overtime ban

[ted_e_bear]

their managers couldn't resource a one man band.

Haha so true, nearly fell off my chair laughing at that

[SpacePhoenix]

If no one ever done OT then RM wouldn't have no choice but to have more FT.

Wouldn't they just use casuals?
After all that's what you've been saying for years was going to happen in delivery.

RM already use loads of casuals in MCs, apart from about half a dozen I don't think we've taken anyone new on or had any PT made up to FT for a good few years. We've had the odd person transfer in from other offices.

If RM ever did get the USO watered down or removed then most days in deliveries it'll be parcels only for which everyone will need a van

[P13]

If no one ever done OT then RM wouldn't have no choice but to have more FT.

Wouldn't they just use casuals?
After all that's what you've been saying for years was going to happen in delivery.

RM already use loads of casuals in MCs, apart from about half a dozen I don't think we've taken anyone new on or had any PT made up to FT for a good few years. We've had the odd person transfer in from other offices.

If RM ever did get the USO watered down or removed then most days in deliveries it'll be parcels only for which everyone will need a van

Almost everyone in delivery offices have been using vans since 2010

[postslippete]

the more people they have in to do the IPS and prep work, the earlier that everyone gets out and the longer they can make the walks.

The longer they make the walks the less people they need in to do the deliveries so your equation doesn't really stack up.

I'm going to totally disagree with you here Woody

For the last few years as a delivery unit we have been lapsing more and more deliveries and the main reason how they are able to do it is because managers are paying staff to come in early to prep and do IPS so that they can get more posties out on deliveries earlier - so what SP is saying is right.

If managers can pay half a dozen guys an extra hour to come in on IPS (6 hours) and in return manage to lapse 2 full duties. Then in effect, managers don't need to pay for 2 extra staff (8 hours overtime on a Wednesday/Thursday so 8 hours x 2 staff = 16 hours) to come in and do the delivery as there are less staff in the section theoretically doing longer walks for the day. Even if the mail gets left or they resort to paying one of the docket chasers I would wager that they are still making decent savings.

Even in Simons annualised hours he didn't mention anything about getting rid of lapsing completely, and that is significant.

[parforthewalk]

Having just watched the latest updates from the CWU re talks developments etc, it was suggested that an over-time ban would need to be balloted on & that the CWU would consider this action going forward.

Given that 72% have voted in favour in the poll on this forum for an OTB. it suggests the impact could be pretty crippling to RM , especially now with the start of autumn pressure!

Perhaps a minimum of a month OTB to start with, would shake the RM muppets up above to their senses

[ThatsNotPlumb]

Personally, I wouldn't support an overtime ban for the simple fact that it doesn't have any impact on the vast number of employees who do zero overtime anyway & in contrast it has a big impact on those, most of which are on part-time contracts, that regularly do overtime to bump their wage up.. even moreso when it's compounded with strike days.

If it's more disruption looking to be caused, make the strikes longer & for multiple consecutive days. Those have an effect on everybody more equally than trying to ban OT in my view.

[world class male]

If it's more disruption looking to be caused, make the strikes longer & for multiple consecutive days. Those have an effect on everybody more equally than trying to ban OT in my view.

but the overtime warriors, ft or pt are killing the effect on strikes for the rest, so all those who were quite happy living on the hours their contract states are now losing but those who are living above their means are still gaining due to even more ot on offer thus causing little effect in disruption
as far as i'd see, after the 5th strike if no disruption is made, all those who helped clear the backlog on overtime would be in a perfect place to switch to a overtime ban with the money they already banked thus levelling the loss of income amongst the majority of us
a strike should see all suffer = like you say, but it's the overtime on offer that's killing us, some are even better off, wonder how many have signed up for the sunday after even if a strike day is their day off, be quite a few at ours do it, which is so very wrong

[wrighty47]

I can only comment on the Mail Centre I work in, but overtime has been cut to virtually zero, with most available hours going to Agency staff.
Been told by a Union Rep that this is a deliberate, strategic, policy from above.
This leads me to think that any OT ban, in MC's at least, would be pointless.
The work would simply be done by Agency staff.

[Clappedoutpostie]

If it's more disruption looking to be caused, make the strikes longer & for multiple consecutive days. Those have an effect on everybody more equally than trying to ban OT in my view.

If people just did the job as prescribed it would cause chaos never mind OT being banned.

[Woody Guthrie]

If it's more disruption looking to be caused, make the strikes longer & for multiple consecutive days. Those have an effect on everybody more equally than trying to ban OT in my view.

If people just did the job as prescribed it would cause chaos never mind OT being banned.

It really wouldn't.
Most of the people who start early and don't take their breaks do so to finish early.
They would just have to finish on their time, maybe satisfying for us but hardly going to grind the business to a halt.

Then there are those who would have to stop smoking and drinking coffee and up their performance considerably just to "do the job as prescribed".

[ThatsNotPlumb]

If it's more disruption looking to be caused, make the strikes longer & for multiple consecutive days. Those have an effect on everybody more equally than trying to ban OT in my view.

but the overtime warriors, ft or pt are killing the effect on strikes for the rest, so all those who were quite happy living on the hours their contract states are now losing but those who are living above their means are still gaining due to even more ot on offer thus causing little effect in disruption
as far as i'd see, after the 5th strike if no disruption is made, all those who helped clear the backlog on overtime would be in a perfect place to switch to a overtime ban with the money they already banked thus levelling the loss of income amongst the majority of us
a strike should see all suffer = like you say, but it's the overtime on offer that's killing us, some are even better off, wonder how many have signed up for the sunday after even if a strike day is their day off, be quite a few at ours do it, which is so very wrong

I can only comment on the Mail Centre I work in, but overtime has been cut to virtually zero, with most available hours going to Agency staff.
Been told by a Union Rep that this is a deliberate, strategic, policy from above.
This leads me to think that any OT ban, in MC's at least, would be pointless.
The work would simply be done by Agency staff.

It's exactly as wrighty has said, any backlog is usually gone by the first day back because they bring in a couple of casuals that take out the duties ordinarily lapsed as well as a few other odds & ends.

The last I had heard, there would be no additional OT available to staff to clear backlog that is directly caused by strikes & that does seem to be the case, at least at my DO. Overtime is still available, but nothing that is beyond the normal, the only abnormal portion is the casuals that are brought in.

[cpsteve]

If it's more disruption looking to be caused, make the strikes longer & for multiple consecutive days. Those have an effect on everybody more equally than trying to ban OT in my view.

If people just did the job as prescribed it would cause chaos never mind OT being banned.

It really wouldn't.
Most of the people who start early and don't take their breaks do so to finish early.
They would just have to finish on their time, maybe satisfying for us but hardly going to grind the business to a halt.

Then there are those who would have to stop smoking and drinking coffee and up their performance considerably just to "do the job as prescribed".

There is the problem the RM know if they say we start at 8.30 25% or more will be in at 7.30/8 and will make the changes work. One thing we should 100% do is not help managers let them do their job and the offices will fail anyway ive not seen any manager sort out covering duties they ask the coaches reps or senior staff so until our dispute is over then dont help, after all they got 1.5k bonus and are getting £150 vouchers plus a day off for helping break our strike.