It would seem Martin is on here merely to make one-way tannoy announcements rather than answer genuine questions or engage in dialogue. (I asked a genuine question on his other post and am still awaiting a response.)
You are assuming he has read your question buried within a whole board of posts.
He may also have a number of people asking for information through the contact facility.
There are only so many hours in the day.
There is an unbelievable level of arrogance in your post. I asked a genuine question. I am awaiting a response.
The world doesn't revolve around you.
It doesn’t revolve around me, you are right. I am also not a CWU member, and so he might decline to engage with me on that basis. The point remains though —
This is a forum for discussion, not a static noticeboard. I haven’t criticised Martin for the content of his “announcements” on here; I have merely pointed out that he has ignored many genuine questions from contributors, most of whom are, I infer, signed-up CWU members.
Just about every CWU statement or post on Facebook is followed by questions from union members regarding issues that were being dealt with many months and statements before that - clearly still ongoing. Same advice every time to speak to local rep, area, then national. It strikes me that there is a break in the chain somewhere.
Just about every CWU statement or post on Facebook is followed by questions from union members regarding issues that were being dealt with many months and statements before that - clearly still ongoing. Same advice every time to speak to local rep, area, then national. It strikes me that there is a break in the chain somewhere.
There are a number of offices with no rep so for members in them, they will not be receiving a stream of updates or general info.
’You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new.’
Just about every CWU statement or post on Facebook is followed by questions from union members regarding issues that were being dealt with many months and statements before that - clearly still ongoing. Same advice every time to speak to local rep, area, then national. It strikes me that there is a break in the chain somewhere.
There are a number of offices with no rep so for members in them, they will not be receiving a stream of updates or general info.
The last time the list of all reps in all positions in all offices in the area was put up, over 3/4 of DOs didn't have a rep.
The first Pilot will commence in Newton Mearns from 24th February.
The other units will be phased in over the next 3 months.
Ofcoms proposed a number of USO reforms on 30th January all which are aligned to Royal Mail’s preferred USO model. It is open for consultation until 10th April.
Ofcom will then make their decision in the summer of 2025.
We will provide regular reports on the Pilots.
Does the USO change require the office to change to the failed Delivery 2.0 method?
Thats where all duties are dismantled and snaked across a wall. (Everyone loses their signed for duty and may not be duties to sign for after)
Its been suggested that its gonna be pushed through in our office.
Need to know if its possible to fight Delivery 2.0
We can currently do the USO change with the duties as they are currently.
The first Pilot will commence in Newton Mearns from 24th February.
The other units will be phased in over the next 3 months.
Ofcoms proposed a number of USO reforms on 30th January all which are aligned to Royal Mail’s preferred USO model. It is open for consultation until 10th April.
Ofcom will then make their decision in the summer of 2025.
We will provide regular reports on the Pilots.
Does the USO change require the office to change to the failed Delivery 2.0 method?
Thats where all duties are dismantled and snaked across a wall. (Everyone loses their signed for duty and may not be duties to sign for after)
Its been suggested that its gonna be pushed through in our office.
Need to know if its possible to fight Delivery 2.0
We can currently do the USO change with the duties as they are currently.
Hasn't Delivery 2.0 been scrapped? I know the trial at our local office never went ahead
I remember reading about delivery 2.0 over a year ago. Remember it was a huge failure and some of the office's were scrambling to undo it and return back to the way it was.
But that was quite a while ago.
So does anyone know why it failed so badly and which offices where it had to be reversed?
Was hoping to get feedback from Martin Walsh regarding this issue. Cause it doesn't sound agreed. Thought all revisions were stopped?
Will the "2C days" be exactly the same for every DO? If they start having a right mix of days across the board, it'll make the algorithm behind the DTS take much longer to run as it would have to look up to see if it's a "2C day" for each delivery point.
Still not heard anything official about what will happen to any 2C which hits the 5 day limit on the DTS. There's three possible options:
1) Any 2C that hits the limit on Day 5 gets released whether it's a "2C day or not.
2) Any 2C that will hit the five day limit the next day gets released a day early if the next day is not a "2C day".
3) Any 2C that will hit the five day limit on a day that's not a "2C day" gets held an extra day.
We'll sequence whatever gets released by the DTS, it will affect us if we get days when due to potentially having double the amount of 2C sometimes, we'll have more mail than we have the capacity to run. We're not allowed to run it on an iLSM/IMP and unless the machine has decided that it's a DTS item, we're not allowed to hold back anything that we run out of time to run.
Having early shift run it isn't an option, they had loads of hours removed during the last realignment. With our later 2C dispatch having been taken out during the last realignment they have to give priority to the 2C. There's a cut-off point in the morning, don't know when, after which no more mail can be sequenced as it would corrupt the DTS data.
Will the "2C days" be exactly the same for every DO? If they start having a right mix of days across the board, it'll make the algorithm behind the DTS take much longer to run as it would have to look up to see if it's a "2C day" for each delivery point.
Still not heard anything official about what will happen to any 2C which hits the 5 day limit on the DTS. There's three possible options:
1) Any 2C that hits the limit on Day 5 gets released whether it's a "2C day or not.
2) Any 2C that will hit the five day limit the next day gets released a day early if the next day is not a "2C day".
3) Any 2C that will hit the five day limit on a day that's not a "2C day" gets held an extra day.
We'll sequence whatever gets released by the DTS, it will affect us if we get days when due to potentially having double the amount of 2C sometimes, we'll have more mail than we have the capacity to run. We're not allowed to run it on an iLSM/IMP and unless the machine has decided that it's a DTS item, we're not allowed to hold back anything that we run out of time to run.
Having early shift run it isn't an option, they had loads of hours removed during the last realignment. With our later 2C dispatch having been taken out during the last realignment they have to give priority to the 2C. There's a cut-off point in the morning, don't know when, after which no more mail can be sequenced as it would corrupt the DTS data.
It’s incredible that there has been no detail released by RM on this. 10days away from a pilot starting they must surely have an answer? It’s almost as if they haven’t thought through even the basics.
’You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new.’