overtime ban

[Foxel]

As a PT on 24 hours, it would hardly be worth turning up if the ban included ATD.

There will be NO OVERTIME if annualised hours is brought in,the whole point of bringing it in isn't to penalise p/t colleagues but to save RM stack of money.

I guarantee that if annualised hours came in I would not be working 24 hours a week. I cover full time duties including working with people who cannot drive, the disruption would be as good as a strike as the same applies for half of my DO. There would be new contracts with new hours or RM will allow ATD as it doesn't change seasonally. They cannot put you on a 7-hour duty and not pay you for it because you are PT, but be willing to pay a FTer for it.

[Foxel]

You should have the same finish time just a different start time.or is this another office that's different,300 different ways to do the same job what a company.

Makes sense if your partner is in earlier setting up the frames. But doesn't quite fit where I work, if I came in and expected everything to be ready to go i'd just be framing later.

[grchpo]

As a PT on 24 hours, it would hardly be worth turning up if the ban included ATD.

There will be NO OVERTIME if annualised hours is brought in,the whole point of bringing it in isn't to penalise p/t colleagues but to save RM stack of money.

I guarantee that if annualised hours came in I would not be working 24 hours a week. I cover full time duties including working with people who cannot drive, the disruption would be as good as a strike as the same applies for half of my DO. There would be new contracts with new hours or RM will allow ATD as it doesn't change seasonally. They cannot put you on a 7-hour duty and not pay you for it because you are PT, but be willing to pay a FTer for it.

Think you are missing the point, 24 hour contract you work 24 hours end of, no overtime

[2yearpostie]

As a PT on 24 hours, it would hardly be worth turning up if the ban included ATD.

There will be NO OVERTIME if annualised hours is brought in,the whole point of bringing it in isn't to penalise p/t colleagues but to save RM stack of money.

I guarantee that if annualised hours came in I would not be working 24 hours a week. I cover full time duties including working with people who cannot drive, the disruption would be as good as a strike as the same applies for half of my DO. There would be new contracts with new hours or RM will allow ATD as it doesn't change seasonally. They cannot put you on a 7-hour duty and not pay you for it because you are PT, but be willing to pay a FTer for it.

Think you are missing the point, 24 hour contract you work 24 hours end of, no overtime

Incorrect, they have already said if you are covering sick leave/working your day off they will pay you in cash, the banking of hours is only for extended delivery.

[richietns]

As a PT on 24 hours, it would hardly be worth turning up if the ban included ATD.

There will be NO OVERTIME if annualised hours is brought in,the whole point of bringing it in isn't to penalise p/t colleagues but to save RM stack of money.

I guarantee that if annualised hours came in I would not be working 24 hours a week. I cover full time duties including working with people who cannot drive, the disruption would be as good as a strike as the same applies for half of my DO. There would be new contracts with new hours or RM will allow ATD as it doesn't change seasonally. They cannot put you on a 7-hour duty and not pay you for it because you are PT, but be willing to pay a FTer for it.

Your missing the whole point of annualised hours the whole system will be rejigged to suit the best possible outcome for RM there will be overtime but not nearly as much as now,at the moment your more a less guaranteed p/t hours full time wage if you want it,if it did come in you might be working 35 hours a week one week but the next week you could contractualy be told strickly no over time,some one else on here mentioned part timers coming in after the full timers leave which makes sense the bulk of the duty would of been done,i do see your point though in the real world RM have a s**t record of getting it right but thats not to say its not possible.

[grchpo]

But if you came & did 35 hours, 11 hours overtime, you wouldn't get paid for it, RM would bank it until they say it's a quiet time, same as if you don't work your hours you will owe them so again you be working for nothing. That's the way I see it, am I wroug?

[Dexydog]

They would have to offer up new contracts to every part timer.
In its simplest form, I'm part time but come in every day to prep a walk.
If they don't pay me overtime, what happens to those hours I've done?
I'm not going to come in early, because of their inability to staff correctly, only to be given it back when it suits them.
I don't want full time because if one week I can't be bothered to get up early, I say ain't doing it.
Frankly I don't give a toss, but this is a shitshow waiting to happen.

[groundhog_day]

I did 5 years at RM (finishing after Xmas in 2021) and my experience was similar to Foxel\Dexydog. Most Part Timers were expected to prep and deliver full time duties. If annualised hours would mean part timers would only work their contracted hours my old DO would grind to a halt very quickly unless they recruited more staff or increased contracted hours - surely for RM they benefit from having PT staff and only paying OT as and when they need it. Seems an odd proposal to me.

[richietns]

They would have to offer up new contracts to every part timer.

In its simplest form, I'm part time but come in every day to prep a walk.
If they don't pay me overtime, what happens to those hours I've done?
I'm not going to come in early, because of their inability to staff correctly, only to be given it back when it suits them.
I don't want full time because if one week I can't be bothered to get up early, I say ain't doing it.
Frankly I don't give a toss, but this is a shitshow waiting to happen.

Thats what we are striking for to put the brakes on new contracts aka terms and conditions.

[Dexydog]

Thats what we are striking for to put the brakes on new contracts aka terms and conditions.
[/quote]

Yes I know that.
My point was RM ought to be careful what they wish for.

[richietns]

They would have to offer up new contracts to every part timer.
In its simplest form, I'm part time but come in every day to prep a walk.
If they don't pay me overtime, what happens to those hours I've done?
I'm not going to come in early, because of their inability to staff correctly, only to be given it back when it suits them.
I don't want full time because if one week I can't be bothered to get up early, I say ain't doing it.
Frankly I don't give a toss, but this is a shitshow waiting to happen.

You could employ more p/timers or just use agency staff as apose to paying out f/t wage benefits etc,every new contract is p/t for a reason.

[richietns]

Thats what we are striking for to put the brakes on new contracts aka terms and conditions.

Yes I know that.
My point was RM ought to be careful what they wish for.
[/quote]

Well thats it isnt it...will it are wont it work,i personally dont think it will but who's to say it wont unless tried.

[Asmad]

Only on a 20 hour contract but I ended up working 56 hours this week. Average over 40 hours most weeks. Overtime ban would hurt Royal Mail more than me. Being home before lunchtime every day for a month or two sounds good. Especially through the winter months.

But it's never going to happen. Too many people working overtime to cover the days they've had off on strike. Nothing in my opinion is wrong with that, as no two people have the same circumstances or commitments. Bills to pay, families to raise. Cost of living increases.

But in reality,

We need a plan that hurts royal mail more than it hurts us workers. Especially us postie's who get hammered for days with the backlog after a day of industrial action.

Anyone else seem to have much more mail is coming in at the moment? 1 days strike followed by 5 days of extra heavy mail and packets.

According to Simple Simon: Royal Mail is losing £1m a day.

60% of their profits come from the all important tracked and special parcels and the mail side of the business is loss making and not important.

Making £1m less profit a day is in large part due to no more free covid tests, 40% of their profits are coming from letters, but that's a negative? Wise up Simon, 40% of £740m is £296m.

If only us postie's would work harder and faster, then Simon wouldn't need to pay any overtime. Can't we jog our rounds instead of walking? Hurdling gates, walls and fences? All while collecting parcels, photographing 60% of everything, signing for others and rapping on neighbors doors to get someone to take in that oversized parcel you managed to squeeze into your bag earlier but won't fit back in again now........

Rant over....

Bottom line is, we can't afford to lose this fight or the job is going to be unworkable for crap pay and even crappier conditions. Solidarity brothers, stand firm and trust the union (for now). I think it's going to be a very long road ahead.

[pieoftheday]

As a PT on 24 hours, it would hardly be worth turning up if the ban included ATD.

There will be NO OVERTIME if annualised hours is brought in,the whole point of bringing it in isn't to penalise p/t colleagues but to save RM stack of money.

I guarantee that if annualised hours came in I would not be working 24 hours a week. I cover full time duties including working with people who cannot drive, the disruption would be as good as a strike as the same applies for half of my DO. There would be new contracts with new hours or RM will allow ATD as it doesn't change seasonally. They cannot put you on a 7-hour duty and not pay you for it because you are PT, but be willing to pay a FTer for it.

Think you are missing the point, 24 hour contract you work 24 hours end of, no overtime

Or a 24 hr week could end up being a 30hr week or more with annualised hours, youd get those hrs back in the summer of course

[k979aaa]

This is not about us as a workforce but how we are lead by corrupt individuals beholden to the attitudes of Laissez-faire politicians who have denied basic rights and humanity in the terms we are presented with. So will not vote on the right of every man/woman to provide for themselves and who they hold dearly!