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

[AtheneNoctua]

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.

It's causing me no end of bloody grief! having recently moved out to Australia, I got all my post redirected to my Dad's house to save on costs (it's v. expensive to send it abroad) and have since required some of it to be sent on to me. Of course, it can't be can it! BEcause of the frigging strikes. So I am having it scanned and emailed to me, and some of it is forms that need completing and returning and I don't even know whether printed-out scanned emailed copies will be acceptable, but what else can you do?

Th Govt should never have pissed the service up like they have. Makes me v. cross.

TheLioness - "I haven't once asked for sympathy. All I've done is ask people to realise what will be lost if privatise Royal Mail."

Which is asking for sympathy for your position, no? You're saying that the strike is justified because you're very anti-privatisation, and you want us to understand your point and agree with it.

"Personally, I think the CWU are crazy in expecting the government to stump up any money to help the pensions cock up, when the country has never been in so much debt."

Yes. So it is little wonder that there is little public support for the strike. It's not going to achieve anything.

If the government won't make up the deficit, then the only place the money can come from is privatisation. Unless all the staff are prepared to just swallow losing their pensions of course.

A rock and a hard place I agree, but it's simple maths. Royal Mail is privatised or the workers lose their pensions.

"However, many postman/women are not striking because of the pension, they are striking because of the bullying and harassment by management surrounding the working for no pay issue."

Then they need to say this and not allow the CWU to misrepresent their views as being about the pension issue when it's about something else entirely.

Hope no one on this thread lives in or wants ever to send a letter/card to somewhere as outlandish as the Shetlands, Orkney, Anglesey, Isle of Man, etc. Cos sure as hell, it won't be profitable for any nice new privatised mail service to collect or deliver post to any of these places without charging a fortune for it.

That 'whoosh' noise you hear is the concept of a 'public service' passing by you on its way to permanent doom.

"That 'whoosh' noise you hear is the concept of a 'public service' passing by you on its way to permanent doom."

But that's immaterial now surely, PrincessFiorimonde?

Whether or not privatisation is a desirable state of affairs, that is the only possible option now.

If the government won't make up the deficit then Royal Mail will have to be privatised or the workers lose their pensions.

Nail on the head Princess - but many people won't realise the effects until it's too late.

The CWU are crap at PR, always have been notanumber.

And no, not asking for sympathy. Just want people to recognise what it is they are going to lose.

And I'm not a strike supporter, I voted No. Like I said earlier, they are a waste of time. I was just trying to explain why 61,000 voted yes and only 19,000 voted No, and to explin that to the people on the ground, this is a lot more than pensions.

"...many people won't realise the effects until it's too late."

I have no doubt that you're correct about this TheLioness.

But strike or no strike, it is going to happen. I'm not sure what good it does hectoring the public about how terrible the future is going to be.

You say you "just want people to recognise what it is they are going to lose". Why? What good does that do? And to be honest, most people are relatively happy with the service they receive for the price they pay - it is already recognised. It's the ruddy strike that's winding people up, not the service itself.

I do understand that you're not a strike supporter. Are you happy with the way that CWU have represented your views? Genuine question.

notanumber, no I don't think it's immaterial, as I don't think privatisation is 'the only possible option'. I do agree that privatisation seems very likely, though.

If Royal Mail is privatised, a few years hence people will be posting here sighing nostalgically 'Do you remember when you could send a card to your Mum in Wales and it only cost...?'

Am not saying that everything should be in public ownership, but I do think that some services should be regarded as just that - SERVICES.

Royal Mail made a profit of £300+ last year (I think). Good. Plough this money back into the business, pay workers more (apart from A. Crozier earning £3 mn, the dozy git), service the gap in pensions or whatever.

The point is that mail delivery is a SERVICE, and we will miss it if/when it stops being such.

'Royal Mail made a profit of £300+ last year (I think).'

That's £300mn, obviously.

YANBU op,our postie is lovely & doesnt want to strike,he was telling me last week that its mainly the older ones & they have to go along with them.

He also told me that they havent paid into their pension for 17 years!!!

Why does RM need to be a "SERVICE"? It is my belief that the government's role is provide those things which can not be provided by private industry -- or cannot be provided as well. Things like the armed forces, education, and a legal system fit into this category for me.

The only point I've seen on here (though granted I may have skimmed over some) is that post won't go to places like the outer hebrides for the same price as it takes to send it to the other side of London.

1- Perhaps that is fair? I don't expect to fly to Athens for the same price as flying to Aberdeen from London. Perhaps Post sent further and to remote places should cost more?

2- If you do not accept 1 above, I see no reason why a contract cannot be issued which requires the private mail company to delivery anywhere in the UK for one flat price.

YABU. In fact, YABVU.

I absolutely support the posties right to strike and I think they're striking about extremely important issues (terms and conditions, pensions). There's another thread here which has a link to a good and now notorious article by a postie about the reality of the situation from a postie's point of view.

As a trade union supporter and member, it really scares me how little people seem to understand the spirit of solidarity or collective social action these days.

Thatcher really did do a job of not just smashing the unions in this country but ushering in a whole generation who are more interested in the individual (eg. how annoying that these people are inconveniencing me and my internet shopping) rather than being able to think beyond their own immediate needs and concerns to think about other people

Thank god that

It would be dreadful if people living in more remote parts of the UK had to pay more for internet shopping and delivery of letters and parcels - these are generally much poorer parts of the UK.

This would change rural communities for ever -it would make an enormous difference.

I am confused about the pension thing. If the vast majority of postal workers are on money purchase/stakeholder pensions, how can there be a pension defecit. It doens't make sense.

The only way there can be a defecit is if postal workers have been promised a guaranteed pension at retirement and the company hasn't invested wisely, put enough aside, understood fully how much their liability would be etc.

The pension defecit only makes sense in the context of guaranteed pensions.

Someone earlier in the thread asked why people aren't interested in facts - I still do not see that we have had that many - they are all being presented in RM "lingo" which other people can't understand or don't seem to be problems. eg why shouldn't they get machines to sort the post automatically rather than manually? It is the 21st century. I assume because it will lead to job losses - well that's the nature of things. Technologies move on, human positions become redundant. I don't see how on the one hand the RM are saying that they aren't paid enough/properly/have to do unpaid overtime but at the same time are turning their noses up at technology which would free up money?

Don't know if anyone mentionned this, but because of the way the postal services and po counters have been contracted and run, the government in the 1980's could basically withdraw mahoosive amounts of profit from the post office and use it to do other stuff like give out tax cuts...so it would have been more profitable/modernised if it hadn't repeatedly been used as a cash cow (BTW, I have only a postal worker as reference to this...no documentary evidence)

Also the private "competition" isn't exactly fair as the private companies do not have a legal obligation to deliver to every address in the country and so only stick to the profitable runs (rather like the privatisation of a lot of bus companies, where no-one will provide public transport for out of the way places very easily now)

Also look at the affect losing the GPO counters and local offices has had on many communities esp for older people.

I think they have a valid point with their strike - who wants to give up wages at this time of year, they must be REALLY desperate to try and make sure these negotiations get things right for both the customers and the workers?

Clearly the press are doing their usual bad job of actually REPORTING the facts, so we the public can make an informed judgement, and just running around asking people if they've found the strike a PITA. But isn't that the whole point of strikes? They're inconvenient so people start to listen???

bb99 I think most people would not be keen on a privatised service for the reasons you've stated. That's a different issue though I think - the RM workers are striking about their pay, pensions (or not?) and conditions of employment, they are not striking out of the kindness of their hearts because they're worried about an old granny in the middle of nowhere getting her letters. They are striking to try to protect their own interests.

wrt remote locales; I have lived in a town that did not have a post office or postal delivery to the door. We all had a box at the post office in the next town over and we went to pick up our mail when we went to do the shopping etc (the grocery store was in that town as well).

This was not a well-off town, but we did just fine and going to the post office was a good opportunity to gossip socialise. I don't get this idea that civilisation will come to and end without door-to-door post.

As far as it costing more to get things there, yes, everything costs more in a remote location - food, goods, etc. Right now there is a flat rate for posted goods which is unsustainable. Even if we could wave a magic wand and resolve all the postie's concerns, fuel prices and availability are such that the postal rates will likely be tiered at some time in the near future - especially if the govt wants them to meet carbon targets.

What i want to know is is RM employee's went straight to strike or if the did the "work to rule" thing first.

DH works for a factory that has Unions, several times there have been ballots for strike action but its never gone that far.

Work to Rule, for those of you who dont know, is working to the letter of your contract, no more, no less.. so all those doing hours they're not being paid for wouldnt do it anymore.

To clarify - obviously many postal workers do care about the service levels and old ladies and so on. I mean that this strike is about terms and conditions and pay though.

Laurie - this already happens. We are charged extra re postcodes being north of Perth and are classified as being in the Highlands and Islands. Poor show when you realise that this covers the bulk of Scotland.

So, if they did not "work to rule", does that mean the strike is not legal? And if it is not, does that mean RM can hire all contract workers to do their jobs (in addition to the contract workers they are now hiring to do other jobs)?

And I would also like to remind everyone I have not said anything about the posties being in the wrong here. I have said I'm fed up with the strike... but not a word about shoe fault I think it is. It all hinges on why they have walked out. And I still don't know enough of the details to guage an opinion on the matter.

blimey, it did kick off when i left didn't it!

"By notanumber Tue 27-Oct-09 20:13:30
Add message | Report | Contact poster

Is the upshot that there is more mail to deliver? I'd guess that depends on how much they had to start with. It is reasonable to me that if they were finishing a shift early previously when they had less mail, that they should just accept that they have to meet the upsurge in quantity as this is what they are paid for. If there is now far too much mail for a postman or woman to deliver in their shift, then they are quite right to demand that the rounds are split or that they are paid overtime."

that's kind of one of the points of the dispute. they're being told that there isn't any call for overtime because the numbers are dropping off. if the boss doesn't believe overtime is required it won't get authorized and they'll end up working it for nothing anyway.

"2. "They have timed the runs innacurately - it is not humanely possible to deliver in that time - so it means posties who started at 5am and finished at 12 are now working till 4-5pm. They are not being paid for this."

Clearly this is unacceptable. If the postmen and women are working until 4pm then they should be paid until then. What happens if they do not complete their round? Would it be possible for them to work for their contracted hours and then return the undelivered mail to the sorting office? "

their contracted hours are 6-2 mon-fri and 6-1 sat. (with a day off per week on top of sunday) they have to advise the DO in advance if they're not going to finish in time but it's the DO's discretion as to whether the OT is sanctioned. if not, they have to finish the round on their own time.
and they have to finish the round regardless, even if the OT is offered. so you've got, say, a mum who needs to finish at 2 on the dot to collect DD from nursery or school, but her round isn't finished in time. she still has to finish it or pass it to someone else to finish. the someone elsse finishes it on OT, which they're trying to stop because they don't think the mail volume is enough to justify it. so mum has to work that extra time and pay extra for childcare and keep shut because they'll pull her up for not doing her work at the requested rate (even though she's got more than is possible to finish in the time)

1. "the pension. Underfunded and fucked."

Final salary schemes are insupportably expensive and almost no-one in the private sector has them. It seems very unreasonable to me for the unions to be demanding that these are retained as opposed to a stakeholder pension (if that is indeed the issue) when it is clearly financially
impossible and will only bring them into line with the vast majority of the rest of the country.
replied by By ImSoNotTelling Wed 28-Oct-09 09:33:40
Add message | Report | Contact poster

I am confused about the pension thing. If the vast majority of postal workers are on money purchase/stakeholder pensions, how can there be a pension deficit. It doens't make sense.

Or because the government underestimated that they might just need the money and pissed it away on other sectors of the government (and no, I don?t have all the details, I?m not a fucking encyclopaedia of where the government has screwed up over and over again (and not just the current one either because apparently they only ?inherited? the problems and can?t do anything else except make it worse )

Quote:
?By bb99 Wed 28-Oct-09 09:45:29
Add message | Report | Contact poster

Don't know if anyone mentionned this, but because of the way the postal services and po counters have been contracted and run, the government in the 1980's could basically withdraw mahoosive amounts of profit from the post office and use it to do other stuff like give out tax cuts...so it would have been more profitable/modernised if it hadn't repeatedly been used as a cash cow (BTW, I have only a postal worker as reference to this...no documentary evidence) ?

"By notanumber Tue 27-Oct-09 21:11:24
Add message | Report | Contact poster

That is still 10% which isn't. If the average postman has 250 letters to deliver on his round, that is 25 which don't get delivered that day. I'd be unhappy if my doctor only diagnosed 90% of her patients correctly."

250 letters?!
DP has 400 addresses on his round (long driveways and quite a way between houses) . My postie has 560 addresses. (mostly businesses and quite a few up steps and through locked doors)

Doctors probably diagnose correctly much fewer than 90%. It?s the nature of the business....

?By UnexpectedWasabi Wed 28-Oct-09 09:57:54
Add message | Report | Contact poster

What i want to know is is RM employee's went straight to strike or if the did the "work to rule" thing first.?
Problem with work to rule would mean that more people would have been complaining for a lot longer. In our DO we have posties who start at 5 instead of 6 because they know they can?t finish by 2 (and are not allowed to be paid the extra hour because they don?t ?have? to work it), they would have to weigh every box that says it contains 200 items of post but actually contains 300, and only sort those. They would only carry the 16kg (followed by 13kg) per bag/pannier, which means they?d have to come back to the office for the next bags more frequently which means they?d have even less time to finish the round. They would have to allow a postie whose day-off it is to sort their own mail when they come back, they would have to have their days off (which they are allowed overtime for at the moment and many with families can?t afford to have their days off), they would have to have the 40 minutes break they?re entitled to (20minutes by law and the other by policy) which means that they wouldn?t finish on time.
Of course, they?re bound by this as well, because if they can?t finish their round in the allotted time, they have to tell the office in advance so that it can be finished by someone else. If they?re working to rule then there is no one else to do it (because they do it on overtime) which means they?ll have to do it the next day ? on top of the new stuff for that day.
So it really isn?t as simple as saying ?work to rule then?.

I think that's me caught up

"By ImSoNotTelling Wed 28-Oct-09 09:58:58 Add message | Report | Contact poster

To clarify - obviously many postal workers do care about the service levels and old ladies and so on. I mean that this strike is about terms and conditions and pay though. "

not about pay per se: about having to do more work for the same pay.
no private sector worker would accept that.

this is why i keep saying the BBC is beign biased: they keep harping on about pay, when pay is the tiniest weeniest part of the argument. pay comes into it only because the dispute is about jobs that earn a wage.

"By AtheneNoctua Wed 28-Oct-09 10:49:56 Add message | Report | Contact poster

So, if they did not "work to rule", does that mean the strike is not legal? And if it is not, does that mean RM can hire all contract workers to do their jobs (in addition to the contract workers they are now hiring to do other jobs)?"

no, work to rule is just another bargaining tool. it's not the first stage in a dispute.

ImSoNotTelling, point was that if the money had not been harvested from the post office, then it would have been there to help modernise the post office and the strike MAY have been averted as the pay and conditions terms would/could have been more up to date or the pension fund MAY have been adequate...

The publicity around this strike (I will NOT say reporting news, as this is just NOT happening) is solely focusssed on the selfish striking postal workers and has not looked at the issues surrounding this problem. Ultimately I fear that the poor press and misrepresenting of this strike in the media WILL lead to privatised mail industry.

I would HATE to loose the right to strike if my pay and onditions were being erroded because of bad management. There was lots of support for the fire services when they used strike action to underline their ishoos with their pay and terms, maybe we just undervalue our wonderful and hardworking posties.

Workers do not give up wages lightly, esp at the moment and just before Xmas. They've got mortgages and bills to pay too.

Glad you're back, TheDevil

I am left shocked at the lack of understanding of strikes on this thread; irrespective of whether you agree with the reasons for striking or not, the strike is most certainly effective- it has inconvenienced many people and provoked discussion.