Home Politics & Debate
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 ✨

Postal Strike

13»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.

    It's what I hear from active trade unionists.
    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.

    Yes, there's more to running a service than your rather narrow definition of "efficiency" (which I assume is the most work for the least expenditure). Not everything can be measured by that way.
    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.


    Ahhhh, here we are. Delivering at 4pm is not a good service. Delivering first class mail before people go to work and 2nd class mail later (the way it used to be) is a good service.
    Indeed that's what you are saying. Whilst also saying that "the workers" are theives.

    I suggest you read again.
    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?

    You seem to have missed my point by ten million miles.

    Oh well, I'm in a good mood after my hols, so I can't be arsed to argue.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    It's what I hear from active trade unionists.

    Why am I not surprised. Of course it's a conspiracy and no way are their members to blame for the company's prblems and no way can it be just that the management aren;t any good - no it's clearly all designed by some all powerful cartel to rob their members of jobs.

    Seriously, I have much sympathy for the support that Trade Unions can give their members, indeed I have been a mamber. However sometimes I do wonder how far they can get their heads up their arses ;)
    Yes, there's more to running a service than your rather narrow definition of "efficiency" (which I assume is the most work for the least expenditure). Not everything can be measured by that way.

    Who said it was just about cost, time is part of that equation too...

    But I am interested now in your definition of "efficient".
    Delivering at 4pm is not a good service. Delivering first class mail before people go to work and 2nd class mail later (the way it used to be) is a good service.

    Why separate into two classes?
    I suggest you read again.

    Yep, you still talk about mail getting stolen but the workers.
    You seem to have missed my point by ten million miles.

    No I haven't, I've just pointed out that you have used your example in a narrow form - missing the other interpretation. Perception is all important.

    It's isn't casualisation which causes the problem of theivery, it's criminal intent
    Oh well, I'm in a good mood after my hols, so I can't be arsed to argue.

    Spoilsport :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's isn't casualisation which causes the problem of theivery, it's criminal intent

    It's also in the 70s and 80s we weren't sending CDs and DVDs through the post.

    The risk of getting caught is probably about the same as it used to be, the rewards for casual theft are much more.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you employ people without an adequate selection procedure, don't train them, don't value them and make them feel very insecure about their jobs, they're gonna not give a fuck.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote: »
    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.

    yes

    thats why the strike won't cause massive problems as itll just mean royal mail will hire temps and un-unionised people to take the CWU's people place

    it's a deliberately run down service whilst the private competitors were able to purchase end mile delivery at a loss to royal mail

    like any public service we always do a hotchpotch of privitisations, with service efficiency cuts whilst bailing out shareholders, as can be seen with the tube PPP deals and contractors failing targets, yet getting paid and now claming more money for work

    in Newham where i used to live, they've sacked refuse collectors who sort the recycling stuff and hired agency staff to do it, so they're falling behind in work, strangely enough whilst the council is running a review that is currently expected to ask for the refuse work to contracted out of council
    http://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/search/story.aspx?brand=RECOnline&category=Postbagnewham&itemid=WeED05%20Jul%202007%2009:42:41:260&tBrand=RECOnline&tCategory=search
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Now why is that familiar? :chin:

    Can anyone name a formerly State-owned public service that went through the same process?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't see how the post office is any more a public service than a bank. And we seem to do fine with all of those being private. It's not like trains, where competition is pointless because there's no real choice in the company you choose anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't see how the post office is any more a public service than a bank. And we seem to do fine with all of those being private. It's not like trains, where competition is pointless because there's no real choice in the company you choose anyway.

    because up to the thing of gradually privitising mail delivery, i think it was initiated in 2002, Royal Mail was one of the most efficient and cheapest mail delivery firms - it's actually pretty good still as well, just nowhere near as good as it used to be, it's still far cheaper for parcel sending than other firms

    if they want royal mail to be private they should of cut all government ties, and let it set it's own prices whilst allowing full competition, but they didn't

    personally royal mail was fine for letter delivery before this privitisation crap, it was reliable and pretty cheap and made money too
Sign In or Register to comment.