CWU video - RM bosses in Parliament again Weds 22/2

[walthmstowman]

I'm pretty certain the mangers can see the data live and don't have to wait until the following day, ST hinted of that when he said something about them having a "duty of care" for outdoor staff but wasn't then questioned about what that meant.

That's a really good point and a total contradiction exposed. Either managers can see the data in real time so that they can use it to rush to our aid should we be immobilised or they can't see it until the next day and it's purpose is indeed something else entirely. One or the other is BS.

Another car crash meeting at Westminster . Even under oath they're coming out with answers like those . These three clowns need to go but more importantly if they have been found to be misleading parliament again what action can be taken against them .?

[DirtyHarry]

They lied under oath to a parliamentary select commitee.

Let's just see how 'serious' this is taken.

[antthepost]

What do we do now when the managers tell us to prioritise TRACKED over letters. Do we do as we are told or do as ST said under OATH and treat all mail and parcels equal.

[theotherone]

Breaking news.
Committee not happy and will be revealing the next steps they will be taking.
The CEO was under oath this time.Ouch.

[TopperGas]

The video uploaded makes reference to answering the questions under oath, is that a pointer the committee is now considering contempt charges, what a total, and needless, mess they've created.

[walthmstowman]

What do we do now when the managers tell us to prioritise TRACKED over letters. Do we do as we are told or do as ST said under OATH and treat all mail and parcels equal.

Land that conundrum on your line managers lap and let him have the headache . If he says give priority to tracked parcels then we'll have the further proof we need .

[CRIBMAD]

OH come on redlen and filthybastardbloke where is your support for your idols now very quiet !

[walthmstowman]

https://twitter.com/darrenpjones/status ... 22144?s=20

The video uploaded makes reference to answering the questions under oath, is that a pointer the committee is now considering contempt charges, what a total, and needless, mess they've created.

It certainly does . I think it's now time for some resignations from the Royal Mail board .

[Cedar_Room]

Blah blah blah...

These Labour politicians are so biased and so stuck up the Union's backside. They wouldn't be able to run a cottage industry with their approach...

Operational reality from a very large company dictates that there will be rogue incidents and managers.

Why they are not pushing back the nonsense about the USO, I do not understand. The supporting casts did Simon a big favour - it stops him being bullied and allows others to have an input. Yes, he was still being economical with the truth: premium products have to be prioritised and who wants to be bringing large parcels back to be delivered the next day.

Sickness absence is an issue not just pandemic and/or strikes - Keith Williams was the first to highlight that issue and Simon later came with his anecdote.

*PDA question was a waste of time.
** Sickness absence not being paid was the only real breakthrough but overegged as usual by Lavery...
*** Why should Union Reps get a free pass on disciplinary issues and procedure?

You're a disgrace.

Correct

[dazzler123]

someone post a clip near the end where he denies getting personally involved in a discipline dispute, thompson flatly denies it then the board member says i have proof here. Its absolutely delicious watching him squirm

[Shadedpostie]

Loved how they said the tracking off posties through PDAs are for "a duty of care" yet you can't even get through to the bloody managers when you do actually encounter problems on route. Can seem to get through to you perfectly fine though when they are hounding you for overtime or telling you to come back for a missorted parcel though.

[wandle]

Anyone know where I can watch the whole thing?

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Guide

[fly-catchers]

Loved how they said the tracking off posties through PDAs are for "a duty of care" yet you can't even get through to the bloody managers when you do actually encounter problems on route. Can seem to get through to you perfectly fine though when they are hounding you for overtime or telling you to come back for a missorted parcel though.

And that conflicts with them saying they are not tracking in real time and only see the results the next day! If you were in trouble it might be too late 24 hours later!

[wandle]

The three stooges need to go to prison for their blatant half truths and lies.

The way they acted was as though it was all a bit of a joke to them; the only person to actually give them real trouble was the chair.

Exactly this.

They knew the Committe had sussed their lies, but they just didn't care. In fact, they enjoyed it. Lie some more, smirk smirk.

Proper nasty pieces of work

or idiots for thinking they were above the law? Even on the PDA data ST couldn't get his facts right, one minute saying it wasn't used to discipline posties, then the next minute saying 16 members of staff had been conducted, I doubt many posties are conducted/dismissed but it's big threat to hit us with to make us all work faster.

I'm pretty certain the mangers can see the data live and don't have to wait until the following day, ST hinted of that when he said something about them having a "duty of care" for outdoor staff but wasn't then questioned about what that meant.

Well spotted.
He was implying, with the ‘duty of care’ line that ‘if a postie is stationary for too long, we need to race to the scene to check he’s not had a medical event or been coshed by a hoodie’. Such information would be of no use if NOT available in real time !!
Why didn’t the chair pursue that argument?
Is he saving it for a future interrogation?

[LaggyBand]

Can someone confirm my two points where they lied /misrepresented the truth were noticed?

I can’t possibly read through all this thread as gotta be up early:

1. Ricky was asked towards the end if managers are financially incentivised to deliver parcels

He is allowed by the committee to change the question to “are managers incentivised to deliver parcels over letters” and answers “no”

This answer is accepted.

However if the committee had asked “everything else equal, one manager prioritises parcels, the other letters, who gets paid more”?

The answer is the parcel manager, because there are financial targets on tracked items (nearly always parcels) are there not? And the manager who prioritises (or simply treats equal) letters will less often meet those targets and get the associated financial reward.

2. RM board led the committee to believe they had no choice but fail some letters during crisis (IA and Covid)

The committee failed to ask, “were you always willing to pay the labour costs in meeting the USO in the past six months”?

The answer is no, because during IA especially they wanted to starve us out, so that we could not strike, when many posties were willing to work outside their contracted hours, on days off etc, to clear letters, but were not allowed. So RM willingly failed the USO at times where the labour was available for them to meet it.

Sorry if you guys have already picked up on these, I had to put it out there.