ROYAL MAIL STRIKE SOLVED BY ME

PardonTheWait · 10 Oct 2009 at 14:13

Evangelion said:
Congratulations, you've just ensured that there's only one type of mail they will care about. Everything else will be treated like scrap paper. Meanwhile, the posties' colleagues in other parts of the business will strike as a show of solidarity, even if the posties themselves continue to work.

This is not a winrar scenario, tbh.

They wouldn't have to wait; they could simply get it signed off by a team leader at the delivery depot and take it home after work. I used to do the same thing when I found mail addressed to myself at the state processing centre.

So make sure they can't handle their own mail. Make sure someone you don't know has to deliver your wage and make sure you deliver someone else's. And disguise the packages as bills!

I'm a genius.

Plus it was a joke

russ0r · 10 Oct 2009 at 14:45

starfighter said:
Suerly if you don't turn up to work for a few days they are legally allowed to sack you. Why not just sack them all? I would.

This isn't just a bunch of people 'not turning up for work'. It's an official, union backed strike. Sacking someone for striking is illegal.

Dolph · 10 Oct 2009 at 14:47

russ0r said:
This isn't just a bunch of people 'not turning up for work'. It's an official, union backed strike. Sacking someone for striking is illegal.

Perhaps they should be legally responsible for damages if their stance is deemed unreasonable based on an independant analysis of the case?

Or do you support the right to strike without any consequences?

Sankari · 10 Oct 2009 at 14:48

PardonTheWait said:
So make sure they can't handle their own mail. Make sure someone you don't know has to deliver your wage and make sure you deliver someone else's. And disguise the packages as bills!

And how would you do this, exactly? Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the mail processing system knows that this is a hopelessly impractical suggestion. It just wouldn't work. You couldn't make it work. And even if by some miracle you did, people would find ways around it in minutes.

I'm a genius.

Jury's out on that one.

Plus it was a joke

There ya go.

apeZ · 10 Oct 2009 at 14:59

You sir, deserve every one of those 5 stars.

russ0r · 10 Oct 2009 at 15:00

Dolph said:
Perhaps they should be legally responsible for damages if their stance is deemed unreasonable based on an independant analysis of the case?

Or do you support the right to strike without any consequences?

Perhaps they should. I don't see why that would be unreasonable.

You still can't sack somebody just for striking though, and that was my point. I didn't say I agreed with it either way; I was merely stating that it wasn't akin to just not turning up for work as starfighter implied.

OldComputerGuy7 · 10 Oct 2009 at 15:06

lol good plan.

Stellios · 10 Oct 2009 at 15:15

Love the idea of it, then they would have no choice but to work.

By the looks of it a lot of online retailers are looking to move away from using RM now, which will be a big kick in the financial crotch anyways.

iKettles · 10 Oct 2009 at 15:32

10/10, would read again.

Dark_Angel · 10 Oct 2009 at 15:36

I think this works on all levels.

It might also make them deliver mail faster too.

Better yet put their cheques in a box, so that it has to be delivered and signed for. It might stop them just popping cards through the door!

dangerstat · 10 Oct 2009 at 15:40

That's the difference between a match and a postie,

Answers on a postcard.... no wait a minute...

Auraomega · 10 Oct 2009 at 15:55

That's simply put both the most intelligent and most humourous thing I've heard today, you've made my day complete

DB_SamX · 10 Oct 2009 at 16:17

Stolen, but have 5 starts in return.

xen_ · 10 Oct 2009 at 16:46

win, 5 stars

PardonTheWait · 10 Oct 2009 at 17:27

DB_SamX said:
Stolen, but have 5 starts in return.

I'd not heard it before, I didn't steal it on purpose!

DB_SamX · 10 Oct 2009 at 18:54

No, I stole it from you!

Jeff Lynne · 10 Oct 2009 at 22:29

Dolph said:
Perhaps they should be legally responsible for damages if their stance is deemed unreasonable based on an independant analysis of the case?

Or do you support the right to strike without any consequences?

Deary me, you're still at it aren't you Mr manager's pet!

By "they" do you mean workers or the inefficient management? Ooh, it couldn't possibly be the management, no, not in Dolph's absolutely definately positively impartial mind.

lambda · 10 Oct 2009 at 22:43

Ungrateful ****s should be thankful they have jobs. Union should suck on a lemon.

danza · 10 Oct 2009 at 22:57

DB_SamX said:
No, I stole it from you!

Same, I did give the credit to 'some bloke on t'net' though.

Dolph · 10 Oct 2009 at 23:06

Jeff Lynne said:
Deary me, you're still at it aren't you Mr manager's pet!

And you're still throwing insults as a substitute for having answers to the questions. It's really diminishing any valid argument that you may put across.

By "they" do you mean workers or the inefficient management? Ooh, it couldn't possibly be the management, no, not in Dolph's absolutely definately positively impartial mind.

I'd be quite happy for whichever party is found to be being unreasonable to be held liable for the damages, management or workers. The fact that I'd expect (for example) the RM and BA strikes to be deemed unreasonable does not negate this fact.