What alternatives to the problem of later start/finish times has the union put forward?

[Jen1]

I’m asking because if only 6.6% of mail is currently transported by air and they’d like to do it by rail instead

which means that post will arrive later and this is the only reason I can see that has been given for making start/finish times later

then wouldn’t it be more reasonable to ask ofcom or the government for an extended delivery window for that 6.6% of mail?

Instead of jeopardising the health of posties that will be working in the dark in winter and starting work at the hotter part of the day in summer

Otherwise we will still be contributing significantly to the carbon footprint because of increased time sitting in traffic due to still working at school run time and also we will be increasing rush hour traffic as we will all be finishing work at rush hour

Plus it will be costing Royal Mail more on overtime because the same amount of work will be taking us an estimated extra 15min per van due to traffic slowing us down

So an extra 30min on overtime per van (as 2 in a van) or maybe longer if you have to drive through traffic to drop your partner off and then drive back through traffic to finish the round by yourself

So have they discussed other options and if so what and why were those options rejected?

Any union bods on here that knows?

[deadbox]

It’s not about carbon footprint, it’s about profit

[cheesetoastie]

The union really have to come up with some really smart attendence patterns that could accommodate different people with different work/ life balance and family commitments. I would have a 4 day ( Mon-Thurs) and a 3 day ( Fri - sun) . The 3 day attracting a higher hourly rate for weekend work so that both 4 and 3 days pay relatively the same! A 4 day might suit people without kids that enjoy there weekends off or some people might not care about weekend work and could enjoy more days off during the week. Don't worry neither royal mail or cwu will go for this cos it's too simple, straightforward and actually benefits the workforce

[X_hamster]

From the 'agreement' they clearly don't give a feck about the finishing times and Saturday working.

Its a flat out 6 day service with later starts for all.

Vague caveats of family friendly working, lets see how that goes.

Again they dont care, cause people will leave and they can start staff on the non-legacy contracts.

[SpacePhoenix]

Later start and finish times in DOs will depend on what changes happen to the arrival times into Inward MCs

[Jen1]

Later start and finish times in DOs will depend on what changes happen to the arrival times into Inward MCs

Exactly!!! That’s what I’m saying if the only reason that mail is going to arrive later to the inward MCs is because of that 6.6% of mail that used to be sent by air now coming by rail and so arriving later

Why not just ask for an extended delivery window on that mail????

Problem solved

Or have I missed something???

Has there been another reason given for the later starts??

[SpacePhoenix]

Some of that later mail will be SDs so they can't have any extension to the delivery window for that. We only have two waves of dispatches, the "late stuff" goes out on wave 2 so obviously wave 2 would have to leave later

[sfxdby]

I am thinking that neither the RM nor the Union fully realise the extent of opposition to later starts.
I may be wrong, but I will be voting no on these grounds.
No postman I have asked is 'ok' to work later.

[Jen1]

I am thinking that neither the RM nor the Union fully realise the extent of opposition to later starts.
I may be wrong, but I will be voting no on these grounds.
No postman I have asked is 'ok' to work later.

Agreed

It feels like they both just gloss over it without fully explaining why it’s imperative that we need to start later

I’m really interested to know what (if any??) alternatives to the problem have been discussed

I was really hoping for an end to this dispute but while late start/finishes are still on the table it’ll be a no from me and every postie I’ve spoken to and it sounds like it’s a no from one of our neighbouring offices too

I haven’t yet found anyone that’s going to vote yes while later start/finish times are still on the table

[dazzler123]

I am thinking that neither the RM nor the Union fully realise the extent of opposition to later starts.
I may be wrong, but I will be voting no on these grounds.
No postman I have asked is 'ok' to work later.

Agreed

It feels like they both just gloss over it without fully explaining why it’s imperative that we need to start later

I’m really interested to know what (if any??) alternatives to the problem have been discussed

I was really hoping for an end to this dispute but while late start/finishes are still on the table it’ll be a no from me and every postie I’ve spoken to and it sounds like it’s a no from one of our neighbouring offices too

I haven’t yet found anyone that’s going to vote yes while later start/finish times are still on the table

i thought it was so people can order stuff later in the evening and have more chance of having it next day

[Jen1]

I am thinking that neither the RM nor the Union fully realise the extent of opposition to later starts.
I may be wrong, but I will be voting no on these grounds.
No postman I have asked is 'ok' to work later.

Agreed

It feels like they both just gloss over it without fully explaining why it’s imperative that we need to start later

I’m really interested to know what (if any??) alternatives to the problem have been discussed

I was really hoping for an end to this dispute but while late start/finishes are still on the table it’ll be a no from me and every postie I’ve spoken to and it sounds like it’s a no from one of our neighbouring offices too

I haven’t yet found anyone that’s going to vote yes while later start/finish times are still on the table

i thought it was so people can order stuff later in the evening and have more chance of having it next day

If that was the reason surely they could just deliver them as LATs like we do already?!?

[k979aaa]

They want to stop using planes and cut mail centers and css machines and that will take longer to do it's a cost saving of hundreds of millions of pounds and it will be ongoing.

[Boltonian-White]

I thought this was just the beginning of RM long term strategy which is 1 wave. Removing planes from the distribution network moves them towards that target of pm delivery, whether it's 3, 4 or 5 years from now.

This deal for 3 years is just delaying the inevitable. It creates a buffer though for more negotiations and the likely demise / watering down of the USO.

There are no alternatives as RM want this and the union recognize RM won't budge on it.

Vote no and it'll likely be imposed far quicker.

[Jen1]

They want to stop using planes and cut mail centers and css machines and that will take longer to do it's a cost saving of hundreds of millions of pounds and it will be ongoing.

Yep it sounds like the pathway to asset stripping

Wonder what the business plan will be when there’s nothing left to sell?

As the great game of monopoly has taught us once you’ve had to sell your assets it’s only a matter of time before you’re outta the game

But at least the board will manage to get another big bonus from the sale of the mail centres before they retire

[SpacePhoenix]

But at least the board will manage to get another big bonus from the sale of the mail centres before they retire

Think most MCs are leased and not owned by RM. Less MCs will mean later starts for DOs as the remaining MCs will have more work to do