I see the Royal Mail's postmen are about unleash yet another round of anarchy against us with its inevitable destruction of jobs and the livelihood of the public.
The union in charge of this utter outrage are clearly stuck in the stone age.
The only answer is to SACK ALL STRIKING POSTAL STAFF IMMEDIATELY WITH NO EXCEPTIONS.
Job cuts are required in the Royal Mail. The most rational step now then is to fire those staff who start trouble.
In November 2007, the Daily Telegraph reported that he had received a 26% pay increase in base pay, taking out £1,256,000 in 2007. His achievements in this year included shrinking the workforce by 45,000, and closing 4,600 post offices, with another 2,500 to follow. The goal of this reduction in workforce and in retail outlets was to increase profitability of the corporation (which had made a profit of £537m in 2004/5, dropping to around £300 million in 2005/6, dropping to £233 million in 2006/7, to the point where the corporation was running a £10 million/annum trading deficit in 2007).
In 2008, the BBC reported that Royal Mail's trading position had worsened dramatically to an annual loss of £279 million a year in financial 2007. Crozier's remuneration almost tripled to £3 million
Mr Crozier is, in case you weren't aware from the above, is on a 'performance' bonus. The more he destroys the Post Office the more he gets. The plan is to break it so much that only 'part privatization' will save the day....(or at least that is what we will be told)
The union has offered a three-month moratorium on industrial action in a bid to reach an agreement with the Royal Mail on modernising the business. This offer has been declined by Crozier. Fancy that.
fencer tells us that (more) job cuts are required in the Royal Mail but dosen't tell us why. Certainly the cuts in staff over the last few years has not resulted in anything like profitability...only Crozier getting richer. Why would cutting even more jobs now suddenly make the whole thing soar back into profit?
Threep has eloquently rehashed the millionaire boss vs poor worker tale, which has been doing the rounds for more than a century in one form or another.
Of course, as a state stooge, there's nothing you can do about Crozier's salary. If however, it was privatised, he would be accountable to shareholders who may have a different take.
Either way, industrial action is high risk for an unskilled workforce, when there's 3m on the dole. So, yes....sack them all. Anyone who can read, cycle and carry a bag will happily take their place.
Threep has eloquently rehashed the millionaire boss vs poor worker tale,
If you can disprove any of what I said, feel free. I was answering fencers point, which I suspected was made with his usual lack of knowledge of both sides of the argument. What really annoys him is that the ordinary decent people of this country stood up and stopped people who think like him back in '39 to '45. You'll notice he's been asked twice how sacking even more would return it profitability, but he has failed to answer.
Anyone who thinks that the 'little shareholders' can have any influence over the block votes of the major institutions obviously hasn't been paying attention since Marconi went tits-up.
There is hardly a postman in the country that works his full shift.
That's down to poor management, is it not?
But you are right though, always best to do a full days work for a full day's pay....lead by example and all that....so Crozier must really be rushed, what with helping to run Debenhams and Camelot as well. Of course he's got previous on all this, he came very close to being sacked at Mars when they found he'd been falsifying figures. Let's not forget he was also the man who brought Sven to the England football team. At that point they started to do more for gossip and fashion mags they they ever did for their country.
You can only judge an 'orse by the races it's run...
No. It is down to unions refusing to work the hours they are paid for. It is at the heart of modernisation and the bit that the CWU won't accept as if every postie worked full shifts, we could lose 20% of the postman. I don't know if you've ever run a business, but imagine running one in which the staff go home two hours early every day. Crozier may be all those things you say, but it doesn't change the fact that the post office is having to compete with one arm tied behind its back.
...You'll notice he's been asked twice how sacking even more would return it profitability, but he has failed to answer.
I don't know the full story, but I understand every stamped letter loses the Royal Mail 5.6p (£185,000,000.00 a year). Also, I read that the number of letters and parcels passing through the business is falling by 10% each year, losing it £170,000,000.00 per year. This suggests to me they have to reduce operating costs which will mean less labour (fewer mail and parcels to deliver means one doesn't need so many postal workers). I suggest, therefore, less work to do means fewer workers required, which means smaller wage bill, which means profit increases (or at least the rate of loss slows down).
Go on then...show us ONE example of a union refusing to work the hours they're paid for.
If some people in a firm (any firm) take the piss and sidle off early and get away with it....that IS a failing of management. It can be nothing else.
Threep.
And yes, I do run a business.
It's not some, it's all. It was/is the accepted way of working. "Clear this area of mail sacks and go home. Finish my round, then go home." That's how the PO operates.
So it might be – and yet again demonstrates appalling management. This is real 1970’s British Leyland stuff. What species of idiot 'manager' would think for one moment that ‘work and finish’ is acceptable and appropriate these days? At the very least, it means work hasn't been measured properly, itself a management failure.
So it might be – and yet again demonstrates appalling management. This is real 1970’s British Leyland stuff. What species of idiot 'manager' would think for one moment that ‘work and finish’ is acceptable and appropriate these days?.
They don't think is is acceptable. There is a constant battle between shop floor and management about this. Delivery times are quite tight on a busy day, but should the post be light then the postie knows that sorting awaits him back at the office. They are not meant to knob off after a delivery.
So it might be – and yet again demonstrates appalling management. This is real 1970’s British Leyland stuff. What species of idiot 'manager' would think for one moment that ‘work and finish’ is acceptable and appropriate these days?.
They don't think is is acceptable. There is a constant battle between shop floor and management about this. Delivery times are quite tight on a busy day, but should the post be light then the postie knows that sorting awaits him back at the office. They are not meant to knob off after a delivery.
Hope that's the case, but niceguyeddie must have got his info from somewhere or was he being ironic?
Not at all. I have several relations that are posties and it is the norm to go home when a delivery or collection round is finished. They don't work in Newbury I hasten to add. Also if a certain amount of mail is clerared at distribution centres the staff go home rather than doing something else.
The union are saying they won't strike if their demands are met. Stronger job security guarantees and an improved benefits package for postal workers, plus a guarantee that staffing levels will not be affected by budget deficits. Royal Mail is asked to reveal its business plan and to promise to introduce change only by agreement, and to allow the union to define what constitutes a fair day's workload.
and to allow the union to define what constitutes a fair day's workload.[/i]
You couldn't make it up.
Indeed. I can imagine what kind of a response I'd get from my employer if I suggested that I should be able to define what is a fair days workload for me.
What's wrong with workers having a say in what constitutes a fair day's work?
Nothing at all - that's how its done. However, when we mix weak management and strong trades unions we get the problems identified here that made UK a sick joke in the 1970s. The discredited 'task and finish' method, which used to and still does (according to some posts here) lend itself to abuse where workers would finish the measured tasks half way through a shift and skip home for rest of day. This is because the time the task was supposed to take was 'agreed' between the foreman and workers. Yes, should have been re measured as soon as the error was manifest - and that leads us straight back to Trades Unions...
Of course they should define what they think is a fair day's work.
That's what they exist to do, on behalf of their members.
Problem is that their definition involves finishing two hours early.
Chatting to our postman the other day, it's pretty clear that the union aren't supported in Newbury & I'm sure GC is correct in that here RM have good industrial relations. The problems seem to be in the big centres in the cities.
Also, my post is no longer delivered with the milk or the newspaper in the morning but at about 13:30 instead when I am not able to make use of it until I return from work.
These aren't examples of Union endorsed practice. Posties aren't meant to cut off. Without doubt posties do need to raise their game, but why is it we have what seems to be an inferior product now when in the past our post service was considered one of the best? The late deliveries are partly because of management decisions from above.
The late deliveries are partly because of management decisions from above.
The late deliveries are as a result of cutting costs. Like the second delivery. Seems to me we have the choice of a bloated company that is purely a public service and subsidised by taxes or we have a leaner organistation that makes a profit. Other nationalised industries have gone through this but because the government has held onto RM, it has remained unmodernised.
Does it? Got a link to a news report with this in, to back up what you say?
They want the 40 hour week cut to 35 hours, so there's one hour. For the rest, see the Telegraph article. Significant numbers of postal workers go home early.
the posties in newbury have been working their full shifts for the last two years. delivery times are later now because of a later start time and because there are no longer any night sorters. so all the mail has to be sorted in the morning before the posties can go out on delivery. delivery spans are all atleast 3.5 hours and if they finish early they go back to the office and do any soring that has arrived for the next days delivery, only then do they go home. though quite often the posties are pushed to actually finish within their time if it is a heavy day also to save money on staff, during the periods when there is less post, mainly during the summer instead of employing people to cover holidays. each postie does a part of another delivery. i think royal mail want to extend this all year round.
They want the 40 hour week cut to 35 hours, so there's one hour. For the rest, see the Telegraph article. Significant numbers of postal workers go home early.
It doesn't say significant numbers of postal workers go home early.
I think you made that bit up, and will continue to think that unless you can show any evidence to support what you claim.
It doesn't say significant numbers of postal workers go home early.
I think you made that bit up, and will continue to think that unless you can show any evidence to support what you claim.
You should have gone to Specsavers matey 'cause that's exactly what it says:
According to Royal Mail, the latter is particularly common in London, where a "significant" number of postmen complete their work up to two hours early. It is currently seeking to force these staff to deliver to extra streets.
Logged
Male
