Royal Mail Workers Pay Rises, Bonuses, Less Hours

[injuneer]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

You'll forgive me if I don't get excited about them getting extra money, extra maternity / paternity leave, instant bonuses and working less hours while the private sector continues to make redundancies and enact pay freezes.

You seem to contradict yourself with your second paragraph. Be happy with them, thanks to them getting what they want this time we'll probably be getting some more strikes later. Yay.

---------- Post added at 14:56 ---------- Previous post was at 14:56 ----------



No-one forced them to do it...

Perhaps I've a strange point of view here but it's one that if you're not happy about how much your job pays you go and find one that suits you more. If you are unable to then it would appear that this is all your skills are worth at this time, so either improve your skills or deal with it.

Glad I don't live in your ideal world then.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by injuneer

Glad I don't live in your ideal world then.

Actually I would regard it as the real world rather than this view of having a single job for life and if you're not happy with it strike until you get what you want so that you are happy. That to me is the 'ideal' world that certain people seem to think they are entitled to.

In the horrible real world people have to do things like accept some flexibility in times of strife, be prepared to move on if need be, react to the possibility of redundancy, etc.

That you seem to think this is somehow my 'ideal' world is, well, confusing. It's not an ideal world, it's at times a pretty harsh one, but it's the one most of the private sector live in, it's the one I've always worked in.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Spectato

Geez!
Try and be happy for them, with their tiny victory (in the big scheme of things).

Excuse me if I find it hard to be happy for them when their success in this gives off the message that holding the general public to ransom is effective.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chris

But after the miners' strike ended, there was a steady decline in days lost to industrial action. Until Labour got in of course, and began laying the foundations for the upswing we are now seeing.

Yup.

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/strikes.pdf

Ratio of public:private sector strike rates - 1999: 1.71, 2009: 15.07

In this 10 year span public sector workers went from striking on average 1.71 times more than the private sector to striking 15.07 times more.

[cookie_365]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...militancy.html

Labour policies not only got us in the same kind of financial poop as Greece he got us the same enlarged, militant, laurel cushioned public sector as well. Hail the Socialist Republic of Brownistan

So when private sector Royal Mail workers strike it's proof of the enlarged, militant, laurel cushioned private sector? Hail the Capitalist Republic of Cameronistan?

Is that the way it works?

Erm, the Royal Mail is a public limited company owned by HMG. Link

Legal Status and Ownership details
The Government owns 100% of Royal Mail Holdings plc’s shares.The Secretary of State for BIS owns 50,004 ordinary shares plus one special share and the Treasury Solicitor holds one ordinary share.The special share relates to areas where special shareholder consent is required, including major transactions, board appointments/remuneration and borrowing.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by cookie_365

So when private sector Royal Mail workers strike it's proof of the enlarged, militant, laurel cushioned private sector? Hail the Capitalist Republic of Cameronistan?

Is that the way it works?

See above post for details, and the one above that re: private sector striking 1/15th as much as public sector.

There is no such thing as an 'enlarged' private sector, it's the private sector that pays for the public one so under most circumstances the larger it is the better, someone has to pay Gordon's bills for his socialist authoritarian paradise.

Nice try at redirection though, made me chuckle

[injuneer]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Actually I would regard it as the real world rather than this view of having a single job for life and if you're not happy with it strike until you get what you want so that you are happy. That to me is the 'ideal' world that certain people seem to think they are entitled to.

In the horrible real world people have to do things like accept some flexibility in times of strife, be prepared to move on if need be, react to the possibility of redundancy, etc.

That you seem to think this is somehow my 'ideal' world is, well, confusing. It's not an ideal world, it's at times a pretty harsh one, but it's the one most of the private sector live in, it's the one I've always worked in.

I thought we had moved on from Victorian work ethics but I must be mistaken. A suppose a lot depends on your view of work, work to live or live to work. I have also worked in the private sector (except when PO telephones was government owned) most of my working life but in recent years I have a seen a steady decline in front line workers conditions, less staff, increased pressure usually resulting in a deteriorating customer experience, but management are not interested in that, only their profit margins. Therefore I am happy for those that can still make a stand against aggressive management, a luxury a few of us have in the private sector. One thing I have learnt is that your are just a statistic whatever your skills.
Right, I'm off to sell my copies of the Morning Star.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by injuneer

I thought we had moved on from Victorian work ethics but I must be mistaken.

We have - that's why militant trade unionism is irrelevant now. Perhaps a reminder of where the movement came from would be useful:

Besides acting to raise wages and improve working conditions, the federations espoused certain social reforms, such as the institution of free public education, the abolition of imprisonment for debt, and the adoption of universal manhood suffrage. Perhaps the most important effect of these early unions was their introduction of political action.

You might also be interested in this:

One 1951 study found that instead of harming profits, unions increase the wages of about 10 to 15% of workers by about 10 to 15% by reducing the wages of the other 85 to 90% of workers by about 4%.

About the only social reform unions are interested in now is trying to get socialism / communism (Bob Crow's words) on us, indeed a union boss recently commented that we should all pay more tax to preserve public sector jobs.

Originally Posted by injuneer

A suppose a lot depends on your view of work, work to live or live to work. I have also worked in the private sector (except when PO telephones was government owned) most of my working life but in recent years I have a seen a steady decline in front line workers conditions, less staff, increased pressure usually resulting in a deteriorating customer experience, but management are not interested in that, only their profit margins.

The effect of union activities to influence pricing is potentially very harmful, making the market system ineffective. Because the price of labour is raised above the market rate, deadweight loss is created. Additional non-monetary benefits exacerbate the problem.

So who pays for the deadweight that Unions protect? Oh that'll be those customers they claim to care about. Companies will make their money somewhere and the unions holding their employer and in turn their customers to ransom is passed onto the consumer.

Unions don't care, at all, for anything besides getting the best deal for their members, regardless of the social or economic consequences. Unions are responsible for rampant inflation in the 70s and would happily do so again. They are, bizarrely, a group that claim to be socialist yet couldn't give two hoots about society.

My point was really quite simple. If you don't like your job you go elsewhere. If you've been in the same job for over 20 years you must like something about it, or you can't get a better deal elsewhere. If union members can't get a better deal elsewhere what makes them so special that they should be paid more and have better benefits than other people doing the same hours in the same job elsewhere?

There's the other issue with unions. They bleat on about equality, workers' rights, etc, but couldn't care less so long as their workers' get more rights and are more equal than everyone else.

Speak for yourself re: being a statistic by the way. I must have been more fortunate with my choice of employer.

[injuneer]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

We have - that's why militant trade unionism is irrelevant now. Perhaps a reminder of where the movement came from would be useful:



You might also be interested in this:



About the only social reform unions are interested in now is trying to get socialism / communism (Bob Crow's words) on us, indeed a union boss recently commented that we should all pay more tax to preserve public sector jobs.





So who pays for the deadweight that Unions protect? Oh that'll be those customers they claim to care about. Companies will make their money somewhere and the unions holding their employer and in turn their customers to ransom is passed onto the consumer.

Unions don't care, at all, for anything besides getting the best deal for their members, regardless of the social or economic consequences. Unions are responsible for rampant inflation in the 70s and would happily do so again. They are, bizarrely, a group that claim to be socialist yet couldn't give two hoots about society.

My point was really quite simple. If you don't like your job you go elsewhere. If you've been in the same job for over 20 years you must like something about it, or you can't get a better deal elsewhere. If union members can't get a better deal elsewhere what makes them so special that they should be paid more and have better benefits than other people doing the same hours in the same job elsewhere?

There's the other issue with unions. They bleat on about equality, workers' rights, etc, but couldn't care less so long as their workers' get more rights and are more equal than everyone else.

Speak for yourself re: being a statistic by the way. I must have been more fortunate with my choice of employer.

I used to think that at your age. Now I just play them at their own game. Stay until things inevitably go downhill after 3 or 4 years then apply for voluntary redundancy. At least it got my mortgage paid off. You are in the hands of bean counters.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by injuneer

I used to think that at your age. Now I just play them at their own game. Stay until things inevitably go downhill after 3 or 4 years then apply for voluntary redundancy. At least it got my mortgage paid off. You are in the hands of bean counters.

Nope I'm entirely within my own hands, take responsibility completely for myself and always have. I've been fortunate enough that things haven't gone downhill for me to hang around and wait for voluntary redundancy instead I've moved on when I've chosen to to jobs which actually provided higher pay and better conditions, as expected from a jobs market, but thank you for the suggestion.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by cookie_365

So when private sector Royal Mail workers strike it's proof of the enlarged, militant, laurel cushioned private sector? Hail the Capitalist Republic of Cameronistan?

Is that the way it works?

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Erm, the Royal Mail is a public limited company owned by HMG. Link

There you go again.... bringing those pesky facts into the argument......

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Nope I'm entirely within my own hands, take responsibility completely for myself and always have.

No wonder No.10 isn't on your Christmas card list then.....

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Osem

No wonder No.10 isn't on your Christmas card list then.....

I have described myself more than once as following Libertarianism which is totally at odds with the Authoritarian Socialist crap that No.10 come out with and that the Tories if they get in will likely continue a slightly watered down version of though with, of course, the Authoritarian side intact.

Libertarians are committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary; that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others; that liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals; and that most existing and historical governments have acted improperly insofar as they have utilized coercion for plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other purposes beyond the protection of individual liberty.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I have described myself more than once as following Libertarianism which is totally at odds with the Authoritarian Socialist crap that No.10 come out with and that the Tories if they get in will likely continue a slightly watered down version of though with, of course, the Authoritarian side intact.

Which is why is used the term No.10 and NOT Gordon Brown...

[Mr Angry]

Seems an agreement has been reached.