If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
You don't think running a business down deliberately to make way for privatisation is a bad thing?
What does Britain need then? Other than former PM's and vague terms of course?
I think you're presenting socialism as an anathema to your politics on purpose for some reason without actually questioning why and having any knowledge to the issues at hand.
True that.
And SG, Britain does not need another Thatcher at all. For fucks sake, we've just about got our economy back now. We don't want to fuck it up again, please.
In honesty, on topic, we just shouldn't have let private sector companies into the postal services. I've been nearly killed by Arsehole Force vans, and when getting parcels deliered by them, they seem to work on a knock down ginger policy. As for Shittylink, they tend to have a mission to break/lose/destroy whatever they are delivering. And BOTH have put the notes through the door without ringing saying "We came but you wern't in". In all honesty, Royal Mail are the best for customer service. And not mauling the item being sent.
TNT and UPS don't get funding and they manage.
That is something that could be applied to many other public services incidentally. Incredibly, it tends to be those who subscribe to the 'Britain has gone to the dogs' philosophy who actually support the running down and eventual break up and privatisation of every last public service in existence.
They really need to chose one option or the other. Can't have both.
we haven't managed to snatch the milk back yet either...
Thatcher was an odious cunt; she was champion of the privilidged.
Depends on what you mean by "underfunded" though, doesn't it? If you mean "funded to the level they want" then I don't think it's wrong to reduce that. If you are talking about "funded to the level they need" then I'd agree with you.
Sadly with most state run services funding was more the former than the latter.
Can you honestly argue tha the RM is efficiently run?
Isn't there also 'funded to the level we can afford'. Depending on what you mean by 'need' there's lots of things we need (and as someone who works in the health service think of all the cancer drugs you could buy if the budget was doubled), but there's a finite amount of resources and we have to cut our cloth accordingly.
No, it's not efficiently run - deliberatly so. That is my point. It used to be an efficient service - it has been deliberately run down to make way for privatisation.
I suggest you speak to some postal workers.
Oh yes, and I agree that Gordon will be a crap Prime Minister. I'd prefer to keep my kneecaps where they are at the moment, thanks.
Has that ever occurred to you?
Are you telling me that the CEO of the RM, or should I say successive CEOs, have deliberately run an inefficient system because that way they could see the business they run hived off?
Doesn't that suggest a massive conspiracy that have defrauded taxpayers into paying more money for the services than was necessary?
Doesn;t that also bring into question the morals of the unions who have fought efficiency changes cosistenty over more than a decade?
Doesn't it also suggest that they are also part of the same conspiracy for being party to continuing that inefficient running?
It's never been efficient. I have yet to see a state run enterprise that is. Too much politics, of the national type.
So encouraging people to live a healthy lifestyle is a non-job?
What about the "hidden" savings for the health service and sickness benefit (for example), aren't they important?
The RM is not an essential service, and should be opened to competition. Bits that cannot be run competitvely- such as deliveries to outlying regions- should be subsidised by government, of course they should. If that involves shedding staff then so be it- the taxpayer does not fork out the cash so that people can be kept in un-needed jobs at great expense.
The RM is exceedingly wasteful at all levels, and it employs too many people for the jobs that need to be done. The management is top-heavy, the shop floor is overstaffed, and the CEO is overpaid.
RM lost the Amazon contract as well didn't they? That's got to hurt.
Talk to some posties, they'll tell you that management have been delibertately fucking the post office up. The unions have not been fighting efficiency changes. What they have been fighting is casualisation of labour - done in the name of efficiency, which is in reality, anything but efficient.
Oh it was efficient back in the 70's and 80's. When I was growing up, there'd be a post at 7.30am and another one at 11am. These days, we're lucky if we get one delivery by 4pm. There used to be far less theft from the post too (I've had at least 3 things stolen in the past couple of years) - a consequence of casualisation.
That's a pretty big accusation. Do you have anything to back it up, or is it just blind prejudice against "management"?
Remember that most RM managers have risen through the ranks.
That's a measure of efficiency?
Surely it's more efficient to deliver all the post at 11am. One trip same amount of post delivered.
Like I said, one delivery, same volume.
Are you suggesting that "the workers" shouldn't be trusted?
Also, is that really indicative of casual labour, or of a shift in morals in "society"?
It's what I hear from people in the know. If you run the service down, you can then argue that it would be more "efficient" if privatised.
Yes, its efficient as it provides good customer service. My dad would always have the post before he went to work.
You're taking the piss, right?
I'm pointing out that casual staff do not care as much about the jobs they do as permanent staff.
See above.
That certainly used to be true, not any more. These days, they are likely to be drafted in from some management consultancy.
Alternatively, you could just have poor management which leads to the service being inefficient and there privatisation being an answer.
What you are suggesting is a deliberate conspiracy riding through the entire management structure. I don't think people are that devious.
The NHS has similar problems, mainly because we don't train managers to understand their business properly, so they tamper and tinker just making things worse.
That's the problem with RM. Poor management.
But that isn't efficient. How can it be efficient to do a job twice when once is enough?
Good customer relations does not equal an efficient service.
Not at all, although 4pm isn't a good service.
You talk of efficiency but use double delivery to argue that point. It isn't a ggod one. Efficiency is about getting the job done at lower cost while maintaining standards. Delivering the same amount of mail in one drop instead of two is more efficient, they just need to review the timing.
If they could get it to you in the morning then you would have time to deal with it, 4pm is too late. That is the problem, not that there is a single drop.
Indeed that's what you are saying. Whilst also saying that "the workers" are theives.
I have no doubt that casual staff don't care as much, why should they? However, it isn't the manager's fault that they cannot be trusted.
Would you say nothing if they were all sacked?
Again having one unit which can do the job of two is efficient. It's called economy of scale.
I thought that you were intelligent...
I was saying some, not all. I'm quite lucky to still have a rural and local post office, and all the villages around me have one too.
Must tell my brother that, he'll have a good laugh...
The conversations I have with him are more about the lack of support and training. It was the same in BT in the 70s/80s and indeed in many engineering firms in the past.
people assume that when you reach the top of you entry grade - i.e postman/engineer/nurse - that you can move directly into management.
Not so, they require different skills and being good at one job doesn't autmoatically mean that you are good at another.
Add in the public sector job proection scheme - aka disciplary rules - and you end up having your hands tied when you need to get rid of the poorly performing employees which drag down the good services you could otherwise provide. Including poor managers.