforces it on a customer, even though some grumble they are doing you a special favour by accepting the item and shouldn't really be doing it.

custardy

NonGeographicalMan wrote: »

But a Royal Mail employee who has keys for postboxes and loads of mail on his/her van is surely in a massive position of trust anyway. Since postboxes do not give receipts for posting then I cannot really see any scope for an issue to arise unless one believes that somebody would obtain a Royal Mail uniform and a Royal Mail van just to steal mail in this way. But if they were willing to go that far then surely they could just get a chisel and break the lock on the postbox and steal the mail when no witnesses are to hand instead as that would be a lot more reliable and a lot less hassle than trying to impersonate a postbox collection Royal Mail employee?

The fact that this is clearly regarded as a pointless and useless rule is surely shown by the fact that no postman clearing a postbox ever actually enforces it on a customer, even though some grumble they are doing you a special favour by accepting the item and shouldn't really be doing it.

all RM staff are in a position of trust.where do you draw the line?
an RM van near a post box,a person in RM uniform near a post box,the guy in the pub who knows the postie
IIRC USPS has the same rule,its much easier for everyone if there is no grey area even if most staff will allow you to hand over mail or simply drop it in the box as they clear
you see how a solid line is easier to enforce?
plenty of people obtain RM uniform to commit crimes,post boxes are broken into
the same goes for delivery staff taking peoples mail,thers no real harm is there? except if the item doesnt show at the other end of course

also if RM ran its IB as a properly staffed dept then a lot of RM staff would be in trouble

macfly

You've just answered your own question, there's a stupid rule.
If a customer is being messed about, no excuses. If a customer's life is being made easier? You're just going over the top custard. There is no proof of postage when posting in a box, nor when handing to a postman. So where would the question crop up?
Post Offices taking your mail and allowing you to pay later - against the rules.
Taking post from someones hand - against the rules.
Thinking on your feet - clearly to be frowned upon.

custardy

macfly wrote: »

You've just answered your own question, there's a stupid rule.
If a customer is being messed about, no excuses. If a customer's life is being made easier? You're just going over the top custard. There is no proof of postage when posting in a box, nor when handing to a postman. So where would the question crop up?
Post Offices taking your mail and allowing you to pay later - against the rules.
Taking post from someones hand - against the rules.
Thinking on your feet - clearly to be frowned upon.

the point is if the customer complains that an item is lost through non delivery,they can say they handed it to the RM staff member.
so as far as anyones concerned they definitely had that item and now its missing/lost/stolen
RM have no problem with thinking on your feet,however if it becomes an issue they quite happily shove those feet out the door

post offices taking mail and you pay later,great but if that person doesnt pay? what if they query the costs? a package isnt on the list or they say theres too many on the list?
taking post while outside your duty? in worst case you could be sacked and staff have been sacked for having mail that isnt part of their duty.
eg you are on delivery duty and IB stop you and find mail in your red bag that isnt for your delivery
why do you have it? were you stealing it,missorts,handed to you??
bear in mind many parts of handling mail have legal implications as well

as i said,self preservation

NonGeographicalMan

macfly wrote: »

So where would the question crop up?

Presumably only if members of IB staff actually posed as a customer to see if a postman was adhering religiously to the box clearance rules. I can't see a real customer ever complaining that a postman accepted a letter that would otherwise not have gone until the next day. And to not allow post persons to accept a letter for dispatch in this situation puts them in a potentially confrontational and hostile situation with customers who have urgent post.

I personally think its much more important that staff are disciplined for failing to change the daily collection plate or for collecting any box early.

custardy

NonGeographicalMan wrote: »

Presumably only if members of IB staff actually posed as a customer to see if a postman was adhering religiously to the box clearance rules. I can't see a real customer ever complaining that a postman accepted a letter that would otherwise not have gone until the next day. And to not allow post persons to accept a letter for dispatch in this situation puts them in a potentially confrontational and hostile situation with customers who have urgent post.

Whereas if a postman signs for a letter when no customer is present he clearly runs the risk of a complaint from the addressee and/or from the person sending it. And people use the Signed For service specifically not to guarantee the item will not get lost on the way but so that if it is delivered (as 99.9% of the time it normally is) then they can prove it (Signed For is therefore especially popular when sending an item to people like the Passport Agency or share registrars who are frequently prone to claiming non delivery on items that have been delivered but strangely never seem to do so when the Signed For service is used). If postmen start signing themselves for items that have never even gone through a customer letterbox then that undermines the whole Signed For system.

you wouldnt believe the interest some people take in what RM staff do
they will report posties who they deem as being parked strangely,behaving strangely etc
i had the police questioning me one day as i had buzzed the old folks home doing a duty on overtime. since i wasnt the regular postie they called the police after i had delivered the mail and left the building??
i once have had to deal with complaints from people before after a postie gave them their mail in the street. so the postie knew them and where they lived and thought they were doing them a favour.
same as the old duffer who complained he didnt get asked for ID when making his daily collections from the office
so never underestimate what people will or wont do
as for the confrontation of not taking a letter,what do you think would happen if it didnt arrive?

signing for items leaves a postie wide open to problems as this thread shows
theres many cases of items with signatures being denied as being received
if a postie regularly signs for items then an item is flagged up as not being delivered even though its tracked with their writing,then what?
postie says i delivered it and signed for it,recipient denies it
postie has broken RM delivery procedures so has no defence