Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to be getting a leeeetle bit hacked off with the postal strike...

314 replies

AtheneNoctua · 27/10/2009 11:34

Today I have to take a 2 hour lunch to sort out a Halloween costume because I can't rely on the mail to deliver one if I order it online. That is 2 hours of my work which I will have to make up if I want to be paid for it.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8327158.stm

I selfishly hope they hire the contract workers.

What about the public who relies on this service? Where is our compensation?

I will add I don't know the details of the reasons for the strike (because they aren't reported and not because I haven't looked). So I don't have an opinion on whether the strike is justified.

But I am starting to feel they have made their bloody point and I want my mail service back.

OP posts:
TheDevilEatsBabies · 27/10/2009 16:27

you're right schroeder: when i worked at the courts, the majority of normal workers were on a pitance compared with similar jobs in the private sector.
it appears to be the higher up jobs that get the money and the normal joe bod on the shop floor gets the sweepings and trampled on at the same time.

notanumber · 27/10/2009 16:30

Out of interest, DevilEatsBabies, you claim that "...the BBC is havinga field day telling the whole story from one side: i have yet to see a single article on the (supposed to be unbiased) BBC to support the posties: it all supports the bosses. that's not impartial and unbiased reporting, that's gossip-mongering."

Why must we take it on faith that the BBC (a huge and, yes, supposedly unbiased company)are not giving us the full facts and their reportage of the strike is "gosip-mongering", yet Roy Mayall (a Royal Mail employee of whom I never heard) is unbiased and giving us all the information straight?

Why do you think that the BBC is not reporting the situation fairly or in an unbiased way? Genuine question.

TheDevilEatsBabies · 27/10/2009 16:33

they're reporting it from only one side, that's why.

not because their opinions are wrong, or even out of kilter, but that they are ignoring the other side of the argument.

they're not there to give their opinion, they're there to report the news from both sides.

notanumber · 27/10/2009 16:40

"...they're not there to give their opinion, they're there to report the news from both sides."

Indeed. Their entire reputation and credibility is built upon this premise.

So what is their reason, do you think, for blowing this now, making us all lose faith in their impartiality and judgement?

The layman would be forgiven for assuming that the BBC is simply reporting the situation as it is, and if the arguments seem to be far stronger on the side of the bosses than on the postmen and women, well perhaps that is because they are.

You seem to be implying that there is some sort of conspiracy at work here, with no-one prepared to tell the truth.

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'd just like a clearer explanation from you as to why you think this is happening.

TheDevilEatsBabies · 27/10/2009 16:49

no, i don't think there's a conspiracy

i just know that i haven't heard them make much mention of what the strike is about.

each bulletin and news programme that has a piece on it says the strike is spelling the end of RM etc.

let's put it this way, my dad didn't know what the strike was about and it's nigh on impossible for him not to know the ins and outs of such a situation.
it's almost like knowing the full story is his raison d'etre.

and he spends most of his life glued to the news, so if it had been reported without bias, he would know both sides.

southeastastra · 27/10/2009 16:56

still no answer from the talks have to wait until tomorrow now! argh

dp would be able to put all the points across very well but he's not home until 9.30pm (yes how cushty all those unsociable hours and government have been nicking their pension)

ImSoNotTelling · 27/10/2009 17:01

"There seems to be a widespread misconception in this country- that is that public sector workers make more money than private sector workers in similar jobs!"

It depends on the sector/job obviously. And some jobs don't really have private sector equivalent eg police.

But IME, jobs I have had, my DHs job, friends in public sector, they all earn more than they would in equivalent private sector jobs, by some considerable margin. That's not a misconception, it's my view based on my experience.

tethersend · 27/10/2009 17:11

The point of a strike is surely to cause disruption and stimulate exactly this kind of discussion?

As far as those who say they have 'no sympathy' for the striking postmen, I assume they had your full support and 'sympathy' when they were delivering the post to your door, sometimes after completing 2 or 3 people's rounds as well as their own, all for no extra pay? Of course not, most people didn't even notice them.

Most people only notice a service when it is withdrawn; this makes strike action a highly effective means of highlighting issues. And it is action that is not taken lightly. Hardly any postal worker can afford to lose pay for striking, yet the majority of union members voted for action- this should give you an idea of how bad conditions are.

They're not on holiday FFS.

TheDevilEatsBabies · 27/10/2009 17:24

imsonottelling: i think that's the problem, isn't it?
that there are so many different depts and jobs that it's a complete sweeping generalization at best. my own experience is that I was paid craply compared with the private sector job i got afterwards. more pay for an easier job. and the bureaucracy in the public sector!! had to ask permission to breathe!

well said tethersend

ImSoNotTelling · 27/10/2009 17:27

But unless we are told what the royal mail workers want, why they are striking, what their current T&C are etc, we will not know whether they have a fair point or not.

schroeder · 27/10/2009 17:33

It used to be the case 20 or 30 years ago that some jobs in public sector were better paid, but the introduction of minimum wage and the effective reduction in public sector pay through smaller and smaller pay rises have reversed this.

Anyway this is digressing rather isn't it?

What I was trying to say is it's wrong to assume that postal workers are striking for trivial reasons. Why on earth would they do this? when they personally will lose money and some people's respect too if mumsnet is at all representative(which it probably isn't)

Original poster
AtheneNoctua · 27/10/2009 17:35

I was actually under the impression that public sector workers tend to have better Ts & Cs but not salaraies. For example NHS nurses I believe are not highly paid, but do get some cushy maternity leave. I could be wrong about this, so please correct me if I am. But that's my impression.

So, what are the current and proposed pension arrangement for postal workers? Does RM match your contribution? Top it up a bit more?

Workers who are paid hourly should expect to to work when they are being paid, and should expect to be paid when they have been asked to work. However, salaried staff employees are often paid to do a job, and often work late without pay. If I have a presentation due in the morning I will stay late to finish it and I would never dream of asking for overtime to do so (though I wouldn't turn it down if it was offered).

OP posts:
Original poster
AtheneNoctua · 27/10/2009 17:38

"What I was trying to say is it's wrong to assume that postal workers are striking for trivial reasons. Why on earth would they do this? when they personally will lose money and some people's respect too if mumsnet is at all representative(which it probably isn't)"

Because, as was noted earlier, the union requires them to strike if they are a member. I find this a bit shocking to be honest. So, when you join the union you give up the right to think for yourself????? Yikes!

OP posts:
ImSoNotTelling · 27/10/2009 17:47

It's democratic I guess athene, if the majority vote to strike then they all strike. Which seems fair enough to me TBH.

I think the point with the salaries, as I explained with my DH, is that sometimes people are under the impression that they are getting a bad deal /being pushed into accepting a bad deal when in fact it is fairly standard elsewhere. The pensions being a case in point. So it is relevant IMO.

tethersend · 27/10/2009 17:49

Athene, that is what a strike ballot is for- the actions of the union represent its members.

If you had to stay late to prepare for a presentation every night, I'm sure you would raise the issue with your boss.

Just because you receive a salary does not mean you forfeit all of your rights. Would it then be ok for your working hours to be doubled just because you receive a salary?

tethersend · 27/10/2009 17:50

x post Imsonottelling

Original poster
AtheneNoctua · 27/10/2009 17:58

Of course not. If I worked say an extra 5 hours a day and never got any thanks for it (bonus, raise, promotion) I would begin to resent my employer. In fact, this is exactly why I left my last job. But if I had to work on extra hour or two say once a week, I would swallow it. In fact, I do work a few non-contracted hours every week. It's okay. I like my job. And I'm so bloody happy I don't work where I used to work. So a couple of hours here and there is ok.

Again, I think what determines the unreasonableness is if RM terms are in line with other companies terms. And not if they are in line with what they used to be. Since I still don't know how things used to be, you things are, or what the RM plan is, I can't say whether I think the strike is an appropriate respose.

OP posts:
pointyhat · 27/10/2009 18:04

there was a very good article on another thread about reasons for the strike.

Agree that the union should work at making it far clearer what is going on and why.

fluffles · 27/10/2009 18:14

i think i saw a programme like watchdog or similar go out on a round with a postie to try to match the speed the managers said it should be done at and it was ridiculous... no account taken for stairs or doorbells (all the flats in edinburgh used to be open access and now have security doors so posties have to buzz and wait to be let in) and also they said there was no way they had time to buzz with parcels. and even feeding fatter or larger post through doors was too time consuming.

they were supposed to hit something like 4mph up and down the streets which i can do powerwalking but not with a big bag and going up and down driveways etc.

someone should repeat that report. it really brought home the reality of the job.

southeastastra · 27/10/2009 18:20

they should, thank the lord dp isn't on deliveries anymore. he used to get up at 4 then go to bed at 8 no fun. he also completely did his back in and it still gives him trouble.

ilovemydogandmrobama · 27/10/2009 18:28

Athene, it's collective responsibility.

Think you will find that it also applies to other aspects of society. The Cabinet, for instance, irrespective of political party.

EdgarAllenPoo · 27/10/2009 18:29

it's about human people having to put with shit conditions that in most sectors had been abolished in the Victorian mills.

so, it isn't normal for employers to demand a certain level of performance from staff?
(a loaded question: I know that it is normal)

hiring temps is not 'scab labour' what a distasteful phrase!

let me put it this way: there are plenty of people out there working long hours, doing jobs involving heavy lifting and getting paid less than postal workers. (shop and factory workers being the main case in point!). Some of these people also make money selling on ebay - and will be very pissed off to find that another bunch of workers that have relatively good working conditions in comparison to them are refusing to deliver said Ebaying parcels, thus cutting off an additional source of income.

EdgarAllenPoo · 27/10/2009 18:31

i might add, i have been talking to many small businesses positively crippled by this

ilovemydogandmrobama · 27/10/2009 18:32

It's illegal to replace striking employees.

southeastastra · 27/10/2009 18:33

dp also sells to ebay to supplement his royal mail pay