Royal Mail Dispute

custardy

Pollycat wrote: »

So RM employees don't use equipment that RM management say is mandatory?
OK.
So it's accurate to say that posties do whatever they want.
Not only do they take their mail from the sorting office without seeking permission, they also don't/won't use equipment that has been provided for their benefit.

You certainly seem to have picked your side.

So lets get this straight. Posties just do what they want in your book?
You have based this on social media posts. I dont know if permission was given. It is done verbally and Im sure no manager would stick their head up to say they authorised it in the current climate. Do you?

Regardless.
From this you have stated posties do as they please.
So if thats the case. What are RM doing about it?
I expect there are regular disciplinary proceedings as Im sure you have seen posties without trolleys?
I know I see them.
I know(as I still speak to some guys) my local office has around 42 foot deliveries and about 5 lights weight trolleys in the office. They have no working HCT (the big trolleys) as these fell into disrepair and were put into storage.
Yet those deliveries go out 6 days a week. So thats a fair few posties 'doing what they like'

My experience is based in multiple delivery offices. I can assure you if you are a postie 'doing the job properly' then you will come under daily pressure( peer & management) as you will be slower and doing less work than other posties.
You can malign either side on that one but its the reality.

I dont know what the CWU were thinking or what advice they actually gave regarding social media. Unless its changed then no photographs/videos should be taken on RM premises by staff.
Like I say,I never saw the advice and Im not going digging.

tomdickharry

Pollycat wrote: »

What do you think your union is for?
It's not just for giving pretty stupid advice to employees to film themselves filling in ballot papers in their place of employment.

because a rep isn't always on hand when needed, they need to be there at the time otherwise they can rip some to shreds, hence some just work over when they don't really want to rather than get told they're inefficient
i'm guessing you don't know anything about the persistent battles with management at ground level,
i've lost count of how many wildcat strikes this year up and down the country due to b&h and even racism but never as a manager been dismissed, only moved along
only last week i saw 1 berating someone for saying they cannot complete due to double mail because of flooding yet that same manager didn't get to work the day before....due to flooding

part of our planned IA was on an agreement made last year to tackle this issue, but they've ripped up that agreement

as i'm only posting my own experiences which maybe true where i am, up to you if you believe me, but i'll not lose any sleep if you don't, but not necessarily everywhere i suggest you search around if interested, it can be grim reading

kangoora

I'm no fan of trade unions, strikes or management even. You people complaining about RM employees breaking the RM rules are completely missing the point that it is the RM managements responsibility to enforce said rules on their employees. Therefore, RM management are condoning breaking rules and not abiding by their own rules themsleves.

If management allow these missing trolley shortcuts and inappropriate behaviour about opening letters then they are failing in their duty as managers.

It's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that 'most' employees, if offered a quicker, easier way to perform their duties will take advantage of it. It is the responsibility of management to make sure employment rules are complied with - and if not, then verbal warnings followed by disclipinary process and ultimately sacking should be the correct way to deal with it. RM management are failing in their duties.

I'd be interested to know how many RM employees have had a formal disciplinary process followed in the above instances, I suspect very, very few.

My wife works in an architectural stoneyard and some of the workers there were continuously not using the protective masks because they didn't fit (sic), were uncomfortable, they didn't 'like' them - we're talking about the potential of life threatening illnesses from stone dust. The manager there simply works on a 3 strike system, verbal warning, two written warnings and then dismissal if caught without masks. Obviously they are concerned over being sued in the future but the same principle applies - it's up to the manager to make sure employees are complying with rules, in this case health and safety.

Pollycat

custardy wrote: »

You certainly seem to have picked your side.

So lets get this straight. Posties just do what they want in your book?
You have based this on social media posts. I dont know if permission was given. It is done verbally and Im sure no manager would stick their head up to say they authorised it in the current climate. Do you?

Regardless.
From this you have stated posties do as they please.
So if thats the case. What are RM doing about it?
I expect there are regular disciplinary proceedings as Im sure you have seen posties without trolleys?
I know I see them.
I know(as I still speak to some guys) my local office has around 42 foot deliveries and about 5 lights weight trolleys in the office. They have no working HCT (the big trolleys) as these fell into disrepair and were put into storage.
Yet those deliveries go out 6 days a week. So thats a fair few posties 'doing what they like'

My experience is based in multiple delivery offices. I can assure you if you are a postie 'doing the job properly' then you will come under daily pressure( peer & management) as you will be slower and doing less work than other posties.
You can malign either side on that one but its the reality.

I dont know what the CWU were thinking or what advice they actually gave regarding social media. Unless its changed then no photographs/videos should be taken on RM premises by staff.
Like I say,I never saw the advice and Im not going digging.

I've not 'picked a side'.
Really. I haven't.
I've been very clear that RM is my preferred courier and that I respect my postie for the work he does.
I'm just very surprised about the things the OP says happens and have happened in such a large organisation.

Yes, I have based my comments on social media - if you mean this forum.
I've taken the comments by the OP - who has said he works for RM.
Why wouldn't I have based my comments on 'social media'?
I wouldn't have made any comments at all if the OP hadn't started this thread.

Yes, I've said posties do as they please based on what the OP has said.
Even you posted:

custardy wrote: »

Posties being posties they will naturally migrate to the quicker method.

I have no idea what RM are doing about it.
But post # 60 and # 63 from the OP seem to indicate that employees seem to just do it without raising it as an issue - either to management or their union.
Or at least that's the impression I get. Maybe that's wrong.
With a massive workforce and a union, I'm finding that hard to understand.

kangoora wrote: »

I'm no fan of trade unions, strikes or management even. You people complaining about RM employees breaking the RM rules are completely missing the point that it is the RM managements responsibility to enforce said rules on their employees. Therefore, RM management are condoning breaking rules and not abiding by their own rules themsleves.

If management allow these missing trolley shortcuts and inappropriate behaviour about opening letters then they are failing in their duty as managers.

It's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that 'most' employees, if offered a quicker, easier way to perform their duties will take advantage of it. It is the responsibility of management to make sure employment rules are complied with - and if not, then verbal warnings followed by disclipinary process and ultimately sacking should be the correct way to deal with it. RM management are failing in their duties.

I'd be interested to know how many RM employees have had a formal disciplinary process followed in the above instances, I suspect very, very few.

My wife works in an architectural stoneyard and some of the workers there were continuously not using the protective masks because they didn't fit (sic), were uncomfortable, they didn't 'like' them - we're talking about the potential of life threatening illnesses from stone dust. The manager there simply works on a 3 strike system, verbal warning, two written warnings and then dismissal if caught without masks. Obviously they are concerned over being sued in the future but the same principle applies - it's up to the manager to make sure employees are complying with rules, in this case health and safety.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Employees having to be told to use - and disciplined for not using - safety equipment?
Bonkers.


I agree that RM management sounds pretty poor.

Hermione_Granger

kangoora wrote: »

You people complaining about RM employees breaking the RM rules are completely missing the point that it is the RM managements responsibility to enforce said rules on their employees. Therefore, RM management are condoning breaking rules and not abiding by their own rules themsleves.

Why do people always come up with the "you are missing the point" replies?
Maybe they are not missing the point at all, instead of which they are simply disagreeing with the point.

There are rules regarding how fast I can drive on the roads in the UK and how much alcohol I can have in my system before taking to the roads.
As these rules are put in place by the government, are you saying that if I can get away with breaking these rules because they don't get enforced in the part of the country where I live due to insufficient police manpower to do so, the it's the governments own fault and no responsibility rests with me?

custardy

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

Why do people always come up with the "you are missing the point" replies?
Maybe they are not missing the point at all, instead of which they are simply disagreeing with the point.

There are rules regarding how fast I can drive on the roads in the UK and how much alcohol I can have in my system before taking to the roads.
As these rules are put in place by the government, are you saying that if I can get away with breaking these rules because they don't get enforced in the part of the country where I live due to insufficient police manpower to do so, the it's the governments own fault and no responsibility rests with me?

Does the government benefit from you driving faster?

Hermione_Granger

custardy wrote: »

Does the government benefit from you driving faster?

If I get caught and fined, yes they do.

Anyway, my point was about responsible adults making decision about which rules to follow and the comment that if the rules aren't heavily enforced by the organisation that made them, the workers aren't at fault for not following them.

custardy

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

If I get caught and fined, yes they do.

Anyway, my point was about responsible adults making decision about which rules to follow and the comment that if the rules aren't heavily enforced by the organisation that made them, the workers aren't at fault for not following them.

No,thats a fine for breaking the rules and unless you can provide figures I doubt they make a profit on that.
Lets try again. Does the government gain from you driving faster?
You know the answer and know why im asking it.
Your example simply doesn't hold water as a comparison.

Hermione_Granger

custardy wrote: »

No,thats a fine for breaking the rules and unless you can provide figures I doubt they make a profit on that.
Lets try again. Does the government gain from you driving faster?
You know the answer and know why im asking it.
Your example simply doesn't hold water as a comparison.

I've already answered. Just because you don't like the answer you are asking it again.
The answer is, yes, if I speed and get caught, the government benefit from the fine levied on me.
If there was no profit made from the fines then why can the amount payable differ due to my earnings? Surely a higher fine means that more money must be going to the government coffers.


Why doesn't my example compare?
Aren't both examples about people who decide to break rules because those rules aren't being strictly enforced by the people that made them?

I'm looking at the subject from the outside.
You however are biased and are looking at it from the perspective of an ex Royal Mail employee.

custardy

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

I've already answered. Just because you don't like the answer you are asking it again.
The answer is, yes, if I speed and get caught, the government benefit from the fine levied on me.
If there was no profit made from the fines then why can the amount payable differ due to my earnings? Surely a higher fine means that more money must be going to the government coffers.


Why doesn't my example compare?
Aren't both examples about people who decide to break rules because those rules aren't being strictly enforced by the people that made them?

I'm looking at the subject from the outside.
You however are biased and are looking at it from the perspective of an ex Royal Mail employee.

No,thats punishment for speeding.
Enforcement for motoring has a cost. Unless you can provide figures that fines = net profit?
So in the comparison you have drawn, that would equate to a disciplinary for the member of staff.
Once again. What is the benefit for the government of you driving faster?