NON - DRIVER ( ARE OUR DAYS NUMBERED )

[Barnacle]

In royal mails current position non drivers won't have 'one of the best' jobs as you say it will be one of the worst because you will lugging 2-3 days mail every day whereas the driver will get a reprieve by having parcel only days.

I see it quite the opposite. I am happiest sent off with a full bag on my own, be it one two or three or more days letters, whilst the driver does the packets. I hate the packets and I have hated getting in and out of the van constantly ever since P&L was introduced. The idea of spending a day dealing with packets exclusively is my personal nightmare, not a reprieve in the slightest.

I'd happily come in on a Saturday if I could hop on a bike and clear an entire postcode sector's worth of first class

It is true that our ever loving RM bosses, have not factored non-drivers into the ODM. However, in every van pairing, one is a passenger, so this idea that there would be nothing for non-drivers to do in the new way forward is just horrible scaremongering.
Not all offices will implement the full USO changes simply because not every office can.
Our office has 5% who are non-drivers. That is completely manageable.
Some offices have a much higher percentage and there will be a reason for that.
If compulsory redundancies start happening, there are strict rules, they can’t simply get rid of all the non-drivers or any group for that matter, just because it is convenient for them.

[reddevils]

If compulsory redundancies start happening, there are strict rules, they can’t simply get rid of all the non-drivers or any group for that matter, just because it is convenient for them.
[/quote]

Government Website:
Fair selection criteria:
Fair reasons for selecting employees for redundancy include:
skills, qualifications and aptitude.

Royal Mail could make the argument for non drivers to be first for redundancy based on not having a skill. (I.e a driving License) So your post is incorrect.

Nobody is going to be made redundant in the near future, certainty not with the turnover of staff at present. But what you said is incorrect. It is not scaremongering. And groups of people can be made redundant if they lack a skill that an employer states they need. These are all issues the Union are having to deal with.

[richietns]

I thought the whole point of the odm was to reduce headcount 3 people doing 4 rounds some offices will absorb but there will definitely be layoffs I don't think its scaremongering when your removing every 4th person.

[Barnacle]

I thought the whole point of the odm was to reduce headcount 3 people doing 4 rounds some offices will absorb but there will definitely be layoffs I don't think its scaremongering when your removing every 4th person.

It’s scaremongering to focus on non-drivers, as if they are the dead meat which will be cut loose whilst everyone else sits pretty.

[clashcityrocker]

However, in every van pairing, one is a passenger, so this idea that there would be nothing for non-drivers to do in the new way forward is just horrible scaremongering.

You don't seem to understand.
Nobody is saying there will be no non driving work.
But a driver can do non driving work. A non driver can't do a driving job.
It is that lack of flexibility that means they are less necessary.

Nobody is saying all non drivers are going to lose their jobs overnight, but in offices where the headcount will be too high (and I doubt there are even many of them) non drivers will be a target. They have been phased out of the business over the past 10 years. That trend will continue.

The only way I can explain it is like this.
You still think we are playing 11 a side.
They are playing 6 a side.
The players you might pick for an 11 a side game aren't the same ones you would pick for 6 a side.
6 a side requires an ability to play defence, midfield and attack. A greater flexibility, a greater array of skills.
The person who has got away with playing left back all their life can no longer be carried.

[cubanpete]

Stuart Pearce would be in my 6-a-side team all day long.

[Barnacle]

However, in every van pairing, one is a passenger, so this idea that there would be nothing for non-drivers to do in the new way forward is just horrible scaremongering.

You don't seem to understand.
Nobody is saying there will be no non driving work.
But a driver can do non driving work. A non driver can't do a driving job.
It is that lack of flexibility that means they are less necessary.

Nobody is saying all non drivers are going to lose their jobs overnight, but in offices where the headcount will be too high (and I doubt there are even many of them) non drivers will be a target. They have been phased out of the business over the past 10 years. That trend will continue.

The only way I can explain it is like this.
You still think we are playing 11 a side.
They are playing 6 a side.
The players you might pick for an 11 a side game aren't the same ones you would pick for 6 a side.
6 a side requires an ability to play defence, midfield and attack. A greater flexibility, a greater array of skills.
The person who has got away with playing left back all their life can no longer be carried.

Setting aside the offensive analogy that non-drivers have been ‘carried’ all these years, that same argument can be used to get rid of any group.
There are only approximately 1000 non-drivers at RM. Getting rid of them won’t be enough for RM so what about all those with an OH report? They’re off more than others so let’s get shot of them. What about those who are old and slow? Yes, let’s get shot of them too. Now we’re talking. What about the mouthy ones that answer back? Catch them not wearing a seatbelt? Excellent, let’s use that. What about those women who can only work their hours because of the school run and sometimes have to leave work because the school calls? So annoying. Yes. Let’s add them to the pile.
Now, before we kick them all out, let’s just double check that they’re all legacy contract… they are? Fabulous. Job done.

[Acca Dacca]

If compulsory redundancies start happening, there are strict rules, they can’t simply get rid of all the non-drivers or any group for that matter, just because it is convenient for them.

Government Website:
Fair selection criteria:
Fair reasons for selecting employees for redundancy include:
skills, qualifications and aptitude.

Royal Mail could make the argument for non drivers to be first for redundancy based on not having a skill. (I.e a driving License) So your post is incorrect.

Nobody is going to be made redundant in the near future, certainty not with the turnover of staff at present. But what you said is incorrect. It is not scaremongering. And groups of people can be made redundant if they lack a skill that an employer states they need. These are all issues the Union are having to deal with.
[/quote]

Its a bit different when the employer employed those people without the need for the skill and then later changed the job to requiring it without offering training or support for the existing employees to attain it first

They would also be required to redeploy anyone at risk of redundancy in alternative roles and given that most non drivers have 20+ years service this would put them ahead of many mail centre workers and certainly any agency being used

It wouldnt be as simple as just saying your a non driver heres your statutory redundancy and notice bye bye as much as youd like it to be by the tone of your posts

This is why it'd very likely be voluntary redundancy being offered rather than compulsory - compulsory muddies the waters for them

Why are you so invested in the non driver situation out of interest?

[redlen]

The question that needs asking

What % of staff that do not drive for Royal Mail actually hold a UK driviung licence?

Even those that do not, nothing stopping them from applying for a driving licence

[Acca Dacca]

The question that needs asking

What % of staff that do not drive for Royal Mail actually hold a UK driviung licence?

Even those that do not, nothing stopping them from applying for a driving licence

With lessons £40 a shot now and tests booked up months and months in advance I dont think thats fair to say given you dont know everyones circumstances

[Perseus]

With the mail piling up also, it’s probably one of the best and most secure jobs in Royal Mail if you’re a passenger in a shared van. Added benefit of your duties having to be fully staffed each day as you can’t exactly drive a van if you don’t drive.

Your post is not a serious analysis of the position of non drivers in Royal Mail.
You are stating that non-drivers are one of the 'most secure jobs' in Royal Mail yet the Union have revealed that Royal Mail wants non-drivers to be first to be discarded with in their new USO plans.

I've not seen anything to back that up, apart from a post on here hinting at it.
I don't think for a minute that RM would care about any driving staff feeling annoyed if/when non driving staff move to a Mon-Fri with every Saturday off. Also, it's not non driving staffs fault that going forward Saturdays seem to have been chosen as the 1 day a week where no 'all items' runs go out, i.e tracked and 1C letters only. If there was such a perilous threat for non driving staff (and the CWU losing tens of thousands of subs per week) the CWU would be pressing for training as part of any talks, way before any equalisation etc.

[reddevils]

I've not seen anything to back that up, apart from a post on here hinting at it.
I don't think for a minute that RM would care about any driving staff feeling annoyed if/when non driving staff move to a Mon-Fri with every Saturday off. Also, it's not non driving staffs fault that going forward Saturdays seem to have been chosen as the 1 day a week where no 'all items' runs go out, i.e tracked and 1C letters only. If there was such a perilous threat for non driving staff (and the CWU losing tens of thousands of subs per week) the CWU would be pressing for training as part of any talks, way before any equalisation etc.
[/quote]


Again a post lacking seriousness or substance.
Royal mail may not 'care' about driving staff feeling annoyed if non-drivers were to get every Saturday off. However there would be an impact on morale and it creates a division between drivers and non drivers if this were to happen. It might also result in posties on older contracts that didn't specify driving as a term of their conditions of employment refusing to drive when the ODM is introduced. This is the opposite of what Royal Mail want. They want more drivers not less. A Monday to Friday also incentivises non drivers who drive their own personal vehicles but refuse to drive for royal mail to stay as non drivers.
So its not as simple and black and white as you make out. Royal Mail will care about the impact on its operations and the Monday to Friday rota would have an impact on its staff.

'I've not seen anything to back that up, apart from a post on here hinting at it.'
The post was a CWU document sent to reps outlining the ideas that Royal Mail were proposing. It was not just a random, anonymous post. They were concerned because Royal Mail had proposed that non-drivers would be first to made surplus when implementing the ODM if an office is overstaffed. This is not to say that this is definitely happening, they are in negotiation. In negotiation often the most extreme ideas are put forward first so both parties can feel like they have got a 'win' when a compromise is made.

'If there was such a perilous threat for non driving staff (and the CWU losing tens of thousands of subs per week) the CWU would be pressing for training as part of any talks, way before any equalisation etc.'

It has been repeatedly said most non drivers are not going anywhere yet. Nobody is talking about all non-drivers being made redundant. But your argument doesn't make any sense. There are far more people on the new contracts than there are non drivers in royal mail. It is a bigger group of people and will continue to get larger so I would argue equalisation is equally if not more important than non drivers position. Having said that it is important that non drivers are supported but they shouldn't necessarily take precedence as you are arguing.

By training I don't know what you mean. Do you mean Royal Mail paying for people to learn how to drive? That is never going to happen and is a silly proposal.

[Perseus]

I think that we will just have to agree to disagree then, as I don't think the company would care in the slightest if morale dropped due to some staff going Mon-Fri, after all it's where the main body of work will be. Anything else over complicates things and is the reason no solution has been found.
I'd appreciate your thoughts on what will transpire rather than what won't.

[Barnacle]

I think that we will just have to agree to disagree then, as I don't think the company would care in the slightest if morale dropped due to some staff going Mon-Fri, after all it's where the main body of work will be. Anything else over complicates things and is the reason no solution has been found.
I'd appreciate your thoughts on what will transpire rather than what won't.

Also, non-drivers only number a 1000, so making them Monday to Friday is a simple task compared to some delivery offices no longer being fit for purpose.

[Perseus]

I think that we will just have to agree to disagree then, as I don't think the company would care in the slightest if morale dropped due to some staff going Mon-Fri, after all it's where the main body of work will be. Anything else over complicates things and is the reason no solution has been found.
I'd appreciate your thoughts on what will transpire rather than what won't.

Also, non-drivers only number a 1000, so making them Monday to Friday is a simple task compared to some delivery offices no longer being fit for purpose.

I heard the number was a fair bit higher than that, perhaps that was incorrect. Nevertheless, at some point Occam's razor principle comes into play, and this looks like one of those occasions.