Leighton reckons we aint got it in us

[greynut]

[quote="krooserman1802"]Read this colleagues. half way down the page Leighton states ;_

"Is his walkabout magic wearing off? Leighton, sitting in front of a poster of the Rocky Mountains at Loblaw, shakes his head. and had to do something about it. There will be no strike, he predicts. “The last round wore everyone
out, and nothing changed, and nothing is going to change what has been agreed over pensions.â€

[BB brother]

[quote="greynut"][quote="krooserman1802"]Read this colleagues. half way down the page Leighton states ;_

"Is his walkabout magic wearing off? Leighton, sitting in front of a poster of the Rocky Mountains at Loblaw, shakes his head. and had to do something about it. There will be no strike, he predicts. “The last round wore everyone
out, and nothing changed, and nothing is going to change what has been agreed over pensions.â€

[andy2007]

I knew two guys who twigged that charity shops throw out lots of clothes that they can't sell. They approached a large chain of charity stores, offering to pay 50p for every full bag and did a deal with a company that made blankets from recycled cloth. They went to the bank and borrowed enough money to buy a lorry - they got so busy, they bought another lorry and so on. The rest is history and they did that in under seven years. You don't need a business head - just ideas and the guts to go for it. Yes you're quite right, it doesn't suit everyone but the point is, it IS possible!

Few if any are born with business acumen you know - you figure it out.

This is exactly my argument against Leighton: he didn't get his money through hard graft, like the two you mentioned. He gets onto the Board of existing companies, and gets rich off them.

Why couldn't we have had a fellow grafter running RM?
That way, we could have become profitable, while continuing to provide the excellent Public Service that we were once able to provide. Most of us (in my experience) still try hard to provide a good Service, but it is hard, under the current constraints.

[BELIAL]

If we are providing a public service, why do we need to provide a profit?, and who are we providing a profit for??

[DGP1]

If we are providing a public service, why do we need to provide a profit?, and who are we providing a profit for??

Directors bonuses??

[andy2007]

If we are providing a public service, why do we need to provide a profit?, and who are we providing a profit for??

We only need to break even, so that we are self sufficient. There is absolutely no need for us to make any profit at all in my opinion. It's about time that Leighton and Crozier accepted this, and started to work towards this end.

[DGP1]

If we are providing a public service, why do we need to provide a profit?, and who are we providing a profit for??

Directors bonuses??

And to pay for all those Javelin missiles we use in Afghanistan

[BELIAL]

If we are providing a public service, why do we need to provide a profit?, and who are we providing a profit for??

Directors bonuses??

Does seem like part of the answer ,must say it does'nt really inspire me to greater efforts, or even slightly raise my level of motivation

[DGP1]

If we are providing a public service, why do we need to provide a profit?, and who are we providing a profit for??

Directors bonuses??

Does seem like part of the answer ,must say it does'nt really inspire me to greater efforts, or even slightly raise my level of motivation

Which brings me to a conclusion that the more we get the less the management get (although I'm sure Night Tonic will disagree)

[BELIAL]

Maybe since we now operate in a commercial environment we should adopt pricing structures used by other successful enterprises. Utility companies and hedge fund managers etc. will charge you for basic access to their services and then demand a percentage for profit on top. So if an adshot raises 10 mill revenue we take 10% on top of the postage?

[Night Tonic]

If we are providing a public service, why do we need to provide a profit?, and who are we providing a profit for??

We're not providing a public service. We're providing a service to business mostly. When Liberalisation came in, we became a business - end of. We are certainly NOT providing a public service - not any more. If we were, we would not be closing post offices.

[Vulcan]

Can't say I have any beef with Leighton - plenty like him on boards of big companies but I do have a beef with where liberalisation is going. Look at Severn Trent Water - fined a massive amount for lying to offwat but do the customers get THEIR money back and WHERE does the fine money go??? Now THATS immoral

Customers of Severn Trent WILL get their money back, it works out to about £2.40 per customer, when the £37.5 million is divided by the number of customers.

[borders]

If we are providing a public service, why do we need to provide a profit?, and who are we providing a profit for??

We're not providing a public service. We're providing a service to business mostly. When Liberalisation came in, we became a business - end of. We are certainly NOT providing a public service - not any more. If we were, we would not be closing post offices.

USO.

[andy2007]

If we are providing a public service, why do we need to provide a profit?, and who are we providing a profit for??

We're not providing a public service. We're providing a service to business mostly. When Liberalisation came in, we became a business - end of. We are certainly NOT providing a public service - not any more. If we were, we would not be closing post offices.

USO.

Finally! one of our critics is beginning to understand what we are complaining about!

As Borders quite rightly pointed out: we are subject to the Universal SERVICE Obligation. Therefore, we shouldn't be closing ANY Post Offices, and should go back to providing a Postal Service, which was the envy of the World!

[BELIAL]

If we are providing a public service, why do we need to provide a profit?, and who are we providing a profit for??

We're not providing a public service. We're providing a service to business mostly. When Liberalisation came in, we became a business - end of. We are certainly NOT providing a public service - not any more. If we were, we would not be closing post offices.

What a strange business. How many other commercial companies can you name that subsidize the profits of the competition by agreeing to loss making contracts?

What business in it's right commercial mind would continue to offer national delivery when they could retain 74% of traffic volume by covering only 13% of the country?

Someone's got to make their mind up, you can not have it all ways.

"end of" ? debate? story? doubt? guess you got God on your side too?