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.
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
Don't talk crap.......
I get my post every single day with a resonable amount of time, how is that totally ineffective?
Lucky you, I'm afraid I am agreeing with bongbudda on this one. I get mildly excited when I get an invoice that is dated less than a week before it arrived, our post is very unreliable.......
maybe the Royal mail in london is ineffective but that is a different issue........
Aww diddums.
They screw up the employers business, then want the employer to give them OVERTIME to put it right?
Damn right they should be discriminated against. Though banning access to the union isnt right, and I thought it was illegal?
Oh, and Toadborg, for the last three months weve only been getting what appears to be two deliveries a week- all our mail drops on our doormat at the same time twice a week. Convenient eh?
Though if you ask me the fat cat boss of RM (the twat who thought itd be funny to spend £10million renaming the company, only to fuind everyone hated it so they had to spend £5million turning it back) should be sacked, and have his salary put towards the horrific losses RM is suffering.
Like I said that is utterly irrelevant to the royal Mail as a whole. Maybe it is better in some places than in others but that doesn't justify critiscism of the whole national organisation.
That and the post service in London is rubbish.
So after the OFFICIAL and perfectly LEGAL strikes, you think that they should be discriminated against. I personally think thats unfair-people take industrial action, so therefore are discriminated against. Makes no sense to me, if its legal (which it was).
And yes, they shouldnt have banned access to the union, I think it is illegal.
I dont think they should be discriminated against per se, but if you complain about your working conditions or your pay then I think it is perfectly reasonable for the employer to decide that if you dont like whats on the table then you wont want to do any more work at these "disgusting" rates of pay or in those "terrible" conditions.
After all, if theyre so bad why would you want to do overtime?
Yes, but they should still have the choice whether to do overtime or not. Saying "Well, you can't do any overtime because you went on strike" is just as bad as saying "Your black, you can't do overtime when the white workers can."
Why is it?
You can help going on strike, you can help demanding a wage increase of twice the rate of inflation, you can help being a militant unionist.
You cant help being black.
So why are they the same?
I maintain that if these people dont want to do the job on the money offered, theres plenty of otehr people who would.
You have the choice to be part of a Trade Union, and why should workers who do choose to be part of one get treated differently to those who dont?
Why should the employee have a choice, but not the employer?
Should the employer have the choice to allow some people overtime and others not? I dont think so.
Why not?
Provided that the decision isn't based on sexual/political discrimination then I cannot see a problem with it.
As an employer I know that there are some people whose "output" is greater than others, therefore I will offer these people overtime first because I know that I will get more for my money.
In terms of this example, you have a group of employees who have show a predeliction towards not working. So, if their employer wants a high level of "output" from overtime then who is he going to want to do it - a group who will down tools, or a group who have shown him some loyalty and worked through?
Right, so the employer has to spend their OWN MONEY on people, and theyre not allowed to have ANY SAY in it?
The strikers have shown how little regard they have for their job. Why should the employer reward their disloyalty with extra work, to repair the backlog that they created anyway?
But thats not even the point.
My girlfriend used to work for Tesco, and she did some overtime, which was convenient for the store. The store rewarded her with the best pick of times, because she had worked when they couldnt find anyone else. Are you saying that this is wrong, that hard work and deication should mean nothing in the workplace?
Thats the trouble with socialists. Theyre all for "equality", but only when it means that they can line their own pockets without doing any work.
It is political discrimination though, poractically.
There is no evidence that these people are actually less productive workers, whne they are working.....
But they key thing is when they are working. If you are on strike you are not working, and damaging your employers business.
Yes, the original strikes were legal, and Im sure in 10% of cases its justified, but I fail to see why the employer should REWARD the strikers for ruining his business by giving them extra work. If you dont turn up for work FOR ANY REASON then I really dont think that you should be offered overtime.
But the decision should ultimately rest with the employers.
Employers and employees must work together, it cannot be a case where the employer has all the power, they need the workers and the workers need them....
How so?
Is a strike a political decision then?