Royal Mail told 'lies' to the public when it scrapped mornin

[F0zziebear]

Post boxes removed, urm because the public are not using them
sunday collections removed, urm because the public were not using them to justify the expense
2nd delivery* removed, urm because the volume of mail taken out was small compared to the cost

*I agree that at best the removal of the 2nd delivery has created a 1.5 delivery service, but it is still within the contractual boundaries of the 1st class stamp. The public in this country were getting a relatively gold-plated service without truly paying for it anymore. If the public want this type of service where they get their bills and primarily their junk mail at 8:30am then they can pay prices that people do on the continent. The alternative is to accept that you pay for what you get. If RM were forced to increase their prices, then you competitors could provide an alternative and make the profit margins needed to satisfy investors and provide money for further investment.

This story is the same throughout the public sector. We have privatised schools and hospitals, is it any better, it depends on what you measuring it against. Remember you pay for what you get. Low-cost airlines, so you arrive 45mins away from the city you were mean't to go to, what were you expecting? Red carpet and a direct route to the hotel?

[Lounge Lizard]

Post boxes removed, urm because the public are not using them
sunday collections removed, urm because the public were not using them to justify the expense
2nd delivery* removed, urm because the volume of mail taken out was small compared to the cost

*I agree that at best the removal of the 2nd delivery has created a 1.5 delivery service, but it is still within the contractual boundaries of the 1st class stamp. The public in this country were getting a relatively gold-plated service without truly paying for it anymore. If the public want this type of service where they get their bills and primarily their junk mail at 8:30am then they can pay prices that people do on the continent. The alternative is to accept that you pay for what you get. If RM were forced to increase their prices, then you competitors could provide an alternative and make the profit margins needed to satisfy investors and provide money for further investment.

This story is the same throughout the public sector. We have privatised schools and hospitals, is it any better, it depends on what you measuring it against. Remember you pay for what you get. Low-cost airlines, so you arrive 45mins away from the city you were mean't to go to, what were you expecting? Red carpet and a direct route to the hotel?

Having mail delivered in the morning was hardly a "gold-plated service".
Morning deliveries were possible and routine a hundred years ago long before fast trains, motorways and internal airmail were introduced.
There's much the same cost involved in collecting, sorting, transporting and delivering mail irrespective of whether delivery is in the morning or in the afternoon.

[baldrick]

Heres something i did on YouTube about 3 months ago it seems to fit with the thread?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iXGAS3i2wvo

Nice one linkinpark

[Broxi51]

Heres something i did on YouTube about 3 months ago it seems to fit with the thread?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iXGAS3i2wvo

[norbert]

Heres something i did on YouTube about 3 months ago it seems to fit with the thread?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iXGAS3i2wvo

excellent video

[F0zziebear]

I should clarify:

1. Morning post when the majority of people are not at home becomes a pointless exercise, unless you believe in a social service to those who are not working (e.g. pesnioners)
2. The morning, and by morning I am talking about between 7-10am is something much of Europe do not get. So I call it gold-plated in relation to other comparable offerings.

We have been lucky and had a mail service that was extremely cheap and provided a pretty good service. The arget culture has grown under Labour as a way of raising standards of core services. The problem is that they changed the goalposts. It is true that RM's performance has improved over the last 5 years in terms of QofS as measured officially, but moving to one delivery, later delivery, less 'tailored' services has enable them to do this and cut costs. So to claim that the service is worse now than it was etc. can only be done on a subjective basis. By subjective I do not mean it is not true, just that it is objective in the technical sense of the word.

As I was part of this target culture and the stripping away of resources and services I am prepared to take some responsibility for this, though at the time I believed it was the right thing to do, though by the time I left RM I realised that most of the changes and justification for them could not take account of the 'human' element of these services even though senior management were aware of them. By this I mean that Crozier, Leighton etc. are aware of the social service that Post Offices, Postmen etc. provide. Unfortunately the regulator insists on RPI -1% which means reducing prices by 1% in real terms each year, and the need by government (the shareholder) to turn the company into a viable business to compete on a commercial basis. My only suggestion is vote for a party that does not believe in this, or somehow change the Labour leadership. Please note that if Crozier, Leigthon etc. felt so strongly then obviously they could step down as a form of protest so not excusing their actions!

I hope this qualifies what I was saying

[k979aaa]

Heres something i did on YouTube about 3 months ago it seems to fit with the thread?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iXGAS3i2wvo

I think the CWU should pay you and have this on national tv stations in primetime!.

[Lounge Lizard]

I should clarify:

1. Morning post when the majority of people are not at home becomes a pointless exercise, unless you believe in a social service to those who are not working (e.g. pesnioners)
2. The morning, and by morning I am talking about between 7-10am is something much of Europe do not get. So I call it gold-plated in relation to other comparable offerings.

So if most mail is delivered to homes when residents are out then it's of no consequence is it that busnesses, farms, the self employed working from home, etc. expect their mail at a decent time so that they have a chance of dealing with it and responding to it the same day ?
And if most of Europe doesn't have something that's valued in Britain then does that mean we shouldn't have it too ?
If you can't do better than that, just stop trying to defend the indefensible.

[norbert]

I should clarify:

1. Morning post when the majority of people are not at home becomes a pointless exercise, unless you believe in a social service to those who are not working (e.g. pesnioners)
2. The morning, and by morning I am talking about between 7-10am is something much of Europe do not get. So I call it gold-plated in relation to other comparable offerings.

We have been lucky and had a mail service that was extremely cheap and provided a pretty good service. The arget culture has grown under Labour as a way of raising standards of core services. The problem is that they changed the goalposts. It is true that RM's performance has improved over the last 5 years in terms of QofS as measured officially, but moving to one delivery, later delivery, less 'tailored' services has enable them to do this and cut costs. So to claim that the service is worse now than it was etc. can only be done on a subjective basis. By subjective I do not mean it is not true, just that it is objective in the technical sense of the word.

As I was part of this target culture and the stripping away of resources and services I am prepared to take some responsibility for this, though at the time I believed it was the right thing to do, though by the time I left RM I realised that most of the changes and justification for them could not take account of the 'human' element of these services even though senior management were aware of them. By this I mean that Crozier, Leighton etc. are aware of the social service that Post Offices, Postmen etc. provide. Unfortunately the regulator insists on RPI -1% which means reducing prices by 1% in real terms each year, and the need by government (the shareholder) to turn the company into a viable business to compete on a commercial basis. My only suggestion is vote for a party that does not believe in this, or somehow change the Labour leadership. Please note that if Crozier, Leigthon etc. felt so strongly then obviously they could step down as a form of protest so not excusing their actions!

I hope this qualifies what I was saying

Gordon Brown when Chancellor had a stakeholder Executive who were tasked with increasing the value of part / whole publically owned companies by £1 billion - German bankers did the headhunting for the likes of :lfo & :cfo - they were on terrific bonuses to do all this target culture - New Labour would say they succeded - also the likes of Stephen Byers of the DTI ( The Ultimate Employer ) and Pat Hewitt wanted RM split up but it had to be hush , hush otherwise there might be a backbench rebellion and they needed :lfo 's Walmart Anti Union experience as the CWU were seen by pro privatization Blairites as a problem .

In fairness :lfo & :cfo were on a good number as Fozzie says they are not going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg as they could cut without worrying about QOS but they are merely hired hands for Postcon , they didn't exactly break their necks in eagerness to fight Postcon .

There is a long line of cause and effect that goes back to :lfo & :cfo as we all know .

[F0zziebear]

One of point of note is this. By definition cutting the 2nd delivery mean't that delivery rounds could no longer go out as early as they once did. One needed the mis-directs to be re-circulated in the local postcode area. The delivery mail late in the afternoon is a more recent phenomena and is tied to delivery rounds being too long, and/or casuals deliverying the mail, which takes longer.

My other observation (limited to the are I worked in) was that the hardest delivery rounds tended to be the ones no-one was prepared to do on overtime, and were the last to be signed upto. This mena't that when I had to rley on casuals to come in and do the round they inevitably found it harder. We ended up trying to split the round into two to make it easier. BUt these rounds were usually the most complex with hard to find addresses etc. I wished that the rounds were even, but the management was not strong enough to push this through. Wonder if others experienced this and what is the view from a posties perspective? I bring this up here as Single Daily Delivery was designed to re-map all the routes, job & finish, break the unions, save costs (which it didn't on reflection I understand) etc....

I still think it was right to go to one delivery, but deliverying mail into the afternoon is no good, but is still legally allowed according to contract details. So did RM tell lies? Not technically, but probably morally, but then a reasonably informed member of the public could have worked this out themselves and voted for a party who had not signed upto this.

[norbert]

One of point of note is this. By definition cutting the 2nd delivery mean't that delivery rounds could no longer go out as early as they once did. One needed the mis-directs to be re-circulated in the local postcode area. The delivery mail late in the afternoon is a more recent phenomena and is tied to delivery rounds being too long, and/or casuals deliverying the mail, which takes longer.

My other observation (limited to the are I worked in) was that the hardest delivery rounds tended to be the ones no-one was prepared to do on overtime, and were the last to be signed upto. This mena't that when I had to rley on casuals to come in and do the round they inevitably found it harder. We ended up trying to split the round into two to make it easier. BUt these rounds were usually the most complex with hard to find addresses etc. I wished that the rounds were even, but the management was not strong enough to push this through. Wonder if others experienced this and what is the view from a posties perspective? I bring this up here as Single Daily Delivery was designed to re-map all the routes, job & finish, break the unions, save costs (which it didn't on reflection I understand) etc....

I still think it was right to go to one delivery, but deliverying mail into the afternoon is no good, but is still legally allowed according to contract details. So did RM tell lies? Not technically, but probably morally, but then a reasonably informed member of the public could have worked this out themselves and voted for a party who had not signed upto this.

I do remember telling someone - yes he did get made up from AG to full time when SDD came out but that was more because some of the senior staff simply didn't want the overtime on the harder rounds - it certainly wasn't due to RM being paternalistic - yes there were teething problems , disputes at that depot , then Senior / Area Management brought in " Hard but fair managers in to discourage unofficial industrial action " - which in true RM fashion caused even more poor IR - as the new attitude was " right if that's your attitude - I won't do a minute over my time unless you learn good will and give and take "

As for staff being militant it's a case of who is calling whom militant ! with everyone throwing the book at each other as Lord Sawyer said in his report before the Emperor with No Clothes was sent for .