Paul Routledge article

strangler · Post by **strangler** » 28 Sep 2007, 17:16

Apologies if I`ve missed this elsewhere on here, but if not, I`m surprised no one has mentioned this latest article in the Mirror by Paul Routledge:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/columnists ... -19861225/

Discuss...

Tall Guy · Post by **Tall Guy** » 28 Sep 2007, 17:19

scary?

Post by **stephen500** » 28 Sep 2007, 17:20

I sent a reply as follows:
Dear Sir/madam,
If the dispute between Royal Mail and us its workforce were just about pay then i could have some sympathy with Paul Routledge's postion in his article ''Call an end to this strike..post-haste ''.
Paul has been very fair to us postal workers and i commend him for it. However this dispute is not just about pay. It is about the very fundamental terms and conditions under which we work. When i joined Royal Mail in 1981 i was forced to take up a company pension. That pension promised me certain benefits in return for contributions and service. Royal Mail also paid contributions into my pension untill they took a pension holiday. This holiday deprived the fund of finance for many years and had indirectly contributed to Royal Mail, according to reports, seeking to raise my retirement age to 65, increase my contributions and change it from a final salary scheme to a career average earning scheme. They also have said that we are 25% overpaid and it is obvious that by using flexible working that the aim is to reduce our pay, in the long term, by that amount. In fact Royal Mail employees, according to National Statistics , basic pay of Â£324.92 (2007 rates) falls well behind that of 'Median earnings of full-time male employees [being] Â£487 per week in April 2006; [and] for women the median [being] Â£387. (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285). But even with this huge disparity i am of the opinion that most Royal Mail employees would accept the pay offer of 6.7% provided it was not linked with dracoian changes to our pensions or our terms and conditions. Space does not permit me to list all Royal Mail's demands, but they are not the demand of a reasonable employer.
So unless Royal Mail seeks to withdraw from its confrontation and moderate its demands, its workers have little choice but to strike in order to protect this public service. Finally in ending perhaps the public could consider what they have got out of competition being introduced to the market place, one delivery, later deliverys, massive increases in the price of a stamp, reduced collections, less post-office counters. The list of the negative benefits of competion seem endless, so to the general public and the employee there appears every reason to fight further liberalisation.

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 28 Sep 2007, 17:23

If it was just they pay rise I would agree with him but with this offer and all the strings attached which WILL make me worse off week on week.

Bloke7 · Post by **Bloke7** » 28 Sep 2007, 17:37

I hope someone updates Paul as to the rest of the "attachments" to that 6.7% pay rise.
It means the death of the union as we know it.
The death of a once valued public service.
And the drop in morale would be heartbreaking.

strangler · Post by **strangler** » 28 Sep 2007, 17:37

stephen500 wrote:I sent a reply as follows:
Dear Sir/madam,
If the dispute between Royal Mail and us its workforce were just about pay then i could have some sympathy with Paul Routledge's postion in his article ''Call an end to this strike..post-haste ''.
Paul has been very fair to us postal workers and i commend him for it. However this dispute is not just about pay. It is about the very fundamental terms and conditions under which we work. When i joined Royal Mail in 1981 i was forced to take up a company pension. That pension promised me certain benefits in return for contributions and service. Royal Mail also paid contributions into my pension untill they took a pension holiday. This holiday deprived the fund of finance for many years and had indirectly contributed to Royal Mail, according to reports, seeking to raise my retirement age to 65, increase my contributions and change it from a final salary scheme to a career average earning scheme. They also have said that we are 25% overpaid and it is obvious that by using flexible working that the aim is to reduce our pay, in the long term, by that amount. In fact Royal Mail employees, according to National Statistics , basic pay of Â£324.92 (2007 rates) falls well behind that of 'Median earnings of full-time male employees [being] Â£487 per week in April 2006; [and] for women the median [being] Â£387. (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285). But even with this huge disparity i am of the opinion that most Royal Mail employees would accept the pay offer of 6.7% provided it was not linked with dracoian changes to our pensions or our terms and conditions. Space does not permit me to list all Royal Mail's demands, but they are not the demand of a reasonable employer.
So unless Royal Mail seeks to withdraw from its confrontation and moderate its demands, its workers have little choice but to strike in order to protect this public service. Finally in ending perhaps the public could consider what they have got out of competition being introduced to the market place, one delivery, later deliverys, massive increases in the price of a stamp, reduced collections, less post-office counters. The list of the negative benefits of competion seem endless, so to the general public and the employee there appears every reason to fight further liberalisation.

Good reply stephen500. Particularly your comments re what competition has done to the service.

Bloke7 · Post by **Bloke7** » 28 Sep 2007, 17:42

Cookie wrote:
Bloke7 wrote:I hope someone updates Paul as to the rest of the "attachments" to that 6.7% pay rise.
It means the death of the union as we know it.
The death of a once valued public service.
And the drop in morale would be heartbreaking.
I sent him thqat pdf with all the strings in a week back but had no reply...

Good stuff Cookie :D Well done.

pickaname · Post by **pickaname** » 28 Sep 2007, 17:44

who gives a toss about this fool Routledge...the Mirror just dont want to be seen to be protecting a Postal service that is about to go tits up on the 5th...

Strike action all through Christmas pressure...now thats the REAL weapon.

Its time to get as ruthless as Satan and Dozier

Post by **dvbuk55** » 28 Sep 2007, 17:44

I did say that on the original article he seemed to think it was about a percentage pay rise.

He doesn't seem to have done much research since. It seems strange it follows hot on the heels of the Labour Party Conference. Perhaps he is more aware of an election than the rest of us.

Either way that's his misguided opinion which may well influence public opinion the wrong way.

We can't go back without at least a face saving settlement.

Post by **Crackerjackpencil** » 28 Sep 2007, 20:16

I read it, and was left with ashes in my mouth...It was an un-informed and damaging article, call me paranoid but with it coming hot on the heel's of Gordon Blair's speeches and the party conference i Feel pressure may be being applied on the editors to tow a more agreeable line with Liebour. He needs informing properly, perhaps a nice leaflet drop or one of our info packs that came through my letterbox this morning. Nothing may come of it, but at least we could say we tried to put the truth across.

Post by **Pochahontas** » 28 Sep 2007, 20:30

What strikes me about the article is he thinks we are on an all out strike - were not. We are not the minors, we know found well we couldn't sustain a full walk out till it ends - but this way we can sustain it till business's are screaming at the Government to end it.. even if a a percentage went back the overall effect is still the same...

Hold on tight............. we have come so far

frankie · Post by **frankie** » 28 Sep 2007, 21:25

HootyMacBoob · Post by **HootyMacBoob** » 28 Sep 2007, 21:55

frankie wrote:I usually drop in and mention P R's columns as a rule, but was a little taken aback with this one. I could have sworn he was on our side???

The only people who are on our side frankie is us, never trust the press they are only chasing the $$$

DirtyHarry · Post by **DirtyHarry** » 28 Sep 2007, 22:06

I'm afraid Paul may feel an election's in the offing, he obviously doesn't want us to rock New Labour's boat.

Tough titty, methinks!

Post by **baldrick** » 28 Sep 2007, 22:07

frankie wrote:I usually drop in and mention P R's columns as a rule, but was a little taken aback with this one. I could have sworn he was on our side???

He did seem to be previously - seems to have been nobbled

The Government is probably pulling all the strings they can, particularly if there is the possibility of an election coming.