All I had to do was sort the post, which was very easy. Going to be working there again next week. £12.50 an hour next week. Was only £9.80 an hour today. But still its good pay, and not had much money in a while. So will be good to have that money now.
Also got told today that postal strike finishes on wednesday. But wish it had have finished earlier. Girlfriends birthday tomorrow and canít give her, her present because its coming in the post and has not got here yet. But hopefully will be here by wednesday. Would've looked for it there. But they probably wouldn't had let me!
But all in all enjoyed my day there today, and looking forward to going back.
> I get angry at work sometimes. I dont walk out.
They're angry because they're being told they're more than likely going to lose their job. While i don't agree with their actions (seeing as there was a more obvious solution that meant they could have kept working and kept their pay and didn't screw over the public) if these changes that are going to happen are going to cost them their job then i can understand why they want to fight those changes coming through.
> My point being it shouldn't. It removes incentive.
Like i said, the overtime doesn't work like that, at least not in our business.
> I was thinking of the private sector thay doesn't use
> orchestrated denial of service attacks to get pay increases.
> Why should the taxpayer have to pay
> twice to get his mail delivered? Once when he/she buys a stamp,
> and once again through tax money used to cover the shortfall of
> an inefficient business model. Even worse for the taxpayer that
> doesn't send or receive mail. They just shell out the taxes and
> get nothing back except the junk mail forced through their
> mailbox. Which Royal Mail gets paid for.
I fully agree with you, the taxpayer shouldn't have to do that, but then you can make that argument for other things also. The taxpayer gets screwed, that's common knowledge by now.
Now i will say i do not have full knowledge on the history of BT and BG and what happened so i cannot comment on that and will admit when i read private sector i thought of just the businesses on the high street and didn't about the ex government companies, though i will say the government could manage to botch a p!ss up in a brewery let alone business companies. So if they did make massive sweeping changes which screwed the workforce over and they happily signed up to it without a whisper of discontent then fair enough, i guess they're better, more loyal workforces than that of Royal Mail. However i do believe before their problems BG and BT were making money on their services, RM has never made a profit on normal residential mail, which is why you'll probably never see a private company offer that service.
> What's your argument here anyway? A loss making business
> shouldn't re-organise to a more cost effective business
Except i didn't say that.
In previous Royal Mail threads on this topic i've actually said if i was in charge i'd have offered voluntary redundancy to anyone who wasn't happy, (well i said sack them but this is probably a slightly better PR move) which is supposedly 130,000 members and just re-hired afterwards as there's no doubt once people heard they'd be getting 7.20 an hour starting wage (in the Midlands) there'd be many people taking up the openings. The fact i've actually worked through the strikes also shows i'm not against the Royal Mail changes otherwise i wouldn't come in, but then i'm only working there until February before quitting so i don't really care what they do. All i'm saying is there's far more to the dispute then just the bare bones that gets reported to the public who think it's only about pay, which it isn't, there's alot more to it and alot more changes which have a negative impact on the workers so yes i can see why there are people striking over it as they want to protect themselves and their job, which to me is fair enough. Like i said though they've gone about it the wrong way when there was a viable alternative however the Union reps decided they wanted to flex their muscles and have a d**k measuring contest with royal mail management.
> Pretty much every business in any competitive market in the
> world? Seriously. You think capitalist markets are sanctuaries
> of love and happiness? It's the most ruthless market ideal
> imaginable - Niccolo Machiavelli meets modern business, held in
> check only by government/regulatory intervention to prevent
> monopolistic and anti-trust practice.
I believe you missed my point here, yes companies will do their best to under-mine their competitors but they aren't allowed to go into their competitors and actually screw around with their service. Sony can't go into Microsoft's offices and demand they start building PS3's first and put the 360 manufacturing on hold. Apple can't go to Creative and demand they make iPod's before they start on their own Vision M's yet Royal Mail is expected to start sorting and delivering their competitors mail as soon as it comes in, which is often suspiciously in bulk on just a couple of days of the week instead of spread out and each bag of mail is comprised of 2 or 3 bags when one would suffice, meaning we have to waste more time cutting the bags. This puts us behind on our own stuff obviously, however we cannot do anything about this, we can't just do our own stuff first and then sort theirs we have to sort theirs that day otherwise we get a big fine. Granted the strike was the Union's own doing but you wouldn't believe the amount of mail we had last Wednesday from all the other mail companies. (and i'm not saying that's a bad thing, if i was them i'd do the same thing as well)
> A big re-organisation process resulting in a lot of people
> losing their jobs which i don't know, might make them a bit
I get angry at work sometimes. I dont walk out. Firstly because that's just not professional behaviour, and no matter how much my employer might cheese me off, petulantly attempting to sabotage his business is the worst possible reaction. Secondly because I wouldn't have a job to walk back to if I did. And rightly so.
> Overtime? Christ! I wish that existed.
> It does (at least for now anyway)
My point being it shouldn't. It removes incentive.
> Who says it's anything to do with doing a job slowly? Royal Mail
> workers aren't purposely slowing up mail just so they can go to
> the boss and get more overtime. Most overtime is given when
> people don't turn up on sick or when there's a large collection
> of mail coming into the office and they need more staff in to
> cope with it.
Don't even start with the sickness rates in the public sector. That's a discussion in its own right, and the light doesn't shine kindly on the good ol' working man.
> The "more reliable private sector" which still uses
> Royal Mail to deliver a large portion of their stuff.
I was thinking of the private sector thay doesn't use orchestrated denial of service attacks to get pay increases. The private sector driven by investor requirements to deliver more, for less. The private sector that has to do a good job for you or it'll go out of business.
> It's all well and good constantly comparing it to the private
> sector etc but how many private businesses are required by law
> to provide services which they make a loss on?
British Gas is/was a good example. Driven to loss-making by (of all places) the E.U. member states refusing to open their markets to competition, placing a squeeze on supply and making gas/elec costs rocket. And what did they do? They put up their prices, took the ludicrously negative public/press reaction on the chin and got on with it. But you're looking at it from the wrong side of the coin. Why should the taxpayer have to pay twice to get his mail delivered? Once when he/she buys a stamp, and once again through tax money used to cover the shortfall of an inefficient business model. Even worse for the taxpayer that doesn't send or receive mail. They just shell out the taxes and get nothing back except the junk mail forced through their mailbox. Which Royal Mail gets paid for.
What's your argument here anyway? A loss making business shouldn't re-organise to a more cost effective business structure? Perhaps you haven't thought this through.
How many private
> businesses are required by law to actually help their
> competitors out by providing their service for them?
BT? They've been getting the proverbial regulatory shaft for years, but I've yet to hear of the phonelines going down in a petulant and counter-productive knee-jerk.
And British Gas / Centrica again. They bought a huge empty Gas field to store energy to cover their customer's consumption needs. Ofgem's reaction? Our survey says... eh errr! Cut that gas field up and let everyone else use it! Why thankyou Ofgem. Thankyou very much. Did Centrica whinge and refuse to deliver gas into homes? No, they used it as an opportunity to create a new, profitable storage business out of thin air.
Roll with the punches!
> private businesses are constantly sabotaged blatantly by their
> competitors and are unable to do anything about it because it's
> part of said previous law?
Pretty much every business in any competitive market in the world? Seriously. You think capitalist markets are sanctuaries of love and happiness? It's the most ruthless market ideal imaginable - Niccolo Machiavelli meets modern business, held in check only by government/regulatory intervention to prevent monopolistic and anti-trust practice.
> Sure quite a few of the changes are designed to make Royal Mail
> more competitive but they never will be if they're not on an
> even playing field as the competition.
Good point. And the only way to create the level playing field is to provide the competition with access to a nationwide infrastructure. They could never invest the sum required to get that from a startup position. The payback terms would be measured in decades if not a century or so. The only alternatives are to allow a monopoly to dominate what is hoped would otherwise become a competitive market, or to dismantle RM altogether and let the hydra-heads rise in its place. Transco had to deal with it it. The railways have to do it. BT still live under the thumb of it. Royal Mail has to do it. The trick is not to take it personally. Someone up high hasn't said 'look at those bums, I want rid of half of them'.
We're not living in a communist paradise. The human race exists to facilitate the needs of business, and employment should follow only at the intersection of needs.
> So what if there are? It's called re-organisation.
A big re-organisation process resulting in a lot of people losing their jobs which i don't know, might make them a bit angry.
> Overtime? Christ! I wish that existed.
It does (at least for now anyway)
> The UK is almost entirely
> opted out of the EU working hours directive - at least you are if
> you want a job in the private sector - why should manual labour
> workers get benefits for doing their day-job slowly when the
> rest of us have to do our jobs and make contributions to
> our overall objectives and career progression targets with no
> recompense whatsoever?
Who says it's anything to do with doing a job slowly? Royal Mail workers aren't purposely slowing up mail just so they can go to the boss and get more overtime. Most overtime is given when people don't turn up on sick or when there's a large collection of mail coming into the office and they need more staff in to cope with it.
> Business mail is shifting to the more reliable privte sector,
The "more reliable private sector" which still uses Royal Mail to deliver a large portion of their stuff.
It's all well and good constantly comparing it to the private sector etc but how many private businesses are required by law to provide services which they make a loss on? How many private businesses are required by law to actually help their competitors out by providing their service for them? How many private businesses are constantly sabotaged blatantly by their competitors and are unable to do anything about it because it's part of said previous law?
Sure quite a few of the changes are designed to make Royal Mail more competitive but they never will be if they're not on an even playing field as the competition.
The issue is that it's still seen as a public service, but run as a business. The two don't really go together. Take the little village post office, essential for old people and small local trade, but making a loss. A lot of them now have small supermarkets in the same building to cut costs, but some are just too small.
Postal services should be a public service, in my opinion, which means that the government should provide full funding. However, since Royal Mail was a private company things have got worse rather than better.
> They don't bother
> reporting about how there'll be around 40,000 job cuts
So what if there are? It's called re-organisation. The Government's got enough Quangos that every one of them would walk into something else on decent pay.
> overtime being scrapped which many people need to pay their
> bills and such considering most of the workforce is now
> part-time, pensions being slashed etc etc.
All of the above is about making Royal Mail competitive. Defined Benefit Pensions are a thing of the past, and it forever pisses me off that public service sector workers in any guise can still get them when, in the private sector, you have to be senior management in almost any industry before you can qualify for that sort of benefit. It's just too expensive.
Overtime? Christ! I wish that existed. The UK is almost entirely opted out of the EU working hours directive - at least you are if you want a job in the private sector - why should manual labour workers get benefits for doing their day-job slowly when the rest of us have to do our jobs and make contributions to our overall objectives and career progression targets with no recompense whatsoever?
To me, a lot of the changes are common sense. But then, I'm an accountant. Who says the working day is 8 hours long and starts and ends at specific, pre-determined times? Because there is sufficient daylight? Because that's the way momma and poppa used to do it? Because that's the way it's done somewhere else? Businesses have to be fit for purpose, and operations have to match the requirements. We can shout and scream and say it's unfair, but the bottom line is that in 30 years time, life will dance to the beat of the drum pounded out by private sector requirements, and the term 'weekend' is something our kids will have to lookup in dictionaries because of its inspecificity and lack of appliance to ordinary working lives.
The world is changing, people. You either keep up, or you get left behind. Currently, while the management of Royal Mail is attempting to keep themselves in the former category, the labour workforce is ensuring that the business is firmly in the latter.
Business mail is shifting to the more reliable privte sector, how long before a viable alternative appears for residential mail?There are a dozen companies rubbing their hands with glee and circling like vultures while the RM tumult plays out.
At least Amazon are using different couriers for the first post items. Means paying their stupid post and packing fees, though. I may just wait...
5PM till 6AM!