ben andrews' girlfriend
Nurse Laura
Are they on strike again today? I've had NO post today - which is impossible!!! I've got at least 2 nursing magazines and a package somewhere in the system?!!!
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Do you support the Posties striking?
- Thread starter John Byrne
- Start date
Gazwag
5 millionth post poster
As the end of the month is approaching there could be quite a few people whose wages cheques (yes some people are still paid that way) get held up in the post who default on mortgage or rent payments, cant imagine they will be very sympathetic if things carry on
Southover Street Seagull
Well-known member
Why don't you invent a time machine and go back to either the 18th or 19th Century. That way you can be happy with poor conditions and wages and accept them there, instead of the modern world where the working practices of employers can be challenged by the workforce!
Southover Street Seagull
Well-known member
Which is why Eastie I cannot fathom out why RM have brought in later start times for deliveries.
Surely it must be better for the delivery staff to start work earlier and get the mail out to the customers quicker.
I do not belive the bullshit from RM about the new 56mph laws on lorries, 60% of mail is available for delivery offices from mail centres at midnight. Why not send it to the delivery offices when it is ready instead of leaving it in the mail centre?
Bizarrely enough, personally, that is one of my main issues with this dispute.
I'm obviously being lied to, & made to feel like I'm stupid enough to believe them.
It's just plain wrong, if they said:- 'we need to do this to generate x amount of millions which will be spent on y'.
I probably won't like it but at least I'd be treated like an adult.
John Byrne
New member
- Jun 18, 2007
- 768
- Thread starter
- #106
Important stuff then.....
John Byrne
New member
- Jun 18, 2007
- 768
- Thread starter
- #107
I can understand the public are annoyed with not getting their post but imagine what its like knowing you could be losing your job. That your working hours are going to change, the way you do your job is going to change and your going to be expected to work longer and harder for no extra money.
RM can't expect people to accept all these changes in one go. It was only 3 years ago that we changed from two deliveries to one delivery. Something the public were against if i remember.
There has been a lot of change in RM in the last few years which the public don't know about but the posties have just had to accept.
We've (the posties) have just had enough change. We now need to have a plan of fair action...a way forward which is fair for everyone.
Remember RM is suposed to be a public service not a multi million pound company.
FACT 40,000 jobs must go....
FACT The postmen/women are just fighting for their job and future. We all have families and mortgages to pay!
RM can't expect people to accept all these changes in one go. It was only 3 years ago that we changed from two deliveries to one delivery. Something the public were against if i remember.
There has been a lot of change in RM in the last few years which the public don't know about but the posties have just had to accept.
We've (the posties) have just had enough change. We now need to have a plan of fair action...a way forward which is fair for everyone.
Remember RM is suposed to be a public service not a multi million pound company.
FACT 40,000 jobs must go....
FACT The postmen/women are just fighting for their job and future. We all have families and mortgages to pay!
coventrygull
the right one
What does £735,000 buy you these days? Not very much if you are the CWU it seems. This is how much they contributed to the Labour Party between 2002 and 2005. Now their strikes are condemned by Gordon Brown as "unacceptable" and they are urged to go back to work!
Postal workers have a good case. They are striking to defend their pension scheme. They are striking because the pay deal of 6.7% over two years is actually a pay cut when you take real inflation into account. They already earn £80 a week below the national average wage! They are striking because Royal Mail is seeking to make unfavourable changes to their terms and conditions to compete with private companies who are cherry-picking the most profitable areas.
Essential service
We believe that the Royal Mail is an essential public service. It should be protected from unfair competition and there should be no privatisation. Our members in the Postal Service deserve your support. As the General Secretary of the independent Trade Union Solidarity, Pat Harrington says:-
"The postal workers are right to strike. I urge all Nationalists to respect their picket lines. You can also write to your local MP, attend demos and send donations and messages of support as individuals or groups of workers. This is not about Party politics it is about protecting something we all need and use."
The Brown regime is hell-bent on continuing the Blairite policy of liquidating the Common Wealth of this country, wrecking public services by turning them into private profit centres for giant corporations. Inconvenient though the postal strikes are, the postal workers are in the forefront of the battle against doctrinaire privatisation.
If the Royal Mail was properly capable of being private, then the Victorians would have created it as a private operation in the first place. They did not because it is not. Postal privatisation would inevitably lead to a system that works for Big Business, but is a shambles for all the rest of us.
I wonder what party said this
Postal workers have a good case. They are striking to defend their pension scheme. They are striking because the pay deal of 6.7% over two years is actually a pay cut when you take real inflation into account. They already earn £80 a week below the national average wage! They are striking because Royal Mail is seeking to make unfavourable changes to their terms and conditions to compete with private companies who are cherry-picking the most profitable areas.
Essential service
We believe that the Royal Mail is an essential public service. It should be protected from unfair competition and there should be no privatisation. Our members in the Postal Service deserve your support. As the General Secretary of the independent Trade Union Solidarity, Pat Harrington says:-
"The postal workers are right to strike. I urge all Nationalists to respect their picket lines. You can also write to your local MP, attend demos and send donations and messages of support as individuals or groups of workers. This is not about Party politics it is about protecting something we all need and use."
The Brown regime is hell-bent on continuing the Blairite policy of liquidating the Common Wealth of this country, wrecking public services by turning them into private profit centres for giant corporations. Inconvenient though the postal strikes are, the postal workers are in the forefront of the battle against doctrinaire privatisation.
If the Royal Mail was properly capable of being private, then the Victorians would have created it as a private operation in the first place. They did not because it is not. Postal privatisation would inevitably lead to a system that works for Big Business, but is a shambles for all the rest of us.
I wonder what party said this
I don't support them in the slightest. Don't they realise some people have BIRTHDAYS and are waiting for CARDS and PRESSIES?
Thoughtless and shortsighted, it really is...
Only short sighted people leave it until the day before to post birthday cards. I knew there was a strike looming and so I posted my mother in law's card last Tuesday before I went to Bournemouth so that she would receive it in time for her birthday Oct 5th (which she did) in Rotherham.
Keep going posties and don't let Crozier win.
Unions are good for the workforce. My Mum had a bad accident at work. The NHS altered the accident book and put pressure on her colleague to deny the accident happened.
The union solicitors sorted them out (with no charge to my Mum) and got her compensation (quite rightly as it was management neglect that led to the accident)
John Byrne
New member
- Jun 18, 2007
- 768
- Thread starter
- #110
Cheers Yorkie....unfortunately we have no choice but to carry on.
dougdeep
New member
I got my supporters club newsletter today, which incidently includes some excellent stuff on the finance arrangements for Falmer. All I need now is my hospital appointment before I keel over.
ben andrews' girlfriend
Nurse Laura
It is when you have a summative presentation next week
Post came at half 5 - late, but at least it came. Didnt have any of my stuff though, which is really frustrating
D
Deleted member 2719
Guest
come on lads get back to work.
In most jobs nowadays they want blood out of a stone more work for no more money the problem is that the posties have had it easy for too long.
And if you don't like the management in most jobs you move on - let them employ those people who will work 24hrs a day for nothing and then send it all home rather than spend it here where they have earned it.
How many people now regret voting this labour government in now?
In most jobs nowadays they want blood out of a stone more work for no more money the problem is that the posties have had it easy for too long.
And if you don't like the management in most jobs you move on - let them employ those people who will work 24hrs a day for nothing and then send it all home rather than spend it here where they have earned it.
How many people now regret voting this labour government in now?
Southover Street Seagull
Well-known member
The posties have had easy for too long. How do you work that one out? Would you like to get up at 4:30 in the morning and walk miles with heavy mailbags in all weathers? I work for Royal Mail but am not a postman, I don't think their job is cushy at all.
Oh and by the way the reason some get away early is because they work through their meal reliefs and take their own cars out on delivery(which management turn a blind eye too). Also RM imposed the current working practices on the postmen about three years ago when they dropped the second delivery. It is RM management at fault not the postmen.
Uncle C
Well-known member
Lazy buggers - get back to work.
If you dont like the yob there are plenty of Eastern Europeans that will do it, and they may even deliver my mail to the right address.
If you dont like the yob there are plenty of Eastern Europeans that will do it, and they may even deliver my mail to the right address.
NMH
Banned
I only worry that packages are piling several stories high, on top of my records I won on eBay. Vinyl doesn't like it, especially not the more-brittle old American records.
London Calling
New member
I thoought this was an interesting article in the telegraph
"It's not posties' fault Royal Mail can't compete
By Alice Thomson
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 12/10/2007
Have your say Read comments
More than 150 years ago, my great-great-grandfather, an orphan who worked as a human calculator at the Observatory in Greenwich, answered an advertisement calling for a postmaster general in South Australia. He won the job, paid for his uniform and set off for the new colony halfway round the world.
News: More mail misery as wildcat strikes double
The colonists might have been religious refugees, former convicts and cattlemen, but they still wanted a service as good as London's or Bombay's. So in Adelaide there were three deliveries a day, and the post office was a magnificent building.
advertisementPostmen risked their lives to reach far-flung properties: it was a point of principle that, although it might have taken six months to arrive from Europe, a letter would be delivered in less than 24 hours. The disabled and widows were given jobs as postmasters and postmistresses in the mining and farming communities, and they made up any short-fall in income by selling food and clothes.
The service was self-sufficient. My great-great-grandfather diversified - dabbling in weather forecasting - to make ends meet. He risked his life to plant the telegraph poles across the continent, which linked the country to the rest of the world - paid for by a new public-private partnership whereby Adelaide's business community had to match government spending and agree to deliver the line on time and within budget.
The proudest day of my great-great-grandfather's life was when Anthony Trollope arrived in Australia in his top hat and tails. This was the man who, with Sir Rowland Hill, had introduced the penny post, the pillar box and the London postal districts.
The Victorian postal system was one of the great exports of the Empire, and Trollope was impressed by the industrious staff and the prompt delivery, telling Adelaide that this demonstrated the triumph of civilisation over chaos.
So where has it gone so wrong? Why is the British postal system more antiquated now than it was 150 years ago?
In Victorian London, there were four deliveries a day; this week, there are none. The BBC advises viewers to send no letters or parcels, but what about those who have rugby tickets, wedding invitations, job or school applications in the post?
Gordon Brown has pronounced on the sacking of a football manager, but has taken weeks to say anything about the disintegration of an industry owned by his Government.
It's not just the strikes: they're just the stamp on the envelope - even in the 1990s, the Royal Mail lost more hours to strikes than any other firm in Europe: it's the whole enterprise. It started with the change of name to Consignia, cutting regional post offices, scrapping second deliveries and undermining the local Postman Pat so that you are now more likely to know your traffic warden.
The posties, already emasculated with their shorts and patronised by advice not to go near dogs, are taking the flak for the mess. They are blamed for refusing to modernise, preferring their Spanish practices. The Communication Workers Union is easy to condemn, but of course it is going to embarrass Mr Brown if it can get away with it.
You can criticise the mediocre middle managers, or Adam Crozier, the chief executive, for being too greedy. In 2005, his salary, including bonuses, came to a vast £2.7 million for running down the service. The managers privately complain that they are never going to be able to compete with texts or emails; it would be easier for them to sell off the company's assets. After all, there are no shareholders - except Mr Brown - to complain.
But this isn't simply a managerial problem, or just a sign of the times; it's a political issue. Look at Deutsche Post, privatised seven years ago. It has been an astonishing success. The company saw email as challenge and started selling itself around the world. TNT, which was acquired by the privatised Dutch postal system, is thriving in Europe. It, not the Royal Mail, is the real heir to the Victorian postal system.
Michael Heseltine wanted to privatise the Royal Mail, but was blocked by John Major, which is when the problems started. Privatisation is not a fashionable word any more, even in Tory circles, but the Royal Mail was a far better candidate than British Rail. In the 1990s, it made a £2.5 billion profit, which was pocketed by the Treasury. If the service had been allowed to reinvest the funds, it could have introduced dispatch riders and dedicated services for mail-order companies, or diversified into supermarket deliveries. Post offices could have found enterprising new ways of making money. A privatised company could have faced down the unions.
Instead Mr Brown and Peter Mandelson got their hands on it. Both men saw the need for some kind of privatisation, but fought over the format. The result was a complex hybrid. The Royal Mail would become an independent company, but with only one shareholder, the Government.
It was left to Brussels to insist that the postal market should be opened to competition, but the Royal Mail, chained to the Treasury, couldn't invest and diversify, yet still had to deliver to every household. So it cut core services to remain in business (and generate bonuses for the bosses). Nearly 5,000 post offices have been sold; another 2,500 await their turns. Workers became dispirited, 14 million letters are lost every year and mail-order and internet companies have turned to more reliable commercial competitors.
But they don't want to. When I emailed the managing director of a successful mail order company yesterday, he replied: "The Royal Mail (when working) provides a fantastic service, slightly better, though more expensive, than the United States Postal Service. Their 140,000 postmen know our names and exactly where we live (unlike their courier competitors). They know where to leave a large package or will have a sorting office close by (until they close them all). They just have to modernise like the rest of us."
In the countryside, people rely on the Royal Mail to receive goods ordered over the internet. The service doesn't need to die. Gordon Brown is in need of a big idea - and he is a recent convert to Margaret Thatcher. Why doesn't he just privatise the Royal Mail, instead of waiting for David Cameron to suggest it?
"It's not posties' fault Royal Mail can't compete
By Alice Thomson
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 12/10/2007
Have your say Read comments
More than 150 years ago, my great-great-grandfather, an orphan who worked as a human calculator at the Observatory in Greenwich, answered an advertisement calling for a postmaster general in South Australia. He won the job, paid for his uniform and set off for the new colony halfway round the world.
News: More mail misery as wildcat strikes double
The colonists might have been religious refugees, former convicts and cattlemen, but they still wanted a service as good as London's or Bombay's. So in Adelaide there were three deliveries a day, and the post office was a magnificent building.
advertisementPostmen risked their lives to reach far-flung properties: it was a point of principle that, although it might have taken six months to arrive from Europe, a letter would be delivered in less than 24 hours. The disabled and widows were given jobs as postmasters and postmistresses in the mining and farming communities, and they made up any short-fall in income by selling food and clothes.
The service was self-sufficient. My great-great-grandfather diversified - dabbling in weather forecasting - to make ends meet. He risked his life to plant the telegraph poles across the continent, which linked the country to the rest of the world - paid for by a new public-private partnership whereby Adelaide's business community had to match government spending and agree to deliver the line on time and within budget.
The proudest day of my great-great-grandfather's life was when Anthony Trollope arrived in Australia in his top hat and tails. This was the man who, with Sir Rowland Hill, had introduced the penny post, the pillar box and the London postal districts.
The Victorian postal system was one of the great exports of the Empire, and Trollope was impressed by the industrious staff and the prompt delivery, telling Adelaide that this demonstrated the triumph of civilisation over chaos.
So where has it gone so wrong? Why is the British postal system more antiquated now than it was 150 years ago?
In Victorian London, there were four deliveries a day; this week, there are none. The BBC advises viewers to send no letters or parcels, but what about those who have rugby tickets, wedding invitations, job or school applications in the post?
Gordon Brown has pronounced on the sacking of a football manager, but has taken weeks to say anything about the disintegration of an industry owned by his Government.
It's not just the strikes: they're just the stamp on the envelope - even in the 1990s, the Royal Mail lost more hours to strikes than any other firm in Europe: it's the whole enterprise. It started with the change of name to Consignia, cutting regional post offices, scrapping second deliveries and undermining the local Postman Pat so that you are now more likely to know your traffic warden.
The posties, already emasculated with their shorts and patronised by advice not to go near dogs, are taking the flak for the mess. They are blamed for refusing to modernise, preferring their Spanish practices. The Communication Workers Union is easy to condemn, but of course it is going to embarrass Mr Brown if it can get away with it.
You can criticise the mediocre middle managers, or Adam Crozier, the chief executive, for being too greedy. In 2005, his salary, including bonuses, came to a vast £2.7 million for running down the service. The managers privately complain that they are never going to be able to compete with texts or emails; it would be easier for them to sell off the company's assets. After all, there are no shareholders - except Mr Brown - to complain.
But this isn't simply a managerial problem, or just a sign of the times; it's a political issue. Look at Deutsche Post, privatised seven years ago. It has been an astonishing success. The company saw email as challenge and started selling itself around the world. TNT, which was acquired by the privatised Dutch postal system, is thriving in Europe. It, not the Royal Mail, is the real heir to the Victorian postal system.
Michael Heseltine wanted to privatise the Royal Mail, but was blocked by John Major, which is when the problems started. Privatisation is not a fashionable word any more, even in Tory circles, but the Royal Mail was a far better candidate than British Rail. In the 1990s, it made a £2.5 billion profit, which was pocketed by the Treasury. If the service had been allowed to reinvest the funds, it could have introduced dispatch riders and dedicated services for mail-order companies, or diversified into supermarket deliveries. Post offices could have found enterprising new ways of making money. A privatised company could have faced down the unions.
Instead Mr Brown and Peter Mandelson got their hands on it. Both men saw the need for some kind of privatisation, but fought over the format. The result was a complex hybrid. The Royal Mail would become an independent company, but with only one shareholder, the Government.
It was left to Brussels to insist that the postal market should be opened to competition, but the Royal Mail, chained to the Treasury, couldn't invest and diversify, yet still had to deliver to every household. So it cut core services to remain in business (and generate bonuses for the bosses). Nearly 5,000 post offices have been sold; another 2,500 await their turns. Workers became dispirited, 14 million letters are lost every year and mail-order and internet companies have turned to more reliable commercial competitors.
But they don't want to. When I emailed the managing director of a successful mail order company yesterday, he replied: "The Royal Mail (when working) provides a fantastic service, slightly better, though more expensive, than the United States Postal Service. Their 140,000 postmen know our names and exactly where we live (unlike their courier competitors). They know where to leave a large package or will have a sorting office close by (until they close them all). They just have to modernise like the rest of us."
In the countryside, people rely on the Royal Mail to receive goods ordered over the internet. The service doesn't need to die. Gordon Brown is in need of a big idea - and he is a recent convert to Margaret Thatcher. Why doesn't he just privatise the Royal Mail, instead of waiting for David Cameron to suggest it?
London Calling
New member
and this from a couple of punters - writing to the Telegraph - who seem to know what they are talking about
"
The government has already tried to sell off Royal Mail. It was reported in a Telegraph article on January 29th 2004 (not on the website).
Entitled "Corbett's last stand" the article described how the first PostComm regulator discovered that this Labour government, which had sworn blind that it would never privatise the Post Office, had been in secret negotiations during 2000 to sell Consignia, as they had renamed it, to the Dutch Post Office.
That fell through, so they've had to continue pursuing privatisation by stealth in accordance with EU Directives 97/67/EC and 2002/39/EC, allowing competitors to cherry pick the best business while Royal Mail alone carries the burden of the unprofitable universal service, and even compelling Royal Mail to undertake the final sorting and delivery of bulk mail on behalf of other operators at an uneconomic price per item - see Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph on August 24th 2003:
link
"Royal Mail will subsidise rivals
To promote "liberalisation" of postal services, the European Commission has produced two directives, 97/96 and 2002/39, to break up postal monopolies. One company set to benefit from this is UK Mail, now licensed to collect mail from business customers. It cannot actually deliver the mail. Its job is simply to transport it to a post office, from where Royal Mail does the rest. But in May the post regulator Postcomm, also set up under the EU rules, proposed that Royal Mail should only be allowed to charge up to 13p for delivering each item, which means at a substantial loss.
Last week, as "consultation" ended, Royal Mail said this loss will amount to £650 million a year, which it will have to make up by raising the price of a first-class stamp by 4p and a second-class stamp by 7p. Otherwise it will not be able to maintain its "universal service". At best we may thus have to pay more for our stamps. At worst we may lose that right to have our letters delivered anywhere in the country for which the Royal Mail was set up in the first place. All thanks to "liberalisation". "
"
"
The government has already tried to sell off Royal Mail. It was reported in a Telegraph article on January 29th 2004 (not on the website).
Entitled "Corbett's last stand" the article described how the first PostComm regulator discovered that this Labour government, which had sworn blind that it would never privatise the Post Office, had been in secret negotiations during 2000 to sell Consignia, as they had renamed it, to the Dutch Post Office.
That fell through, so they've had to continue pursuing privatisation by stealth in accordance with EU Directives 97/67/EC and 2002/39/EC, allowing competitors to cherry pick the best business while Royal Mail alone carries the burden of the unprofitable universal service, and even compelling Royal Mail to undertake the final sorting and delivery of bulk mail on behalf of other operators at an uneconomic price per item - see Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph on August 24th 2003:
link
"Royal Mail will subsidise rivals
To promote "liberalisation" of postal services, the European Commission has produced two directives, 97/96 and 2002/39, to break up postal monopolies. One company set to benefit from this is UK Mail, now licensed to collect mail from business customers. It cannot actually deliver the mail. Its job is simply to transport it to a post office, from where Royal Mail does the rest. But in May the post regulator Postcomm, also set up under the EU rules, proposed that Royal Mail should only be allowed to charge up to 13p for delivering each item, which means at a substantial loss.
Last week, as "consultation" ended, Royal Mail said this loss will amount to £650 million a year, which it will have to make up by raising the price of a first-class stamp by 4p and a second-class stamp by 7p. Otherwise it will not be able to maintain its "universal service". At best we may thus have to pay more for our stamps. At worst we may lose that right to have our letters delivered anywhere in the country for which the Royal Mail was set up in the first place. All thanks to "liberalisation". "
"