Clive Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 10 days and still no home delivery!. Has the posty read my posting? I don,t have a problem with first class mail costing 50P. At least it will make us think digital first. The "Negotiations" the postal workers are having is on par with those many in industry are having about pensions. Final Salary scheme? sorry we are closing it and from now its money purchase. No choice, no negotiation, its just gonna happen because we cannot continue in business as we are because we would fold. Its a tough world out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Parke Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 They seem to refer to themselves as a 'public service'. I was a 'public service' for 36 years, armed forces & constabulary. We were not allowed to strike, not that we wanted too in any case. Regards, MIke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tc102 Posted October 11, 2007 Share Posted October 11, 2007 I can only speak as I find regarding Internet banking but in my various companies we have been using it for years. It's cheaper, more convenient and I don't have to sign a hundred cheques every week.We pay virtually every supplier by bank transfer and some large companies such as Canon for instance actually direct debit my account two weeks after an invoice is issued. For this we get an extra 1% which, when you're on the margins that we make on the 'heavy gear' is a very big deal.We have never had any problems with our electronic banking and we pay our staff salaries in the same way as well. Each transaction is a fraction of the cost of processing a cheque.With my personal finances I could never go back to the old-fashioned method. I even pay my paper bill with a bank transfer! My man delivers his bill every month or so with the morning paper, I pay him at once using the web and email him to let him know it's gone. He pays less than half of the cost of processing a cheque.Again, I have never had a problem. I probably write a cheque about once every couple of months now.There will always be idiots though. I was in a favourite shop the other day and a guy came in for his order and paid by credit card. He then pulled out a small card which had all of his PINs written on it!I had to ask him if he always carried his PINs in his wallet with his card. He claimed that he can never remember them so writes them down.When his wallet is pinched and his bank account cleared out you can guarantee that he'll deny this and blame the bank's system! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 I too have used internet banking with Smile (the ethical Coop bank) amongst others for about 8 years now with no problems at all. It obviously is common sense to take sensible precautions and look carefully at what you are logging onto but Smile are great. They do everything I ask of them promptly and without fuss and pay a decent rate of interest on all my accounts. I can access cash or pay in at Post Offices and or banks and or cash machines usually without charge. Their only downside is that their overseas cash withdrawal charges are heavier than Nationwide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo3090 Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 Mike, I was a firefighter up to last October, so I know several coppers. Some would have voted for strike when their/your working conditions and pension was being messed with. They were quite annoyed they couldn't. Another one told me the police didn't want to strike because they were coining in the overtime when others went on strike! i. miners, ambulance staff, and to really wind me up, the fire service! And he is still a mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Parke Posted October 12, 2007 Share Posted October 12, 2007 I agree I made some money from the Miners Strike, but that was 23 years ago. As far as I recall Norfolk Police has no other invovlment in any dispute except the Prison Officers trouble which again was in the 80's. It is true that some officers in Norfolk were 'upset' when the Sheehy report was put forward by the Conservative Government but I do not recall a great groundswell of unrest by the majority of (local) officers at this time. I am a great believer in compromise through negoitation which will work thing s out eventually. By withdrawing ones labour one general incures the loss of sympathy from the 'public at large'. Regards MIke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo3090 Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Mike, I to believe there should be negotiation first and both sides should enter into it with honesty. But we both know that ain't going to happen and at the end of the day, you, even police officers, should have the right to withdraw your labour. You should of course be paid hansomly for giving up that right and your employer should not then take advantage and introduce new conditions that lower your existing ones. No employee in this day and age walks out and gives up their wages without believing in what they are doing. We, the public, are never going to hear the full argument of why the action is being taken, we never have and we never will. We will only ever get to hear how flexible and generous the managements offers have been and how demanding and intransigent the workforce are being. I just know my postman is an all right guy and I support him and his colleagues. He delivers my post in all weathers for the rest of the time, so that'll do for Me! p.s. No personal critism about the police actions was intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Parke Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Thommo, after 22 years in the Police and 15 in the R.A.F. prior to that I do not ever take offence!! Thanks all the same, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomo3090 Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Crikey Mike 37 "in service"! Well done mate and it's a wonder you aren't logging on in Broadmoor! I managed 31 before I saw the light :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J9withdogs Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Mike Parke - 2007-10-15 7:07 PM Thommo, after 22 years in the Police and 15 in the R.A.F. prior to that I do not ever take offence!! So you like dressing up, Mike? (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Parke Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 J9. No I am just mean. If your are given a uniform to wear you safe money by not having to buy 'civvies'!!! Regards Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGD Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Tomo3090 - 2007-10-11 12:07 PM The working conditions of any companies staff are an agreement between the work force and employers. Why should the employers have the right to change these whenever THEY choose. Surely as a matter of fairness any new conditions should be negotiated. The employees are hardly likely to voluntarily give up a good set of conditions for ones that require more work for the same pay! Perhaps if the management of Royal Mail went to negotiate instead of just instigating new contracts they might get somewhere. I have a neighbour who is a depot manager and he is in support of the action being taken because of the way ALL the staff are being treated, i.e. with no respect or input into the future of the business. As an ex-Human Resources Director, with a pretty decent knowledge of UK Employment Law and Industrial relations, I'll attempt to answer some of your points. The terms and conditions of an emplyees' contract are partly laid down by law (both via act of parliament, and consequent regulations; and also viaCommon law). Examples include minimum wage, maximum hours of continuous working, health and safety provisions and responsibilities of both parties, etc etc. The remainder (actual hours of work, rates of pay, pay review frequency, bonuses, overtime premium rates, holiday accrual etc etc etc,) are not in fact arrived at by agreement, but are for the Employer to offer, and for the employee (prospective or existing) to accept or reject. In the case of the Post Office, contrary to your post, the Company has in fact been negotiating with the CWU (who represent shop-floor hourly-paid workers) and with the Supervisory Staff Union, at national level over what the Company sees as critical changes to ensure it's survival, for almost 12 months now. But of course those negotiations never made the headlines. The SSU reached agreement with the Company some time ago over a whole range of modernisations to their working practices, in exchange for self-funded (by efficiency improvements) salary increase in exchange. The Staff Union also agreed to the closing of the Final Salary based pension scheme, as the cost of continuing with it in it's present form, rather than switching to an "average salary" based scheme, is projected to siply bankrupt the business in the decade ahead. The CWU representatives declined to agree to any (note: not some, but ANY) changes to working practices, and refused point blank to even discuss the possibility of going back to woring to their actual written contracted hours for which they are paid. They were (and are) adamant that the widespread "Spanish practice" of "job-and-finish" is the only way that their members will operate. The Company is in HUGE financial s**t. It's been losing massive amounts of money year after year. It actually managed to make a tiny operating profit last financail year, but that was on the back of ParcelForce, not letter post. It's labour costs constitute almost 85% of total costs - that's a MASSIVELY higher cost burden than almost any other business, even a labour-intensive one. Because all it's revenue goes on paying wages/bonuses/overtime/holidaypay/sick pay/pension contributions/national insurance/subsidized canteen costs/uniform costs/footwear subsidy costs/and all the other costs associated with emplying so many people at such a low level of efficiency; it's not making any profit - so there's no money left for long-term capital investment (which is the future life-blood of any business). So those are the internal problems. Then have a look at the marketplace. The long-held monopoly of the post office to deliver letters has finally been scrapped. In the past 5 years the Post Office has lost 20% of it's letter business to other private sector rivals. That's a 20% drop in sales volume, whilst wages costs (by far the biggest costs in the business) have rocketted. The competitors (born and raised in the harsh realities of the real world)are massively more efficient - both in terms of equipment, business systems, and manpower utilisation. It really is a case of step-change-or-die. It's stark. It's terribly uncomfortable for postal workers who aren't used to such things. But it's true. In a last-ditch attempt to save the business, the Company decided that in the absence of a collective agreement from one of the two unions it recognises for collective bargaining, it would (as it's it's right in law) give notice to each shop-floor employee that they would be required to work as per their written contracts - ie a full days work for their days pay, rather than "job-and finish". The CWU Union called the series of strikes in response. In several depots large numbers of shopfloor employees also staged illegal wildcat strikes too. This has thus far cost their business over £200 million in further lost revenue, and pushed yet more customers to look elsewhere for communication methods. This really is just like standing on a sinking ship and using your gun to blow more holes below the waterline. It's business suicide. I wonder what readers would do if they were in charge of Royal Mail now? How would they achieve the massive modernisation and huge cost-cutting and emplyee efficiency improvements that are perfectly obviously required if the business (and all those employees who take all those wages and benefits from it) is to have any hope of still being in place in 10 years time. No Company is a slave ship. Neither is it a leisure centre. Any employee who doesn't like the effort-reward bargain he's enjoying with his present company can at any time hand in his notice and seek a better/easier deal somehwere else. I fear the shop-floor employees at Royal Mail are going to learn some harsh perform-or-die lessons about real-world business economics in the coming years, as yet more and more of their previous customers desert the dinosaur organisation, which is now (at the risk of mixing my metaphors) a very rapidly sinking ship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 As an ex sub postmaster, albeit in the early 90's, I endorse Bruce's view. Even in those days the various postmen and women that I met all agreed that the current 'cushy number' could not last for ever and the amazing thing is that it has gone on for so long. Ironically the poor old sub postmaster who has only a Federation with a reasonable attitude because it is run by businessmen and not political lunatics (like Alan Johnston) to support him has lost out in a big way since those days and I am darned glad we sold up and got out in 1995! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Syd Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 "In the past 5 years the Post Office has lost 20% of it's letter business to other private sector rivals. That's a 20% drop in sales volume, whilst wages costs (by far the biggest costs in the business) have rocketted. The competitors (born and raised in the harsh realities of the real world)are massively more efficient - both in terms of equipment, business systems, and manpower utilisation." This statement makes things look quiet bad but when you reflect that this particular 20% loss is a loss from the "most profitable" section of the post then it leaves the post office, in percentage terms, with a much greater "loss making" section of the postal deliveries Does that make any sense to anyone?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twooks Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 none of this bodes well for the rural post offices, that's my real worry. B-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJH Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Syd - 2007-10-25 10:15 AM "In the past 5 years the Post Office has lost 20% of it's letter business to other private sector rivals. That's a 20% drop in sales volume, whilst wages costs (by far the biggest costs in the business) have rocketted. The competitors (born and raised in the harsh realities of the real world)are massively more efficient - both in terms of equipment, business systems, and manpower utilisation." Funny that, I've never seen any organisation but the Royal mail delivering letters here - parcels by courier, yes, but letters, no. If these "real world" companies had to provide their own delivery people for the last mile I'm sure there would be a lot fewer of them. I share Twooks' concerns about post offices - and not just rural ones. The main post office in Middlesbrough (always crowded when I go in) is being replaced by a counter in W H Smiths small basement next year. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Syd Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Hi GJH Sorry but I cannot lay claim to the post that you credit me with as it is in it's self a quote lifted from BGD I was simply useing his excellent post to back up my usual drivell. I was trying to say that no one takes any of the loss making parts of the post office just the profitable parts, this means that of the business the post office is left with has an ever growing loss making section and an ever shrinking profitable section. To me this is the bad bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GJH Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Syd - 2007-10-25 4:41 PM Hi GJH Sorry but I cannot lay claim to the post that you credit me with as it is in it's self a quote lifted from BGD I was simply useing his excellent post to back up my usual drivell. I was trying to say that no one takes any of the loss making parts of the post office just the profitable parts, this means that of the business the post office is left with has an ever growing loss making section and an ever shrinking profitable section. To me this is the bad bit I wasn't trying to get at you - or anyone - Syd. I agree about it being the bad bit. There must be scope for RM to charge more to the likes of TNT for the "final mile" delivery than they currently do or TNT would either get out of the business or employ their own people. Trouble is that would go against government policy by the looks of it. The situation will not improve until the government admits that RM is a public service not a profit centre. Graham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Syd Posted October 25, 2007 Share Posted October 25, 2007 Im not very clever but here is another slant. The bosses of RM, who know what is what, or so they would have us believe, say that unless these changes go through, the company is finnished. Is this the same brains that worked out what was the right price to charge the likes of TNT to enable them to steal their customers?? "Lions led by donkeys" seems to come to mind on both sides of the fence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.