[Update] The Royal Mail strike thread - Page 2

Flyboy · 08-10-2009, 13:51

So, you support their right to vote, yet don't support when it affects you personally? How does that work then? How do you expect the exercising of that right, not to affect anyone? Surely that is the point of taking the action in the first place?

Russ · 08-10-2009, 13:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

So, you support their right to vote, yet don't support when it affects you personally? How does that work then? How do you expect the exercising of that right, not to affect anyone? Surely that is the point of taking the action in the first place?

I didn't say their action shouldn't affect anyone. But why the hell should I have to suffer and be inconvenienced by an argument which is not mine? A ban on overtime, work-to-rule, those are just some of the things they could do which won't cause trouble for Joe Public.

Flyboy · 08-10-2009, 13:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

As someone who can't strike and hold the public at ransom and use them as leverage, yet has to deal with all the crap they have to... My heart ******* bleeds.

Aah, I see.....Just because you can't do it, no one should? What a shame they didn't think of that a hundred years ago.

No one is stopping you from taking industrial action, except the lethargy of you and your colleagues, of course.

D_Skids · 08-10-2009, 13:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

No-one is saying they don;t have a valid reason for striking.

But when Joe Public gets the @rse end of their action, as far as I'm concerned they can stuff it. If they've got an issue and want to take action then fine, just don't expect one iota of sympathy from the people they're inconveniencing.

Couldn't agree more. Why should we suffer because they can't sort them selves out internally.

What about all the stuff they have lost of mine over the years and have never found it again, it must be somewhere!

Flyboy · 08-10-2009, 13:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

I didn't say their action shouldn't affect anyone. But why the hell should I have to suffer and be inconvenienced by an argument which is not mine?

Words fail me, they really do.

punky · 08-10-2009, 13:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Aah, I see.....Just because you can't do it, no one should? What a shame they didn't think of that a hundred years ago.

No one is stopping you from taking industrial action, except the lethargy of you and your colleagues, of course.

Nothing stopping me except I can't screw the people of this country over in the process. That's how it works.

Of course if they are unhappy with their job they can do what everyone else not in lucrative public sector jobs has to do - find a new one.

Flyboy · 08-10-2009, 14:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by D_Skids

Couldn't agree more. Why should we suffer because they can't sort them selves out internally.

What about all the stuff they have lost of mine over the years and have never found it again, it must be somewhere!

Because they tried to sort themselves out internally, but the management refused to compromise, what else do you think they should have done?

Surely, you can see that if the strike is successful, yo are not going to lose as much as you did before. The reasons for the strike, is the cause of you losing things in the post; antiquated working practices and poorly trained, paid and motivated staff are just a couple of reasons.

---------- Post added at 14:01 ---------- Previous post was at 13:57 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

Nothing stopping me except I can't screw the people of this country over in the process. That's how it works.

Of course if they are unhappy with their job they can do what everyone else not in lucrative public sector jobs has to do - find a new one.

As there no jobs (and this is one of the main points of the action) what do you really expect them do instead? Another one who can't see, if they all resign, who else will do the job? More poorly trained, paid and motivated staff instead? Except that their conditions will be even worse and so will the service. What's that about paying peanuts....?

Russ · 08-10-2009, 14:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Because they tried to sort themselves out internally, but the management refused to compromise, what else do you think they should have done?

Surely, you can see that if the strike is successful, yo are not going to lose as much as you did before. The reasons for the strike, is the cause of you losing things in the post; antiquated working practices and poorly trained, paid and motivated staff are just a couple of reasons.

You seem to be of the opinion that we're saying they don't have reason to be unhappy.

No-one is saying that.

But am I to have sympathy for or even support those whose action is inconveniencing me? Especially when nothing I can do can change their situation? Especially when someone like Amazon seems to have a similar view as myself and has caused them to lose money by having a major contract dropped?

I hope more companies follow suit like Amazon. Run the RM in to the ground and get other companies to offer a delivery service. Any laid off workers could apply for the new positions, they'll have the experience.

Flyboy · 08-10-2009, 14:04

But Amazon's decision has nothing to do with the current proposed industrial actions. It is to do with cost effectiveness and lack of service. What do you expect these workers to do as an alternative to industrial action?

Do you really expect a privatised service to offer better pay and conditions?

Russ · 08-10-2009, 14:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

But Amazon's decision has nothing to do with the current proposed industrial actions. It is to do with cost effectiveness and lack of service. What do you expect these workers to do as an alternative to industrial action?

Got it in one, Diane. And for the second time I have nothing against industrial action.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Do you really expect a privatised service to offer better pay and conditions?

...and a better service. Serveral companies competing for our custom, I see it like the supermarket pricing wars. They battle each other, the customer benefits.

danielf · 08-10-2009, 14:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

They battle each other, the customer benefits.

At the expense of staff and suppliers, potentially...

Osem · 08-10-2009, 14:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Company in financial trouble, workers strike for more pay, company loses more money has to make redundancies, workers strike against redundancies, company loses more money has to make more redundancies, workers strike again, company goes into liquidation, all workers laid off. Unions blame management.

You forgot to add the bit about the Tories - they're always to blame for everything remember...

Flyboy · 08-10-2009, 14:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

At the expense of staff and suppliers, potentially...

And workers.

---------- Post added at 14:18 ---------- Previous post was at 14:16 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ B

Got it in one, Diane. And for the second time I have nothing against industrial action.

Quote:

...and a better service. Serveral companies competing for our custom, I see it like the supermarket pricing wars. They battle each other, the customer benefits.

That is non-sequitor. Just because it is a privatised service does not automatically mean it will be better one.

danielf · 08-10-2009, 14:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

And workers.

Staff = workers?

Russ · 08-10-2009, 14:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

And workers.

I don't remember hearing about Tesco laying people off due to their price cuts but that's a different story.

And quite different to this one.

If the RM think they'll get public support (and they always wheel out a union rep who spouts off claiming "the public are behind us") they'll be waiting a long time for it.