Which part of the new delivery model is supposed to reduce fatigue?

[Iva bigredbag]

I just don't get what part the union are actually on about when their aim is to reduce fatigue? The only thing I can think of is that most people will get to have 1 in 3 weeks doing packets and 1C but having double/treble mail everyday is surely increasing fatigue?

Things I don't understand:-

If an office chooses a 4 day week then does that mean duties would be automatically changed with some collapsing to make them longer as we would need to work a lot longer then if that was the case then would there be more potential VR's on that office?
Also the 4 day week option the CWU mentioned didn't have any indication of how many Saturdays people would work, same with the 9 day fortnight's also doesn't mention how many Saturdays we would be getting!!!

I've heard two trial offices have opted for 2 in 5 Saturdays off? Not sure if this will be the best (of a bad bunch) of options most offices would go for. 2 Saturdays in 6 sounds pointless when there is the other option to go for 2 Saturdays in 5?

It simple, they don't. It's about doing more with less. Have a look at the 'menu of options' which is more 'a horror of choices'. The CWU have agreed to split days off so workers get no quality time off. Once again the CWU has decided to s**t all over part time workers. There's a horror where the floater or 'doc' as the CWU call it now is employed to work four days, no day off, and the days are spread across the week. It always been the case that the CWU hates part time workers but this is a new low.

The CWU are a joke, I seriously recommend you leave them, stop giving them your money, all they do is shaft posties over. Dave Ward gives himself and his mates massive pay rises (140 thousand a year) from posties subs and in return he made our job terrible, literally gives RM everything they want and don't forget those massive pay rises that got us just above minimum wage. Why on earth posties are in the CWU is beyond me.

[Smoothbackground]

The USO pilots are specifically built around the idea that we'll be continuing to deliver the format 3 and 4 parcels. It would be rather silly to go through that and then hive a great deal of our work off somewhere else rendering all of the outputs irrelevant.

I don't think that is what Davie Robertson said .
He certainly gave the impression that all size 3 and 4 parcels are going to Parcelforce in July after the tech upgrades in June.
Perhaps what he said and what he meant are 2 different things.

It would be silly to trial something and then make changes to render the trials irrelevant but we must remember this is Royal Mail and pointless, costly, contradictory and ultimately useless are the things we excel at.

This isn’t the case. I read somewhere that only some large parcels (circa 12m?) are intended to be hived off — this represents less than 10%, no?

12 meters

12 million.

[Barnacle]

There are 14 million C5 parcels in the system annually, which are going to be moved to ParcelForce.

[Mr Rush]

Unfortunately the time these trolleys would have been more useful to use was the 10 years preceding the BT2010 agreement when people were going about like donkeys with 16kg+ on their backs.

There have been trolleys in one form or another as far back as the 60s (maybe earlier), it's just that they seemed to be rarely available. I recall a 'three pannier trolley' gathering dust in the corner of the office back when I started.

[Woody Guthrie]

Unfortunately the time these trolleys would have been more useful to use was the 10 years preceding the BT2010 agreement when people were going about like donkeys with 16kg+ on their backs.

There have been trolleys in one form or another as far back as the 60s (maybe earlier), it's just that they seemed to be rarely available. I recall a 'three pannier trolley' gathering dust in the corner of the office back when I started.

I remember the trouble I had getting a trolley for a member with a back problem, I think the paperwork involved cost more than the trolley.

[tramssirhc]

Unfortunately the time these trolleys would have been more useful to use was the 10 years preceding the BT2010 agreement when people were going about like donkeys with 16kg+ on their backs.

There have been trolleys in one form or another as far back as the 60s (maybe earlier), it's just that they seemed to be rarely available. I recall a 'three pannier trolley' gathering dust in the corner of the office back when I started.

I remember the trouble I had getting a trolley for a member with a back problem, I think the paperwork involved cost more than the trolley.

There has been absolutely no discussion about the mandatory use of LWT's has there? Nothings changed, the agreement remains the same. The pilot offices are not enforcing the use of LWT's so workers are once again increasing productivity by putting themselves at risk.

[Woody Guthrie]

There has been absolutely no discussion about the mandatory use of LWT's has there? Nothings changed, the agreement remains the same. The pilot offices are not enforcing the use of LWT's so workers are once again increasing productivity by putting themselves at risk.

As pointed out already LWTs were never mandatory across the board,

The use of the delivery equipment specified for each duty in the revision process was.

The revisions that introduced the LWTs were done in 2010, we've revisions upon revisions since then. Each duty should be assessed individually to decide what is the most sensible delivery method for that duty every time there is a revision.

[tramssirhc]

There has been absolutely no discussion about the mandatory use of LWT's has there? Nothings changed, the agreement remains the same. The pilot offices are not enforcing the use of LWT's so workers are once again increasing productivity by putting themselves at risk.

As pointed out already LWTs were never mandatory across the board,

The use of the delivery equipment specified for each duty in the revision process was.

The revisions that introduced the LWTs were done in 2010, we've revisions upon revisions since then. Each duty should be assessed individually to decide what is the most sensible delivery method for that duty every time there is a revision.

There's a difference between not enforced and not mandatory. CWU members were being disciplined for not using the LWTs after 2010 revisions that gave the time in duties to use them. They are mandatory wherever they can be used. That's not changed. Yet the pilots are not maintaining the agreement. Martin Walsh has nothing to say about. Is it possible that lumping an unweighed bag around is causing fatigue? It certainly is.

[SMS1969]

I won’t be carrying any heavy bags around. Lwt for me, unfortunately plenty won’t use them, which is a pity. It’s a shameful company, let it fail.

[Woody Guthrie]

They are mandatory wherever they can be used.

No they're not.
You're just making stuff up now.

[tramssirhc]

They are mandatory wherever they can be used.

No they're not.
You're just making stuff up now.

Absolutely they are. Delivery method clearly states it. Weighing bags is mandatory as part of the manual handling risk assessment. Neither are optional.

[tramssirhc]

I won’t be carrying any heavy bags around. Lwt for me, unfortunately plenty won’t use them, which is a pity. It’s a shameful company, let it fail.

In fairness would there be sufficient LWT's to allow everyone to use one?

[Barnacle]

I won’t be carrying any heavy bags around. Lwt for me, unfortunately plenty won’t use them, which is a pity. It’s a shameful company, let it fail.

Me too. They can’t have my health.

[SMS1969]

I won’t be carrying any heavy bags around. Lwt for me, unfortunately plenty won’t use them, which is a pity. It’s a shameful company, let it fail.

In fairness would there be sufficient LWT's to allow everyone to use one?

Everybody won’t use one, so they should be available. In any case the management will have to find me one.

[Barnacle]

I won’t be carrying any heavy bags around. Lwt for me, unfortunately plenty won’t use them, which is a pity. It’s a shameful company, let it fail.

In fairness would there be sufficient LWT's to allow everyone to use one?

Everybody won’t use one.

True. There is a cohort of people who are more bothered about how they look than their health. Covid highlighted this.

So the company doesn’t need an LWT for everyone, they just need to make a quantity available for those that will.