Extract from the CWU Reps DRP brief - Heavy and Light

[Valentina@1]

[Mr Rush]

Heavy and light is basically what we do now 8 months out of the year royal mail are already making them savings

To you and I the lemon has no more juice to give and has long since become a yellow rock. To RM you can still yet pulverise that rock into a yellow powder. So long as two molecules are adjoined they shall not rest.

[SpacePhoenix]

Not a chance rm are going for heavy and light model they don't care about us or the uso.

It'll be down to which one makes them the most savings, it was always about savings.

[tramssirhc]

This is a copy and pasted extract from the CWU Reps DRP brief (undated so don't know when it was issued),
specifically CWU's proposals with the Heavy and Light Proposal. BTW the copy I've seen isn't marked secret service
style 'Reps eyes only' and wasn't told keep this to yourself or anything like that.

Am trying to work out how I can get the pdf onto here.

What stood out for me is the first paragraph 2. '...whether the seventh duty is needed in part or full, or whether it could be removed...absorbed'.

Heavy and Light model proposal

The CWU would agree to the following:

1. To deploy the Heavy and Light 8 in 7 model for all walks in scope as a first step.

2. The seventh duty will be the subject of ongoing review. After twelve weeks there
would be a formal process agreed against the overarching principles and wider unit
metrics to discuss whether the seventh duty is needed in part or full, or whether it
could be removed. This discussion may also consider whether during lighter periods
of the year the seventh duty, either partly or wholly, could be absorbed.

3. The CWU believe this first step would save Royal Mail circa £150 million. The
review will make a further undisclosed saving. In addition, the CWU believe there
would be additional costs/benefits from deploying the 8 in 7 model relating to
achieving quality of service and wider business metrics.

4. The CWU would agree to deploy 120 pilots before the end of the financial year in
addition to the current 35 pilots.

5. All remaining units not included could move to the H&L model on their current duties
to familiarise themselves with the method change, identify any issues quickly and
remedy them before they are included in the wider deployment plan and seek to see
an improvement in USO compliance and quality of service results. This could also
help with the upstream changes in Mail Centres with the algorithm being deployed.

6. This would allow all units to start scoping where the two duties (7 & 8) are based on
the other six duties. This will ensure that there are not any inbuilt inefficiencies i.e.
travelling across the postcode to deliver the seventh or eighth duty.

What are the other changes we would want within any USO agreement on the Heavy
and Light model compared to Royal Mail’s ODM model?

This list is not exhaustive and will be dependent on the status of each office and the
previous data verification.

1. There will be a temporary resign which can be done within 2 weeks. The
individual signing for the seventh duty will be advised prior to the temporary
resign that this duty will be reviewed after 12 weeks.

2. There will be a full resign based on seniority under major change after the PIR
has taken place.

3. There will be the ability for delivery attendance patterns to be shaped by local
parties providing they achieve quality of service targets, adopt the 8 into 7 with
the review and maintain Ofcom’s last letter time. Any vote on an attendance
pattern within each unit will be undertaken by CWU members only.

4. The deployment of the first and second phase will give the opportunity for part-
timers on new and old contracts to increase their contracted hours based on
seniority. The USO model will allow for an increase in full-time jobs, whilst also
protecting anyone who wants to remain part-time.

5. The Heavy and Light model allows for a review of start and finish times. Any start
and finish time changes on deployment will be reviewed subsequently during the
PIR to make sure that quality of service has been maintained or improved.

6. The Heavy and Light model supports the principle of walk ownership which is
beneficial to the customer and the company’s brand name and will help with
future training of any new entrants.

7. Non drivers can play an active role within the Heavy and Light model.

8. There will be no compulsory redundancies in line with the EP Group and CWU
agreement.

9. MTSF will be applied if there is a surplus with the shared aim of managing this
change through voluntary moves, voluntary redundancies and natural wastage.
10. A preference exercise will be agreed to deal with any surplus either on
deployment or following the PIR.

11. Any voluntary redundancies will be in line with MTSF and will receive the new
terms for voluntary redundancy as outlined within Rebuilding Royal Mail Part 2.

12. RODs and Divisional Reps will oversee the deployment and the yes/no go
process ensuring that the changes deployed are based on local solutions which
will work and are in line with the overarching principles of ensuring the 8 in 7
model is deployed in the first phase and can achieve quality of service prior to the
PIR.

13. A national governance group will be set up to support the deployment

Only in the trade unionism cosplay world of Martin Walsh could 7 into 8 really mean 3 into 4. George Orwell couldn't write it.

[ted_e_bear]

Not a chance rm are going for heavy and light model they don't care about us or the uso.

It'll be down to which one makes them the most savings, it was always about savings.

Too right, on paper h&l might save a bit but if implemented in an office that's already understaffed and not delivering mail daily which according to the news is quite a lot how would introducing a system that is based on having less staff and delivering mail less often than it currently should be save anything - well apart from not delivering any mail on Saturday

[Acca Dacca]

Not a chance rm are going for heavy and light model they don't care about us or the uso.

It'll be down to which one makes them the most savings, it was always about savings.

Too right, on paper h&l might save a bit but if implemented in an office that's already understaffed and not delivering mail daily which according to the news is quite a lot how would introducing a system that is based on having less staff and delivering mail less often than it currently should be save anything - well apart from not delivering any mail on Saturday

Clearly the offices which are severely understaffed, not replacing leavers, not paying OT and are letting mail pile up and focusing on tracked's are ALREADY saving a lot of money though

It just seems to be the elephant in the room because RM dont want to officially put it out there that they have been saving money doing this deliberately

[Acca Dacca]

Not a chance rm are going for heavy and light model they don't care about us or the uso.

It'll be down to which one makes them the most savings, it was always about savings.

Too right, on paper h&l might save a bit but if implemented in an office that's already understaffed and not delivering mail daily which according to the news is quite a lot how would introducing a system that is based on having less staff and delivering mail less often than it currently should be save anything - well apart from not delivering any mail on Saturday

Clearly the offices which are severely understaffed, not replacing leavers, not paying OT and are letting mail pile up and focusing on tracked's are ALREADY saving a lot of money though

It just seems to be the elephant in the room because RM dont want to officially put it out there that they have been saving money doing this deliberately to the detriment of Quality of Service

[Perseus]

Not a chance rm are going for heavy and light model they don't care about us or the uso.

It'll be down to which one makes them the most savings, it was always about savings.

Too right, on paper h&l might save a bit but if implemented in an office that's already understaffed and not delivering mail daily which according to the news is quite a lot how would introducing a system that is based on having less staff and delivering mail less often than it currently should be save anything - well apart from not delivering any mail on Saturday

Clearly the offices which are severely understaffed, not replacing leavers, not paying OT and are letting mail pile up and focusing on tracked's are ALREADY saving a lot of money though

It just seems to be the elephant in the room because RM dont want to officially put it out there that they have been saving money doing this deliberately

These are also the offices that The CWU won't dare to visit to get the troops ready to strike. We've lost an unreal amount of staff, have a revolving door of new entrants, work our hours and go home after doing your best for the day.

[Mick100]

Bring in what they want call it what they want I’ve been failing my duty for the past 3 years daily, start on time finish on time take my breaks, I can’t walk any quicker I’d allow any manager to follow me around all day to see how I can doing anymore because guess what I can’t

[SpacePhoenix]

We've lost an unreal amount of staff, have a revolving door of new entrants, work our hours and go home after doing your best for the day.

DOs aren't the only ones who've lost a lot of staff. Here in the MC where I work, a good few experienced people have left. I've shot up our local seniority list. Every time someone leaves we end up with more casuals, it's getting to the point now where some days casuals/agency outnumber RM staff.

[postslippete]

The basic flaw in any of these models is that it assumes that duties are correctly sized to workload data and that absorption is possible without any systemic failure. It won't work in any office efficiently if too many duties are taken out, on top of a load of new builds and current parcel volumes.

The easy savings were made years ago in making duties bigger and it's the law of diminishing returns when you try to run a business with fewer full-time experienced staff whilst still expecting more productivity when overtime has been reduced. All you get are exponential QoS failures as staff burnout, sickness increases and attrition increases (particularly on new entrants).

At which point any extra "cost cutting" becomes counterproductive and simply destroys operational stability. None of RM's future projected savings will ever materialise in reality when what they have initially saved on oversized duties and increased workloads, they lose it back in inefficiency and instability.

[TopperGas]

RM have also massively reduced the wages etc meaning most newcomers aren't even interested in doing the job with the present workloads and most are just looking at the job as a stop gap between getting a better paid job. If they now expect posties to do double the workloads they'll be even quicker attrition and also an increase in legacy posities leaving.

It'll be interesting to hear an update on how the last 2 weeks meetings have gone, in order to see if RM are prepared to make any concessions.

[funkflex55]

As stated above, delivery offices are in general are already running at or beyond the bare bones staff wise and what can be done in a day. Mail is failing all over the place and that's without the staff cuts and then 2/3 days mail shambles. If RM force through ODM as 4 to 3 then I highly doubt it'll save any money at all. Increased hiring and onboarding costs, loss of experience, increased sickness levels, increased ofcom fines, destruction of staff morale and goodwill, reduction of overtime willingness are some expected negatives.

Whet there should be instead is a varied approach from office to office where the delivery frequencies are gradually reduced as demand falls but what do I know.

[Perseus]

As stated above, delivery offices are in general are already running at or beyond the bare bones staff wise and what can be done in a day. Mail is failing all over the place and that's without the staff cuts and then 2/3 days mail shambles. If RM force through ODM as 4 to 3 then I highly doubt it'll save any money at all. Increased hiring and onboarding costs, loss of experience, increased sickness levels, increased ofcom fines, destruction of staff morale and goodwill, reduction of overtime willingness are some expected negatives.

Whet there should be instead is a varied approach from office to office where the delivery frequencies are gradually reduced as demand falls but what do I know.

What would be the reason for varying it from one office to another rather than standardising a new delivery format?

[funkflex55]

As stated above, delivery offices are in general are already running at or beyond the bare bones staff wise and what can be done in a day. Mail is failing all over the place and that's without the staff cuts and then 2/3 days mail shambles. If RM force through ODM as 4 to 3 then I highly doubt it'll save any money at all. Increased hiring and onboarding costs, loss of experience, increased sickness levels, increased ofcom fines, destruction of staff morale and goodwill, reduction of overtime willingness are some expected negatives.

Whet there should be instead is a varied approach from office to office where the delivery frequencies are gradually reduced as demand falls but what do I know.

What would be the reason for varying it from one office to another rather than standardising a new delivery format?

I think the levels of how messed up the offices are varies a lot across the country. As do the mail and parcel volumes. Some offices I suspect would probably run ok as they are doing 4 into 3 but the ones that are already in a bad way and not clearing at all will just be made much worse. A gradual approach allows the cuts without just wrecking the service completely.