More Royal Mail Strike on its way...

[Jeff Lynne]

Anyone else feel like this is a flashback to british leyland days???

Also why should a unskilled labour force be able to force a pay rise above the national increase??

When will we get a independant mail service with a resonable grasp on reality?

The same day that you realise that this isn't about getting a pay rise?

 

[Jeff Lynne]

The Royal Mail could easily save themselves a tidy sum by not dropping those annoying red elastic bands everywhere and reusing the damn things.

I re-use them, although to be fair once they've been used once they lose their elasticity and have a nasty habit of snapping as you stretch them to put them on a bundle and it hurts.

 

[Jeff Lynne]

If you don't like what's on offer, look for another avenue of employment. You know, like everyone else on the planet.

Reading your posts has made me cringe. You've managed to cement my preconceptions of those who like to strike - complete muppets.

Don't like your job? Quit. Can't get a better job with your skill-set? Then have yourself a little cry, pull your socks up and deal with the situation.

What do you mean? Whats on offer? I'm on a 40 hour week, thats not going to change unless I change it. Why would I quit?

I'm just against the continued erosion of jobs across the business as nowadays they won't recruit full time delivery staff, they get them in on minimal contracts with no pension rights and minimal sick pay and annual leave. These five hour contracts that I've quoted will see someone work probably 30 hours per week, but as five are just contracted then if they're on short or long term sick or leave they'll be paid for five hours and nothing more.

You call me a muppet? I'm the one making a stand trying to protect what is a reasonably well paid job for a *thicko* with no skills, instead of standing back and watching as unscrupulous employers like Royal Mail shoehorn this type of crap contract into the workplace.

 

[scorza]

If you don't like what's on offer, look for another avenue of employment. You know, like everyone else on the planet.

Reading your posts has made me cringe. You've managed to cement my preconceptions of those who like to strike - complete muppets.

Don't like your job? Quit. Can't get a better job with your skill-set? Then have yourself a little cry, pull your socks up and deal with the situation.

Suppose you look at what's on offer, accept the offer and then the other party unilaterally changes the terms and conditions. In your world you'd just meekly back down, whereas what you should be doing is holding the other party to what they agreed to in the first place.

LOL employers must see this lot coming a mile off.

 

[dannyjo22]

: These five hour contracts that I've quoted will see someone work probably 30 hours per week, but as five are just contracted then if they're on short or long term sick or leave they'll be paid for five hours and nothing more.

I'd want to fight against that sort of thing as well. The more you roll over the more large companies management will try to **** you over. Reward themselves for hitting targets of savings from your job 'package' by paying themselves a nice fat bonus.

 

[diverse180]

That does it, I'm off to change my Windows 7 order from being "delivered" by Royal Mail over to next day delivery by courier in the hope that I'll actually get the ******* thing!

 

[Berserker]

Saw something interesting on the news tonight - a postie saying he simply didn't have enough time to complete his round. That would certainly account for all the carding that people are complaining about here.

I don't like strikes and I'm usually very happy to jump on the 'if you don't like it, quit' bandwagon, but there's only so far you can cut before the service suffers, and it already is suffering.

I don't see a solution - at least not one that isn't bad for customers - and that means us. Rock and hard place come to mind.

 

[Tummy]

The Royal Mail is ran by an idiot.

I have no idea why that man is still in charge.

 

[meghatronic]

The Royal Mail is ran by an idiot.

I have no idea why that man is still in charge.

Ditto for the head of the CWU.

 

[Tummy]

Unions aren't a bad thing, some of them are just ran badly.
They're in place to support the workers and help them.
Not to just organise strikes.

The Royal Mail needs to remove the complete tool they have running the company, and get in a person / people who have more sense about how to run a company successfully and not in to the ground.

 

[Kutter]

Lets see, RM goes on strike. But the world must continue turning, so businesses with any sense use UK mail etc.

RM return to work, ohh wait... theres nothing to deliver anymore. Then you can thank your union leaders who are stuck in the 70's for a job well done.

then i pay more tax out of my crap wage to pay for your dole money.

 

[Sankari]

I don't know how much of RM's current issues are the result of poor staff or poor management. But I am familiar with the issue, because I've been through it myself and I know where Jeff is coming from.

I spent four and a half years working for Australia Post. I was a permanent part time mail officer and OHS rep at the Mail & Networks Division state head office. (Every day I thanked my lucky stars that I wasn't one of the poor sods who had to deliver mail! )

My regular hours were 25 per week and I worked on the night shift. I started doing 18:00-23:00, then switched to 20:00-01:00, and eventually 11:00-04:00. Every three weeks I was rostered to work 05:00-10:00 on Sunday morning. I worked extra time (2 hours on top of regular shift) and overtime (2 hours on top of extra time and regular shift) every now and then, just to pull in a bit of extra cash. It was hard graft, made harder by the knowledge that I was one of the part timers who'd been recruited to replace a full timer, thereby increasing the workload for everyone else (including me!)

Cutting costs by offering redundancies to full time workers and replacing them with part timers is standard practice, and in principle I have no problem with it. Businesses should be free to use such methods whenever and wherever they see fit. But this particular method tends is open to abuse, and it is too often abused.

It's not about pay; it's not even about conditions per se. It's about being asked to complete an ever-increasing workload in the same amount of time. You can do this for a while, but over time it stacks up at an almost exponential rate and the job becomes well nigh impossible.

There are some things which simply can't be done any faster than they already are. I've seen it in private enterprise as well. My former employer (a multinational facilities services corporation which shall remain nameless but is traditionally associated with pest control ) had a simple but effective formula to increase its margins.

Take a standard cleaning contract, for example:

• We would begin by underquoting the actual price of a cleaning contract in order to win it (often this was done by the sales reps, whether we wanted them to or not!)
  
  
• Having won the contract, we would TUPE any available staff from a pre-existing contract and retain them at their original wage (even it it was higher than the rate we paid our regular staff)
  
  
• After letting let the contract run for a few months, we would reduce staff levels over time until each site was only being serviced by a bare minimum of one or two people for two or three days per week
  
  
• The remaining staff would then have their hours reduced (sometimes by as much as 50%) but their workload would remain the same (!!!)
  
  
• By this stage most of the TUPE workers would be openly rebelling, which almost invariably resulted in resignations; this was actually the desired result, because...
  
  
• ...with the expensive TUPE workers gone (usually via resignation; occasionally via redundancies) I would then hire replacement staff at the minimum wage, thereby reducing costs even further and increasing our profit margin
  
  
• At this point the client would be screaming blue murder; in response we would remind them that (a) staff hours were our responsibility and we would set them to suit ourselves, not the client, (b) the client's minimum requirements were still being met at most sites, and (c) since the price of the contract had already agreed, we would not be reducing our charges (even though we had reduced our staff levels, frequency of service and time spent on site)

And so on, and so forth.

In these situations everyone likes to talk loudly about efficiency, as if they're somehow making things better all round. Here's a newsflash: it is rarely about efficiency. It is always about profit margin. Margin comes first; all other considerations are secondary.

If efficiency is improved in the pursuit of margin, that's great. But margin is the goal, not efficiency. Large corporations can tolerate a great deal of inefficiency (and they frequently do!) without losing a scrap of margin.

For example, high staff turnover is inefficient but it helps to improve margin because short term employees don't hang around long enough to take holidays or sick days, etc. You can suck them in, chew them up and spit them out as fast as you like. It's stupidly inefficient, but it's fantastically cheap. Winrar!

 

[Werewolf]

Saw something interesting on the news tonight - a postie saying he simply didn't have enough time to complete his round. That would certainly account for all the carding that people are complaining about here.

I don't like strikes and I'm usually very happy to jump on the 'if you don't like it, quit' bandwagon, but there's only so far you can cut before the service suffers, and it already is suffering.

I don't see a solution - at least not one that isn't bad for customers - and that means us. Rock and hard place come to mind.

IIRC they've been cutting down on the number of posties, so each postie is doing a longer round as standard.
Then they've been reducing overtime etc, and if one is off for any reason the extra work from that postie is expected to be done by 2-3 of the others (who are already doing longer rounds) by splitting it up - without overtime as I understand it.

I've also heard of them timing delivery routes for the local vans, on a Sunday and expecting the route to be done in the same amount of time on week days.

Basically in part it is the management expecting the posties to do more than is possible even with the best will in the world in the allowed time, then pointing to the fact that they aren't able to do it to penalise the posties/use it as proof that they aren't working hard enough as "it was possible when we did it".

Of course the union isn't helping at all, as they are going for strikes rather than methods that would be more likely to gain public sympathy (would it be illegal for the posties to carry, of their own volition leaflets explaining the situation that they could post as they do their rounds?*).

Of course the fact that the profitable parts of the letter business (collection/sorting) have been largely creamed off in the name of "competition" whilst RM have been hamstrung with the requirement to do the universal delivery hasn't helped with things (maybe if the government where to insist that any company that takes on more than certain amount of the "collection" business should also take on a universal delivery obligation might help?).


*I'm sure that if they stuck rigidly to the H&S rules on what they are allowed to carry for RM they could probably carry leaflets (as opposed to the current situation where I beleive a lot of posties end up carrying more than they should have the mail to try and get it done on time).

 

[khemist]

IIRC they've been cutting down on the number of posties, so each postie is doing a longer round as standard.
Then they've been reducing overtime etc, and if one is off for any reason the extra work from that postie is expected to be done by 2-3 of the others (who are already doing longer rounds) by splitting it up - without overtime as I understand it.

I've also heard of them timing delivery routes for the local vans, on a Sunday and expecting the route to be done in the same amount of time on week days.

Basically in part it is the management expecting the posties to do more than is possible even with the best will in the world in the allowed time, then pointing to the fact that they aren't able to do it to penalise the posties/use it as proof that they aren't working hard enough as "it was possible when we did it".

Of course the union isn't helping at all, as they are going for strikes rather than methods that would be more likely to gain public sympathy (would it be illegal for the posties to carry, of their own volition leaflets explaining the situation that they could post as they do their rounds?*).

Of course the fact that the profitable parts of the letter business (collection/sorting) have been largely creamed off in the name of "competition" whilst RM have been hamstrung with the requirement to do the universal delivery hasn't helped with things (maybe if the government where to insist that any company that takes on more than certain amount of the "collection" business should also take on a universal delivery obligation might help?).

I remember when i first started 2 years ago health and safety stated you should only carry so much in weight but it's been changed to "there is no set limit" and each person is different. (in our depot at least).


*I'm sure that if they stuck rigidly to the H&S rules on what they are allowed to carry for RM they could probably carry leaflets (as opposed to the current situation where I beleive a lot of posties end up carrying more than they should have the mail to try and get it done on time).

Good points, the amount of mail i had in one of my bags today was so heavy (usual) that i could only carry it two flights of stairs then deliver the rest of the way up the buildings just carrying one bundle... and that's an everyday thing... and on this walk that i am on this week i'm usually around 1.5 hours over what i should be simply because of how heavy it is and the amount of time it takes to be sorted in order (tenement buildings) cannot be done in time and the managers seem shocked everyday when i say i'm going to be late.

They also grudge paying overtime and i have to chase up what i'm owed all the time.

 

[Maximum Triceratops]

Saw something interesting on the news tonight - a postie saying he simply didn't have enough time to complete his round. That would certainly account for all the carding that people are complaining about here.

I don't like strikes and I'm usually very happy to jump on the 'if you don't like it, quit' bandwagon, but there's only so far you can cut before the service suffers, and it already is suffering.

I don't see a solution - at least not one that isn't bad for customers - and that means us. Rock and hard place come to mind.

Lets get one thing straight, Posties do not automatically leave cards because they have "no time" to knock on your door. They do it because they cant be arsed to knock on your door.

 

[Dolph]

No, No, No, No. I knew I'd shoot myself in the foot replying to you. You know little or nothing about modern practices within RM Dolph. Go back and sidle up against Adam Crozier, there's a good boy.

Back to the fallacies again I see...

It seems to me there are only two realistic options.

1) Remove the universal service commitment, or alter it to remove the universal service at a single price, and allow RM to compete in a commercial environment. This option comes with no subsidy, no preferential treatment etc.

2) Maintain the universal service entitlement, with a subsidy if necessary, but require a complete structural assessment and overhaul of the service, from the ground up, based on modern rather than historical requirements. This gives a good, efficient service for the 21st century.

Unfortunately, neither of these options are likely to be considered due to misguided belief in tradition and militant behaviour from the staff and the unions.

The current post office is not fit for purpose, it does not serve its customers in the way they want to be served, it does not have the relationship with its employees that it should, and essentially only exists and runs on tradition rather than on offering a compelling service to people. If the post office is to have a long term future, this cannot continue.

 

[Abraxaz1]

Argueing with dolph is like taking the **** out of a swansea cage fighter in a dress, its not going to end well.

 

[Berserker]

1) Remove the universal service commitment, or alter it to remove the universal service at a single price, and allow RM to compete in a commercial environment. This option comes with no subsidy, no preferential treatment etc.

Unacceptable - in both cases. The first option would leave rural communities with no postal service at all, and the second would be so confusing it would be unworkable.

Root and branch review makes more sense, but don't blame the unions without also blaming the management. Neither side seem willing or capable.

One point you did get right though - as things stand the postal service isn't fit for purpose, and isn't likely to be in the foreseeable future.

 

[Dolph]

Unacceptable - in both cases. The first option would leave rural communities with no postal service at all, and the second would be so confusing it would be unworkable.

Possibly, but both management and staff at RM claim that the universal service is why they can't compete, I don't agree, but if that is the case, then removing it must always be an option. There is a real question in my mind whether, truthfully and honestly, the postal service is needed these days in anything like the current form. I'm far from convinced this that is a given.

Root and branch review makes more sense, but don't blame the unions without also blaming the management. Neither side seem willing or capable.

Given the propensity for strike action over the last ten years at the slightest change, it isn't a surprise management has failed to make any significant and successful changes. That doesn't mean management is blameless, it most certainly isn't, but it seems to me that all change is being resisted initially, resulting in either no change, or a change that didn't really benefit anyone at all by the time the negotiations were finally completed.

One point you did get right though - as things stand the postal service isn't fit for purpose, and isn't likely to be in the foreseeable future.

Currently its getting less fit by the day.

 

[Berserker]

Possibly, but both management and staff at RM claim that the universal service is why they can't compete, I don't agree, but if that is the case, then removing it must always be an option.

I still consider that non-negotiable. That may not be true forever because we are undoubtedly getting closer to a paperless society, but for the time being there are many things that can only be dealt with by post, and for those it is arguable that (on domestic business only) the communities that would be the first to suffer under your proposals are the very ones who rely most on the postal service.

There is a real question in my mind whether, truthfully and honestly, the postal service is needed these days in anything like the current form. I'm far from convinced this that is a given.

That debate will have to be had, sooner or later, because society is moving on from posting bits of paper around the country. To counterbalance that, you might also like to consider the businesses who have their livelihood built around a reliable, universal, postal service. Those companies are pretty damn fed up with the situation right now, and I expect the combination of recession and postal strikes will be enough to push some over the edge, which is a shame.

My proposal - boss of RM and head of the CWU have an enforced job swap. Take that.