Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Postal strike: Could it kill the Royal mail? (ConDem plan sell off)

Actually, it appears that running trials was part of the 2007 agreement between the CWU and RM.
Haven't they reneged on much of that agreement though? Did they ever run trials, or are there any trials planned in the near future?

Can't see them doing it when it allows them to make posties' jobs ever more impossible and get a credulous media to blame the unions for it.
 
They've ran some trials and totally cocked up the implementation of it according to posties, with it needing more time to perform tasks, massive misorting leading to double sorting and so on etc Obviously they were never going to implement it on the basis agreed with the CWU, choosing instead to undermine their own case for 'modernisation' by keeping total control of the process in their hands alone. (not to mention buying the crappsest cheapest machinery from what i've been told).
 
Yes, it may well destroy the Post Office. This appears to be in line with the long-term plans of Nu-Labour. They've sold off all the profitable bits of the business and casualised the workforce. That is what the dispute is about. Writing to Mandelson will do fuck all, apart from let them know that it's working.

exactly - its not the stike thatll kill royal mail - royal mail is already walking wounded. The only thing that can save it is a sympathetic state. Best Labour can do is make it a zombie, whist the Torys will drive a stake right through it and privatise the lot.

The more I think about it the more I think this could be Miners Strike II - the strike before the bitter end. Lets hope they go down fighting and with public support. Lets hope Im wrong.
 
Letters are not history, far from it.

I send anything between twenty and sixty a week. It depends how many days I list. there a lot of buyers and sellers of stamps out there, and our transactions are generally in the form of a standard DL envelope. Envelope, stamps and stiffener, under 20g, so 56p to Europe, 91p everywhere else.

<snip>

On checking I've sent 38 letters this month so far, so say 120 x 73.5p on average x 12 = £1058 for the year. OK, not a fortune, but multiply me by a few hundreds, and you are getting into serious money.

No, I stand by my statement, letters will be history..

Sas you happen to be dealing in something that fits in a letter, that is quite unusual. Most ebay sellers are sending small parcels the sort of which UPS and FedEx are very good at.

Add to that we do not send letters nearly as much as we used to, I think I saw a stat that the letters handled by Royal Mail fell by 10%+ in each of the last two years. We are using email, text, skype, increasingly, why send a letter when you can send an email which will be there faster, and cost you NOTHING!
 
No, I stand by my statement, letters will be history..

Sas you happen to be dealing in something that fits in a letter, that is quite unusual. Most ebay sellers are sending small parcels the sort of which UPS and FedEx are very good at.

Add to that we do not send letters nearly as much as we used to, I think I saw a stat that the letters handled by Royal Mail fell by 10%+ in each of the last two years. We are using email, text, skype, increasingly, why send a letter when you can send an email which will be there faster, and cost you NOTHING!
Did you read teuchter's link?

People don’t send so many letters any more, it’s true. But, then again, the average person never did send all that many letters. They sent Christmas cards and birthday cards and postcards. They still do. And bills and bank statements and official letters from the council or the Inland Revenue still arrive by post; plus there’s all the new traffic generated by the internet: books and CDs from Amazon, packages from eBay, DVDs and games from LoveFilm, clothes and gifts and other items purchased at any one of the countless online stores which clutter the internet, bought at any time of the day or night, on a whim, with a credit card.

According to Royal Mail figures published in May, mail volume declined by 5.5 per cent over the preceding 12 months, and is predicted to fall by a further 10 per cent this year ‘due to the recession and the continuing growth of electronic communications such as email’. Every postman knows these figures are false.

...

The truth is that the figures aren’t down at all. We have proof of this. The Royal Mail have been fiddling the figures. This is how it is being done.

Mail is delivered to the offices in grey boxes. These are a standard size, big enough to carry a few hundred letters. The mail is sorted from these boxes, put into pigeon-holes representing the separate walks, and from there carried over to the frames. This is what is called ‘internal sorting’ and it is the job of the full-timers, who come into work early to do it. In the past, the volume of mail was estimated by weighing the boxes. These days it is done by averages. There is an estimate for the number of letters that each box contains, decided on by national agreement between the management and the union. That number is 208. This is how the volume of mail passing through each office is worked out: 208 letters per box times the number of boxes. However, within the last year Royal Mail has arbitrarily, and without consultation, reduced the estimate for the number of letters in each box. It was 208: now they say it is 150. This arbitrary reduction more than accounts for the 10 per cent reduction that the Royal Mail claims is happening nationwide.

Doubting the accuracy of these numbers, the union ordered a random manual count to be undertaken over a two-week period in a number of offices across the region. Our office was one of them. On average, those boxes which the Royal Mail claims contain only 150 letters, actually carry 267 items of mail. This, then, explains how the Royal Mail can say that the figures are down, although every postman knows that volume is up. The figures are down all right, but only because they have been manipulated.
 
Why would a private Royal mail be such a bad thing?

Why does it have to be nationalised?
Same arguments as Monbiot puts forward in this article about magazine and newspaper distribution. You cannot allow such critical services to be subject to competition, or those who live in remote areas will not have affordable access to them.

RM's so-called competitors can poach the profitable business without any obligation to deliver stuff they don't find cost-effective.

Try reading the article teuchter posted - it's all in there, very clearly explained.
 
I posted this link

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n18/maya01_.html

Which is the best account of the strikers' point of view I've seen.

This letter in the Guardian offers another insight.

Why have I become a Mail Militant? Consider the fact that delivery office managers (DOMs) will get £8,000 each for making improvements in their offices. Section managers, however, only receive £2,000 each. The postmen who have been "encouraged" to help make things work will receive £0. As an added thank-you we will not be receiving a pay rise – a kind of "stick and stick approach", as they can't afford carrots. In addition the chairman is to have £145,000 paid to top up his pension fund at a time when there is insufficient money available from the huge recently announced profits to alleviate the Royal Mail pension fund that is allegedly a little short. Obviously the £2m bonus he got in the past was insufficient.
 
They've been dismantling it for years and won't let up until it's privatised like the Tory cunts they are.
They WANT to see it fail. They want maximum agitation. Until people get that pissed off they welcome privatisation. Then it's gone for good.


This is more or less true. It's win-win for the privatisers, either the workforce capitulate or they don't and they can be blamed for it.
 
The more I think about it the more I think this could be Miners Strike II - the strike before the bitter end. Lets hope they go down fighting and with public support.

If anyone saw the Newsnight feature last night, breaking the story that The Management are going to bust the unions a la Maggie and the Miners, and that they have government support on this issue.

You can see it here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8310618.stm

Mandelson was pissed off he didnt get his part-privatisation through, so now the government are prepared to bring the service to its knees.

Unfortunately it really is shaping up to be Miners Strike II - The Unions Strike Back. I fear Peter "Death Star" Mandelsson will kill Royal Mail as we know it.
 
Let's just take a moment to list the services which have been improved and are cheaper since privatisation, or PFI implementation, then reflect on how this list will reflect on service provided by Royal Mail once it is broken up and privatised.


...












...

















....











...








Anyone?
 
Why would a private Royal mail be such a bad thing?

Why does it have to be nationalised?

i) its already ours, it doesnt have to be nationalized;
ii) even a casual look the recent history of privatization in the UK would strongly suggest that a privatized RM would not be cheaper for consumers / business users (who would almost certainly see a worse service), would see the public purse get a bad deal both in terms of the up-front cost and the demands from the "private" firm for subsidy for essential services (of course, the board members, civil servants and politicos responsible for the privatization inevitably get a rather better deal), and would see lots of low-level workers sacked - further burdening the benefits system and increasing the cost to the taxpayer (whose Mail service it was in the first place).
 
Do you not think that the Royal Mail could compete well with UPS and FedEx.. for Uk deliveries.

Ok they are not multinational like UPS and FedEx but for UK deliveries they surely would have the best service.
 
You can't have 'competition' between them as long as one organisational has a universal service obligation and the others don't.
 
You can't have 'competition' between them as long as one organisational has a universal service obligation and the others don't.

What do you mean "can't" they already compete..

When you have a packet or parcel to send you can use RM, UPS, FedEx Tuffnells etc .. they already do compete.

If you are referring only to letters then yes there is an issue but I am sure it is not beyond the wit of man to arrange that letter postage remains with RM and remains a universal service.
 
The money made off packets and parcels is used to pay for the univeral delivery service. If that sector was fully sold off it would necessitate cut-backs and a further undermining of that USO, the thing that most people actually rely on and wish to maintain. The alternative carriers have no interest in buying that side of the business - they're only interested in high volume packages (DHL for example only contract with people delivering at least 100 packages over a min weight weekly) that bring in the large profits. The USO side will be left to rot even further and it'll be those least able to afford alternative carriers that will pay the price.
 
I don't really care if the primary shareholder is the government or private individuals but the Royal Mail should be a thriving business competing with the likes of UPS, FedEx, DHL etc .. why is the Royal mail not openning outlets across the globe like UPS, FedEx, DHL are?

There is obviously something wrong because there is threatenned strikes, it is certainly true therefore that Royal mail is a long way from the kind of business that it could be.
 
What do you mean "can't" they already compete..

When you have a packet or parcel to send you can use RM, UPS, FedEx Tuffnells etc .. they already do compete.

If you are referring only to letters then yes there is an issue but I am sure it is not beyond the wit of man to arrange that letter postage remains with RM and remains a universal service.

So you mean going back to the situation of a few years ago where RM has a monopoly on letters but you can use couriers to send parcels?
 
So you mean going back to the situation of a few years ago where RM has a monopoly on letters but you can use couriers to send parcels?

If it has been determined that universally delivered letters are not viable commercially then I don't have a problem with RM having that as a monopoly.

Parcels should be competitive yes ..
 
What's that got to do with my post? I made a specific point about the importance of the speedily growing packages and parcels market being needed to be kept within RM to subsidise the USO and you respond with a generalised moan that the Royal Mail (£321 million in profit last year so it's hardly going down the pan despite that narrative being pushed aggressively by the managers and pro-privatisation types) isn''t being run as you like - without addressing anything else - and worse reeking of pretend neutrality (i just wasnt a good service type bollocks).
 
If it has been determined that universally delivered letters are not viable commercially then I don't have a problem with RM having that as a monopoly.

Parcels should be competitive yes ..
With a corrective to allow for RM's universal service obligations, of course. It isn't a fair fight otherwise. Royal Mail is a service, primarily, not a business. That's where all this falls down. Providing an essential service simply isn't amenable to capitalist competition.
 
The money made off packets and parcels is used to pay for the univeral delivery service. If that sector was fully sold off it would necessitate cut-backs and a further undermining of that USO, the thing that most people actually rely on and wish to maintain. The alternative carriers have no interest in buying that side of the business - they're only interested in high volume packages (DHL for example only contract with people delivering at least 100 packages over a min weight weekly) that bring in the large profits. The USO side will be left to rot even further and it'll be those least able to afford alternative carriers that will pay the price.

I am not suggesting selling off packets and parcels.

I know private carriers are interested in volume packets, we used to use them when I was working in a business that shipped products.

What's that got to do with my post? I made a specific point about the importance of the speedily growing packages and parcels market being needed to be kept within RM to subsidise the USO and you respond with a generalised moan that the Royal Mail (£321 million in profit last year so it's hardly going down the pan despite that narrative being pushed aggressively by the managers and pro-privatisation types) isn''t being run as you like - without addressing anything else - and worse reeking of pretend neutrality (i just wasnt a good service type bollocks).

The post you mentioned was not aimed at your post.

Why is it that the private carriers, FedEx, UPS, DHL etc are all expanding out around the globe for packets and parcels and the Royal Mail is not? that was my question.

When we used to ship volume packets and parcels the private carriers were all competing for our business. To my knowledge Royal Mail was not.
 
With a corrective to allow for RM's universal service obligations, of course. It isn't a fair fight otherwise. Royal Mail is a service, primarily, not a business. That's where all this falls down. Providing an essential service simply isn't amenable to capitalist competition.

I don't have a problem with any of that. Except yes perhaps I do, it needs to operate efficiently and effectively where letters and packets are concerned so I don't see the problem with commercial discipline.

Also I think Royal Mail should be encouraged to keep more of its Post Offices open as they are a service to the community.

Was there not planned to be an announcement about some new banking services run from Post Offices. I could have sworn there was supposed to be something going on there ..
 
£150 million profit on parcels, the majority from expanding into european delivery businesses - that is rises in profits of 9% and 50% in the two involved sections of RM - sound pretty competitive. And all of that profit should be going to underwriting and expanding the USO not anywhere else.
 
When we used to ship volume packets and parcels the private carriers were all competing for our business. To my knowledge Royal Mail was not.
If there are lots of private carriers willing to do it, why should the Royal Mail compete for the business? Why not leave the Royal Mail to its core universal service obligation?

Given that parts of its service are necessarily subsidising other parts, and that it is right that such a service should be as cheap as possible, I would argue that there is something badly wrong if RM is making large profits. Its aim should be, at most, to break even.
 
Why is it that the private carriers, FedEx, UPS, DHL etc are all expanding out around the globe for packets and parcels and the Royal Mail is not? that was my question.

When we used to ship volume packets and parcels the private carriers were all competing for our business. To my knowledge Royal Mail was not.

Because the Royal Mail isnt allowed to? Look at the BBC, they tried to expand like that with Worldwide and - despite it making money fairly - the likes of Bradshaw and Vaizey went after them for it (at Rupert's behest, of course).
 
Back
Top Bottom