overtime ban

[pinstripe]

I'm ft and don't do any overtime so a ban wouldn't affect me. However I do care about my pt colleagues who aren't in the same fortunate position so I'd be against a ban.

Careful now. You’ll have the mob of pro striking, anti part time, I’m all right Jack, trade unionists that don’t believe a trade union should protect all its members, making snide comments to you.

[ProudhonPJ]

I'm ft and don't do any overtime so a ban wouldn't affect me. However I do care about my pt colleagues who aren't in the same fortunate position so I'd be against a ban.

Careful now. You’ll have the mob of pro striking, anti part time, I’m all right Jack, trade unionists that don’t believe a trade union should protect all its members, making snide comments to you.

Brilliant!

[world class male]

Overtime ban would, as I think has been said, screw those of us who do not hold full time contracts, from making up to fulltime hours, while those on fulltime contracts, would lose less, or nothing. It isn't a fair idea.

I mean, if I'm on 25 hours and do 15 hours a week (3 hours a day) OT, I lose 15 hours of pay, a full-timer loses nothing, where before the ban, we were on the same end-wage. And RM do not seem to want to hand out FT contracts at all.

The strike days and no "make-up" overtime works more fairly. I would miss the day (5 hours) and the overtime for that day (3 hours), but the rest of the week, not lose my usual overtime, meaning I lose the same as a full-timer, 8 hours.

I've discounted the wonky short working week stuff for this example to make it easier to work out, fully aware FT is down to 37 now. (unless it managed to hit 36 when I wasn't looking, but I believe they stopped that deal from progressing?...)

you did say "if" on 25hrs but if it is so every single pt took the job on knowing their basic pay regardless of overtime ban or if just not enough work, by accepting the job offer they accept that there is a minimum pay, if a pt lose a days pays on strike then a ft also loses a days pay so basically ft lose more actual cash but the same % of their natural income, is it that hard to understand?
why take a job absolutely requiring overtime to live? why is it pt lose nothing and ft lose £100s....the job should be doable and a living wage to reach your means on the absolute minimum pay contracted for, so far all i see is ft suffering & pt loving it because they are the only ones allowed early overtime at ours

[ProudhonPJ]

Overtime ban would, as I think has been said, screw those of us who do not hold full time contracts, from making up to fulltime hours, while those on fulltime contracts, would lose less, or nothing. It isn't a fair idea.

I mean, if I'm on 25 hours and do 15 hours a week (3 hours a day) OT, I lose 15 hours of pay, a full-timer loses nothing, where before the ban, we were on the same end-wage. And RM do not seem to want to hand out FT contracts at all.

The strike days and no "make-up" overtime works more fairly. I would miss the day (5 hours) and the overtime for that day (3 hours), but the rest of the week, not lose my usual overtime, meaning I lose the same as a full-timer, 8 hours.

I've discounted the wonky short working week stuff for this example to make it easier to work out, fully aware FT is down to 37 now. (unless it managed to hit 36 when I wasn't looking, but I believe they stopped that deal from progressing?...)

you did say "if" on 25hrs but if it is so every single pt took the job on knowing their basic pay regardless of overtime ban or if just not enough work, by accepting the job offer they accept that there is a minimum pay, if a pt lose a days pays on strike then a ft also loses a days pay so basically ft lose more actual cash but the same % of their natural income, is it that hard to understand?
why take a job absolutely requiring overtime to live? why is it pt lose nothing and ft lose £100s....the job should be doable and a living wage to reach your means on the absolute minimum pay contracted for, so far all i see is ft suffering & pt loving it because they are the only ones allowed early overtime at ours

<sigh> Let's try again:
There are people with pt contracts who wanted ft contracts but were told only pt ones were available. They were also told that the difference in hours can always be made up. It seems perfectly sensible for these people to sign up rather than tell the manager/office/company to f*ck off. Notwithstanding all that's badly done throughout the organisation, they see the job as one worth doing; for now, at least.

[R5001]

you did say "if" on 25hrs but if it is so every single pt took the job on knowing their basic pay regardless of overtime ban or if just not enough work, by accepting the job offer they accept that there is a minimum pay, if a pt lose a days pays on strike then a ft also loses a days pay so basically ft lose more actual cash but the same % of their natural income, is it that hard to understand?
why take a job absolutely requiring overtime to live? why is it pt lose nothing and ft lose £100s....the job should be doable and a living wage to reach your means on the absolute minimum pay contracted for, so far all i see is ft suffering & pt loving it because they are the only ones allowed early overtime at ours

Take the job because it fits better and you know overtime is almost always available in one form or another. I didn't want to work another 48hrs a week job in a factory, I wanted a job with a lower commitment with room for overtime when I choose to take it, as well as, you know, the job being one I like. I can take no overtime some weeks and others when I've an unexpected bill or I want something, I can hunt the overtime.

If you've some kind of weird "no OT for FT" thing at your office, then, well, that's strange.

[world class male]

Overtime ban would, as I think has been said, screw those of us who do not hold full time contracts, from making up to fulltime hours, while those on fulltime contracts, would lose less, or nothing. It isn't a fair idea.

I mean, if I'm on 25 hours and do 15 hours a week (3 hours a day) OT, I lose 15 hours of pay, a full-timer loses nothing, where before the ban, we were on the same end-wage. And RM do not seem to want to hand out FT contracts at all.

The strike days and no "make-up" overtime works more fairly. I would miss the day (5 hours) and the overtime for that day (3 hours), but the rest of the week, not lose my usual overtime, meaning I lose the same as a full-timer, 8 hours.

I've discounted the wonky short working week stuff for this example to make it easier to work out, fully aware FT is down to 37 now. (unless it managed to hit 36 when I wasn't looking, but I believe they stopped that deal from progressing?...)

you did say "if" on 25hrs but if it is so every single pt took the job on knowing their basic pay regardless of overtime ban or if just not enough work, by accepting the job offer they accept that there is a minimum pay, if a pt lose a days pays on strike then a ft also loses a days pay so basically ft lose more actual cash but the same % of their natural income, is it that hard to understand?
why take a job absolutely requiring overtime to live? why is it pt lose nothing and ft lose £100s....the job should be doable and a living wage to reach your means on the absolute minimum pay contracted for, so far all i see is ft suffering & pt loving it because they are the only ones allowed early overtime at ours

<sigh> Let's try again:
There are people with pt contracts who wanted ft contracts but were told only pt ones were available. They were also told that the difference in hours can always be made up. It seems perfectly sensible for these people to sign up rather than tell the manager/office/company to f*ck off. Notwithstanding all that's badly done throughout the organisation, they see the job as one worth doing; for now, at least.

i cannot state this any clearer! pt took the pt contract when employed, if they were promised overtime by a liar, then prove it! and i've been a postie 17yrs and over half as pt but knew i could live without over contracted hours, that's my argument....either all can have overtime above their contracted hours or nobody can, you get that?

[R5001]

I could live without overtime when I took the job.

I still can, but it would be very difficult as unavoidable expenses have been added to my life. The OT is there, it has been there the entire time I've been here, and I don't see it going away.

If you can't get overtime, then perhaps you need to be talking to your rep / managers to get it sorted. I would imagine PT getting priority on available overtime up to full time hours, then after that it *should* be spread out somewhat evenly. We definitely manage to share it out at my office.

[derekm]

As a PT on 24 hours, it would hardly be worth turning up if the ban included ATD.

There will be NO OVERTIME if annualised hours is brought in,the whole point of bringing it in isn't to penalise p/t colleagues but to save RM stack of money.

Incorrect, only the first 10 hours of extended delivery will be banked,Anything over 10 hours will be paid as will day off/sick cover will be paid as ot, as will things such as lats,early ip or things deemed of importance to the company.

Do you believe everything rm tell you ?? If managers are told to make more savings then the 10 hours only banked will be kicked into touch. It will cause chaos with everyone owed time but that’s something they will worry about later.

Because the union has never told porkies over the years have they..

Not talking about the union. Saying in all the years working for rm they break just about every agreement made and I’ve been here a long time.

[world class male]

instant £190 pay increase if you do it by cancelling your union subs, no i won't yet but will do if you neither get these guys on same ship change their plan, its sinking fast
please someone try explain that zero overtime will hit them harder then anything before especially when xmas approaching

[Woody Guthrie]

This is a tiresome argument.
An overtime ban is not just unfair to part-time staff, it is also completely unmanageable and impossible to police in anything but the smallest offices

It would potentially undermine the entire dispute by adding to the financial hardship of members forcing them to seriously consider returning to work. It might have to happen but if it does we're in real trouble.

It is also rather old fashioned to believe that the pressure in a dispute comes now comes from the holy grail of a backlog, creating an affective backlog of letters is almost impossible now and Royal Mail have made it clear they're quite happy to palm off parcel work to competitors.

What we need to win this dispute is for senior management and Royal Mail's major customers to believe that the dispute could rumble on right through Christmas and for that it needs to be sustainable in the long term.

[Route1]

Agree with woody the overtime ban argument is getting boring. It hurts us all, some more than others. I personally think its an option we should consider. From woodys response it doesnt look like its one the cwu will pursue and i'm fine with that.

To me strikes arent about creating backlogs of mail as our office tends to clear it soon afterwards. Its about frightening RMs big customers, get them talking to senior management about taking their business elsewhere. Putting pressure on RM to reach a compromise.

At the end of the day RM dont have our best interests at heart. We can only negotiate so much as we are workforce to earn them profits. One of our tools is striking so RMs big customers tell RM they will move their business elsewhere. Thus affecting RMs profits.....the only thing RM care about.

In my opinion its not about striking all out. Its the perception given that RM will fail to deliver the parcels.

Personally I'd announce strike dates leading all the way up to xmas including weekly 4 day strikes starting 2 days after Black Friday. Distribution & MC out for 2 days followed by posties out for 2 days.

[priority102]

I agree with Woody's comments above.

An overtime ban is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to police, given how many variations of it exist in RM.

To many, overtime is the difference between supporting the strikes or working through them, so you need to be very careful indeed about the balance you create. Many long serving, full time posties can do without overtime, others cannot including many part time.

Also, an overtime ban will put every COM and above on their guard, and any slightest mistake you innocently and unintentionally make could see the conduct code applied (if applicable) whereas perhaps in a different atmosphere a quiet unofficial word in the ear would suffice.

As I have said before, striking now is very different to what it was back in 2009, technology has enabled so many to get around the delays caused by strikes. People and companies now use email and document attachments as a MUCH CHEAPER and INSTANT alternative to RM and snail mail, many pay invoices via BACS instead of sending cheques in the post, and for parcels, competition from other couriers is in abundance.

I agree with industrial action, the current actions of the board are shameful, but Ward and Pullinger have less options at their disposal this time round, and customers have plenty of alternatives to still get their mail and parcels delivered.

[2yearpostie]

I agree with Woody's comments above.

An overtime ban is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to police, given how many variations of it exist in RM.

To many, overtime is the difference between supporting the strikes or working through them, so you need to be very careful indeed about the balance you create. Many long serving, full time posties can do without overtime, others cannot including many part time.

Also, an overtime ban will put every COM and above on their guard, and any slightest mistake you innocently and unintentionally make could see the conduct code applied (if applicable) whereas perhaps in a different atmosphere a quiet unofficial word in the ear would suffice.

As I have said before, striking now is very different to what it was back in 2009, technology has enabled so many to get around the delays caused by strikes. People and companies now use email and document attachments as a MUCH CHEAPER and INSTANT alternative to RM and snail mail, many pay invoices via BACS instead of sending cheques in the post, and for parcels, competition from other couriers is in abundance.

I agree with industrial action, the current actions of the board are shameful, but Ward and Pullinger have less options at their disposal this time round, and customers have plenty of alternatives to still get their mail and parcels delivered.

Well at least some of you are starting to see how futile striking is, and its much more important for the union to get in a room talk and compromise.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Well at least some of you are starting to see how futile striking is, and its much more important for the union to get in a room talk and compromise.

Well, that didn't last long. I was going to disallow this post but it needs addressing.

Its Royal Mail that is refusing to talk not the Union, the Union have stated that they are ready to talk at any time, but Royal Mail is putting preconditions on any talks.

Using the word futile is subjective, and without pointing out why you think it is, pointless and adds nothing to the debate.

Also, do you think we that are striking are stupid, everyone going into a strike knows compromises will be made.

Again, as I said before, you seem determined to cause trouble on RMC as your posts seem ill-informed and intentionally "trolly". It looks like you will be on the "approval" list for a while, at least until you learn to moderate your posts.

[clashcityrocker]

Its Royal Mail that is refusing to talk not the Union, the Union have stated that they are ready to talk at any time, but Royal Mail is putting preconditions on any talks.

I thought the union were insisting the chairman be present at the talks?