90 mins later from April

[claretandblue]

I don't really get the argument for later start times, we work on a cyclical basis of constant moving mail and parcels 24/7 more or less.
Which means there's always something in transport constantly and as it's pretty much impossible to have a 24hr delivery due to customers and people wanting to sleep/not answer the door, we have to start and finish at sometime sensible on delivery, and i don't think anyone has a problem with the current start and finish times customer or worker.
Moving start times makes little sense/difference to anyone except the company.
We always have stuff in the system and in reality moving times makes no difference, if they want it that badly make them pay a premium...... oh wait we already have that.

I honestly think later start times were floated as an idea to deliberately drive out the old timers and those more resistant to change. They definitely want to move those of us on legacy contracts out but the plan has backfired as they didn’t figure on people not wanting the job if you remove the best perk of it as well as reducing the pay for the folk they want to replace us with.

Except that spectaculary backfired, the ones who left ours were the young, capable ones with between 10 and 20 years in.

[LouBarlow]

I don't really get the argument for later start times, we work on a cyclical basis of constant moving mail and parcels 24/7 more or less.
Which means there's always something in transport constantly and as it's pretty much impossible to have a 24hr delivery due to customers and people wanting to sleep/not answer the door, we have to start and finish at sometime sensible on delivery, and i don't think anyone has a problem with the current start and finish times customer or worker.
Moving start times makes little sense/difference to anyone except the company.
We always have stuff in the system and in reality moving times makes no difference, if they want it that badly make them pay a premium...... oh wait we already have that.

I honestly think later start times were floated as an idea to deliberately drive out the old timers and those more resistant to change. They definitely want to move those of us on legacy contracts out but the plan has backfired as they didn’t figure on people not wanting the job if you remove the best perk of it as well as reducing the pay for the folk they want to replace us with.

Except that spectaculary backfired, the ones who left ours were the young, capable ones with between 10 and 20 years in.

I would class 10-20 year veterans as old timers. Those who did the job when it was a lot different to today. Maybe not those on a decade but still, those people were wanted out. That was their plan anyway. As you say it has backfired anyway.

[claretandblue]

I don't really get the argument for later start times, we work on a cyclical basis of constant moving mail and parcels 24/7 more or less.
Which means there's always something in transport constantly and as it's pretty much impossible to have a 24hr delivery due to customers and people wanting to sleep/not answer the door, we have to start and finish at sometime sensible on delivery, and i don't think anyone has a problem with the current start and finish times customer or worker.
Moving start times makes little sense/difference to anyone except the company.
We always have stuff in the system and in reality moving times makes no difference, if they want it that badly make them pay a premium...... oh wait we already have that.

I honestly think later start times were floated as an idea to deliberately drive out the old timers and those more resistant to change. They definitely want to move those of us on legacy contracts out but the plan has backfired as they didn’t figure on people not wanting the job if you remove the best perk of it as well as reducing the pay for the folk they want to replace us with.

Except that spectaculary backfired, the ones who left ours were the young, capable ones with between 10 and 20 years in.

I would class 10-20 year veterans as old timers. Those who did the job when it was a lot different to today. Maybe not those on a decade but still, those people were wanted out. That was their plan anyway. As you say it has backfired anyway.

You must not be in a very senior office, veteran is 35 year plus in our office.

[LouBarlow]

I don't really get the argument for later start times, we work on a cyclical basis of constant moving mail and parcels 24/7 more or less.
Which means there's always something in transport constantly and as it's pretty much impossible to have a 24hr delivery due to customers and people wanting to sleep/not answer the door, we have to start and finish at sometime sensible on delivery, and i don't think anyone has a problem with the current start and finish times customer or worker.
Moving start times makes little sense/difference to anyone except the company.
We always have stuff in the system and in reality moving times makes no difference, if they want it that badly make them pay a premium...... oh wait we already have that.

I honestly think later start times were floated as an idea to deliberately drive out the old timers and those more resistant to change. They definitely want to move those of us on legacy contracts out but the plan has backfired as they didn’t figure on people not wanting the job if you remove the best perk of it as well as reducing the pay for the folk they want to replace us with.

Except that spectaculary backfired, the ones who left ours were the young, capable ones with between 10 and 20 years in.

I would class 10-20 year veterans as old timers. Those who did the job when it was a lot different to today. Maybe not those on a decade but still, those people were wanted out. That was their plan anyway. As you say it has backfired anyway.

You must not be in a very senior office, veteran is 35 year plus in our office.

We have guys at the 40 year mark for sure. I’ve done over 20 years and am only just over half way up the seniority list. It is a big office though. I’ll rephrase, they wanted guys on our contracts out, but the problem they are finding, is they can’t attract any on the shite new contracts, or if they do, it is a revolving door.

Even in my largely successfully run office, I see new people being trained up every other day. They just aren’t going to stick with it, and I don’t blame them frankly.

[eastie]

trained up???
Thought they stopped that years ago

[scoobydo79]

I don't really get the argument for later start times, we work on a cyclical basis of constant moving mail and parcels 24/7 more or less.
Which means there's always something in transport constantly and as it's pretty much impossible to have a 24hr delivery due to customers and people wanting to sleep/not answer the door, we have to start and finish at sometime sensible on delivery, and i don't think anyone has a problem with the current start and finish times customer or worker.
Moving start times makes little sense/difference to anyone except the company.
We always have stuff in the system and in reality moving times makes no difference, if they want it that badly make them pay a premium...... oh wait we already have that.

I honestly think later start times were floated as an idea to deliberately drive out the old timers and those more resistant to change. They definitely want to move those of us on legacy contracts out but the plan has backfired as they didn’t figure on people not wanting the job if you remove the best perk of it as well as reducing the pay for the folk they want to replace us with.

Except that spectaculary backfired, the ones who left ours were the young, capable ones with between 10 and 20 years in.

Same here lol. All the younger, fitter recently employed ones have buggered off. They see the future. The older long serving old contract blokes have stayed .

[LouBarlow]

trained up???
Thought they stopped that years ago

Well it might vary from office to office. Ours are usually trained up on the basics using a town duty van-share, so three in a van and they just shadow the postie for a few days. We have had newbies doing the same with rural duties too. Like anything in Royal Mail, no doubt other offices do it differently.

[Mr Rush]

they can’t attract any on the shite new contracts, or if they do, it is a revolving door.

A perpetual staffing crisis may be a chronic source of stress for local management, but so long as there is a constant stream of people desperate enough to (however briefly) fill the position of the last person who walked out then the higher ranks of management will continue to ascend the corporate ladder.

Full employment would be something they would actually fear because it would reduce the 'reserve army of labour' - a concept straight out of Victorian era socioeconomics, which is indicative of the way things are headed.

[LouBarlow]

they can’t attract any on the shite new contracts, or if they do, it is a revolving door.

A perpetual staffing crisis may be a chronic source of stress for local management, but so long as there is a constant stream of people desperate enough to (however briefly) fill the position of the last person who walked out then the higher ranks of management will continue to ascend the corporate ladder.

Full employment would be something they would actually fear because it would reduce the 'reserve army of labour' - a concept straight out of Victorian era socioeconomics, which is indicative of the way things are headed.

They would need middle management complicity for this though, and I can’t see it happening on the local level at least. On a wider scale, there are more jobs and less people wanting to do them. You could walk into a job tomorrow at this point. You could be right though, as I can’t see anything changing while RM is run as a profit driven at all costs business.

[sindba]

Bring it on.

Absolutely no good reason we should be starting so early in this day and age.

[Dingo99]

Are you radio rental?

[thedonkey]

And there we have it the defeatist attitude,one thing is for sure we will never know now,people actually started to believe the rhetoric coming out of camp royal mail even our union leaders fell for it and totally forgot the ,stronger together,leave no one behind ,enough is enough and unity is strength, they forgot it all and with lack of leadership the members buckled and finished this union for good, they split the camp,left people behind,had enough and lost its strength ,such a sad time the job is finished and will become another mediocre delivery company where people will come and go and will never be the long term job of old.As i said im nearly done but another once great job lost for our youngsters because their parents gave in.

100% correct

[themaze]

How did people give in ?

The vast majority went on strike it was the union leadership that changed tack and negotiated a shitty deal .

Fact is that this time cwu had no game plan to counter Royal Mail once more strikes wasn't doing anything .

[LouBarlow]

Good god, get over it.