12:30 to 18:30 been forced on new contracts

[fadetogrey63]

So at our work time meeting our manager said during Nov/Dec he's looking to be doing parcel deliveries from 12:30 to 18:30, and if not enough volunteer he will put those on newer contracts on this time as its in our contract even if we don't want to.. just another example of the two tier workforce.. The union rep just agreed and said it don't effect those on the old contracts

[1617mel]

I suppose the union rep, enquired about this from hire up contacts in the union, he surrendered this quite easily, alas the divide has shown itself again, slow diminishing union togetherness, ......

[LouBarlow]

The rate that old timers are leaving at our office, the new contract folks will soon outnumber us. Until the union does more for them, they are going to see their subs dry up as I sure as hell wouldn’t sign up as a new starter today. What has happened to the promise in the agreement that new starters would have their t&c’s aligned with the old guard?

[Perseus]

Our office will be over 50% new contracts within the next year. I imagine many others will follow soon. There is no way RM in their wildest dreams could have imagined such a shift in such a small timescale.

[Smoothbackground]

The union’s days of domination are numbered, that’s for sure.

To the OP — just ignore it for now, FadetoGrey, as best-laid plans have a habit of changing very quickly in RM, and November is still aeons away. Don’t join the union, whatever you do!

[SpacePhoenix]

Our office will be over 50% new contracts within the next year. I imagine many others will follow soon. There is no way RM in their wildest dreams could have imagined such a shift in such a small timescale.

The big question is at what % of staff on the new contracts does it become financially viable for them to force all the rest of us onto the new contracts, even when the cost of any employment tribunals is factored in.

[ted_e_bear]

I don't think this is actually exclusive for new contracts, I know it probably says it in them and in the job description that they applied for but I'm sure they can change anyone's attendance if giving the required notice.

[Barnacle]

I don't think this is actually exclusive for new contracts, I know it probably says it in them and in the job description that they applied for but I'm sure they can change anyone's attendance if giving the required notice.

Yes that’s true. They can make adjustments if someone comes up with a very good reason why they can’t do the new hours, but really as long as they give notice IN WRITING, they can change anyone’s hours to suit the business.

[Barnacle]

So at our work time meeting our manager said during Nov/Dec he's looking to be doing parcel deliveries from 12:30 to 18:30, and if not enough volunteer he will put those on newer contracts on this time as its in our contract even if we don't want to.. just another example of the two tier workforce.. The union rep just agreed and said it don't effect those on the old contracts

If you are dissatisfied with your union reps response, you can check the union position by contacting the area rep. Contact details should be in your office. You will then get a full answer.

[Smoothbackground]

So at our work time meeting our manager said during Nov/Dec he's looking to be doing parcel deliveries from 12:30 to 18:30, and if not enough volunteer he will put those on newer contracts on this time as its in our contract even if we don't want to.. just another example of the two tier workforce.. The union rep just agreed and said it don't effect those on the old contracts

If you are dissatisfied with your union reps response, you can check the union position by contacting the area rep. Contact details should be in your office. You will then get a full answer.

FadetoGrey referred to the rep being the union rep rather than his (or ‘your’) rep. Over and out.

[fadetogrey63]

The union’s days of domination are numbered, that’s for sure.

To the OP — just ignore it for now, FadetoGrey, as best-laid plans have a habit of changing very quickly in RM, and November is still aeons away. Don’t join the union, whatever you do!

No I have not joined, but but it seems looked down upon if you don't, any issues I may have and ask other posties they say if your not in the union you can't really complain and that I should join up..

[Smoothbackground]

The union’s days of domination are numbered, that’s for sure.

To the OP — just ignore it for now, FadetoGrey, as best-laid plans have a habit of changing very quickly in RM, and November is still aeons away. Don’t join the union, whatever you do!

No I have not joined, but but it seems looked down upon if you don't, any issues I may have and ask other posties they say if your not in the union you can't really complain and that I should join up..

I don’t think people care one way or t’other if you’re a union member as most are disillusioned with it all anyway — so much so that quite a few longstanding staff at my place have cancelled their subs. The vast majority of longstanding staff are decent hardworking people - there is just a small but very vocal/dominant minority that are militant. Those types don’t even consider us newbies as real posties!!

It must be remembered at all times that it is the CWU that created this two-tier workforce, and so the sole horse they are riding is the preservation of the status quo for longstanding members on legacy contracts. It is wholly disingenuous of them to suggest they have the interests of the new-entrant joiners even on their radar when they willingly swept our Ts and Cs off the negotiating table in 2023. It really is a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted! As you have already sadly discovered, their sole focus was - and is - on ensuring your longstanding colleagues avoid having to work these proposed graveyard shifts. You joining the union won’t change this.

As I say, bear with it; it might not even happen. Also worth bearing in mind that the CWU is now doomed anyway. Even longstanding members consider their union to have failed them and to have put its own survival—and the salaries of its officers and officials—ahead of the members’ interests. Due to their shortsightedness, the CwU never expected there would be 17,000 of us within roughly 18 months, making up circa 19% of the workforce, and so their dominance is soon to be a thing of the past. Some nearby offices seem to be “managing out” some of more “militant” employees, by which I mean they are being pulled up on sloppy practices, or in some cases having got away with taking the p*ss for many years, and eventually sacked. Who knows, we may eventually find a union who represents our interests and put them first.

[pinstripe]

It must be remembered at all times that it is the CWU that created this two-tier workforce,

While I don’t disagree with most of the points you raised in your post, the above is factually incorrect. It was RM that introduced the two tier workforce not the CWU. They were powerless to prevent it. Unfortunately the CWU thought that they could improve new entrant T&C’s so that we were all on the same after 5 years, which, IIRC, RM agreed to

[fadetogrey63]

It must be remembered at all times that it is the CWU that created this two-tier workforce,

While I don’t disagree with most of the points you raised in your post, the above is factually incorrect. It was RM that introduced the two tier workforce not the CWU. They were powerless to prevent it. Unfortunately the CWU thought that they could improve new entrant T&C’s so that we were all on the same after 5 years, which, IIRC, RM agreed to

So how long has it been now then, and is there hope that this will happen, or is it more likely we will all be on this new contract rather than reverting us back to the old one

[Smoothbackground]

It must be remembered at all times that it is the CWU that created this two-tier workforce,

While I don’t disagree with most of the points you raised in your post, the above is factually incorrect. It was RM that introduced the two tier workforce not the CWU. They were powerless to prevent it. Unfortunately the CWU thought that they could improve new entrant T&C’s so that we were all on the same after 5 years, which, IIRC, RM agreed to

Fair play, I concede that RM introduced it, though the point remains good, I think. To rephrase it slightly, the thorny issue of new entrants’ Ts and Cs was among the many issues of disagreement on the debating table in 2023, and the CWU didn’t feel it was an important enough issue to throw a spanner in the works of the agreement it was reaching with RM and so capitulated and sacrificed new entrants’ Ts and Cs for the greater benefit of existing employees (and to protect the salaries of its own officials and officers).