ST Post Code - postal service is worst in mainland Britain

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 09 Dec 2008, 20:15

Funny that- I thought it was a reply entirely in keeping with your post, and as it was you who mentioned sight, (as in "I see...") very appropriate.
As the old maxim goes, "if you can't take it......etc etc"

Post by **dvbuk55** » 09 Dec 2008, 20:46

Tman wrote:Funny that- I thought it was a reply entirely in keeping with your post, and as it was you who mentioned sight, (as in "I see...") very appropriate.
As the old maxim goes, "if you can't take it......etc etc"

•see (USE EYES)
•see (UNDERSTAND)
•see (CONSIDER)
•see (MEET)
•see (GO WITH)
•see (TRY TO DISCOVER)
•see (MAKE CERTAIN

All is not as it seems, it seems.

axeman · Post by **axeman** » 09 Dec 2008, 23:28

Some can only see through rose tinted glasses ....................'boss'

andy2007 · Post by **andy2007** » 10 Dec 2008, 06:51

Tman wrote:It's not about the rights or wrongs of the closure of ST or anywhere else; it's about the strange assertion made by the union rep that ST mail should be sorted in ST, when for decades (if not centuries) we've transported mail to be sorted centrally. He should know that.

Many places in the UK have a 40+ mile round trip for "local" mail to be sorted and then returned to the area it started from, and that situation has increased since the introduction of MLOs/APCs/MCs.

The Isle of Wight is another area (among many) where mail is transported to Portsmouth by hovercraft, sorted, and then returned. So what, every town and village doesn't warrant it's own MC, regardless of carbon footprints and other issues.

There's nothing new or revolutionary about that..

I may be wrong. But I believe the point he was trying to make, was that as until recently, it WAS sorted locally. It was unwise to have closed that Centre, and started to send the Mail on an (unnecessary) 80 mile (40 miles EACH WAY) round trip.

That's the problem! The ever increasing journeys for the Mail, are causing problems, which will only get worse, if this trend continues. At least that's what many of us believe, anyway. Are we right?
I don't know. But there is a growing collection of anecdotal evidence, to back up our personal observations. Then, there is he undenyable Environmental impact, of these longer journeys.

Of course, there are many, who still refuse to believe that burning Fossil Fuels (e.g. Diesel) is damaging the Environment. And I don't intend to get into that particular argument here (it would be too far off topic). But it is an important factor for a lot of people.

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 10 Dec 2008, 07:51

I may be wrong. But I believe the point he was trying to make, was that as until recently, it WAS sorted locally. It was unwise to have closed that Centre, and started to send the Mail on an (unnecessary) 80 mile (40 miles EACH WAY) round trip.
That's the problem! The ever increasing journeys for the Mail, are causing problems, which will only get worse, if this trend continues. At least that's what many of us believe, anyway. Are we right?
I don't know.

Thing is Andy, if a company invests heavily in automation then it has to maximise it's use to realise the quickest return on that investment; 24/7 if possible.
Now mail volumes are dropping at an alarming rate, the case for MC amalgamations unfortunately becomes overwhelming.

RM presumably are trying to do that in this case, but environmental concerns don't figure too highly in RM's way of thinking, it seems.

[Thanks are again due to both Old Man Preston and Agent Yorkie for their contributions to this thread...

]

andy2007 · Post by **andy2007** » 10 Dec 2008, 09:28

That's a good point Tman. I hadn't thought about it like that. However: couldn't they have simply introduced more automation at less distant MCs?
That way, they wouldn't have all their eggs in one basket. And the Mail would be processed much faster, as it wouldn't be spending so long on the roads?

More to the point, considering the backlash regarding the current course of action. Why weren't people like us, consulted about this, before they started?
Its one thing looking at figures, and working things out on paper. But they are ignoring a valuable resource, by not consulting the people, who actually do the work day in, day out. We won't often agree on what the best course of action is. But listening to, and seriously considering opposing points of view. Is (in my opinion) the best way to find a solution to any serious problem.

I know that there are people on both sides, who are seriously entrenched with their ideas. But there are also a lot of us, who are willing to accept that we aren't always right. To simply ignore an entire group of people, because you think they will poke holes in your ideas, is short sighted at best. Incredibly foolish, and irrisponsible, at worst. Don't you think?

For example: I originally thought that the current policy of merging MCs, was simply short sighted "slash and burn" tactics. Now I see, that there is a possibility that there could actually be some logic to it. I'm still far from convinced. But hopefully, you will be taking other people's ideas (including mine) on board, and considering the possibility that our ideas are just as valid. Rather than just being a vain attempt to avoid change. There are still a lot of us out there, for whom providing the best service possible, is our number 1 priority at work.

This is exactly what RM should have been doing right from the start. RM could be right, or we could be right. But personally, I think that there is some kind of compromise, which is far more likley to succeed. Rather than doing nothing, or continuing to follow the seriously flawed (in my opinion) Business Plan, RM came up with.

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 10 Dec 2008, 13:36

[andy2007"]That's a good point Tman. I hadn't thought about it like that. However: couldn't they have simply introduced more automation at less distant MCs?

Costs are reduced if you centralise operations; less spares/manuals/PCs/staff etc etc are needed. Maybe there wasn't the space, or the existing DOs were too cramped or out-dated, who knows?

That way, they wouldn't have all their eggs in one basket. And the Mail would be processed much faster, as it wouldn't be spending so long on the roads

That's an interesting point. With AI, the mail is being "processed" while it's in the back of the lorry, so transport times aren't so much of a consideration.

More to the point, considering the backlash regarding the current course of action. Why weren't people like us, consulted about this, before they started?

Because we're all just numbers?

Night Tonic · Post by **Night Tonic** » 10 Dec 2008, 14:06

Being consulted enmasses is a rarity in the world of employment. Royal Mail may be one of the last and all the signs are that its already over. Although postal workers may well feel they drive the engine, thats long finished and now they only feed the boiler.

DGP1 · Post by **DGP1** » 10 Dec 2008, 16:33

Night Tonic wrote:Being consulted enmasses is a rarity in the world of employment. Royal Mail may be one of the last and all the signs are that its already over. Although postal workers may well feel they drive the engine, thats long finished and now they only feed the boiler.

That may be but RM management have shown a complete lack of any business sense (unless you regard cutting costs to increase bonuses) with regard to many aspects eg. providing a 1st class service to encourage customers that RM is the best mail service in the UK. Asking us what is the best way to do something is better than just implementing something and then trying to make it work then whenever that doesn't work they try something else etc.

axeman · Post by **axeman** » 10 Dec 2008, 17:53

business acumen royal fail certainly lacks this , mail sorted on the move i don't think so does vosa know ? the only way it could be done is to bring back the tpo. (speculation from the management contingent of posters)
Eggs in one basket we saw recently just what could happen (fire at cardif) but with regional centres this would be a catastropic blow to Q of S if this happened at the super duper mail centre , contingency my arse they have not got anything credible to use as the staffing level could not cope with any sort of down time and the knockon effect would be horrendous to those waiting for mail to deliver, neither is there any 'slack' as the machines would be flat out trying to cope with any problem that might arise
speculation from some who really don't know ???

brothermagrew · Post by **brothermagrew** » 10 Dec 2008, 18:08

Tman wrote:Funny that- I thought it was a reply entirely in keeping with your post, and as it was you who mentioned sight, (as in "I see...") very appropriate.
As the old maxim goes, "if you can't take it......etc etc"

Fair doos to the Tman, whilst not agreeing with every post or opinion that you make on the forum, I nonetheless respect your views whilst arguing sometimes the case against. As far as the old maxim goes, bring it on!

Have a nice Xmas & Happy New Year ya old goat

Tman · Post by **Tman** » 10 Dec 2008, 18:18

,

mail sorted on the move i don't think so does vosa know ? the only way it could be done is to bring back the tpo. (speculation from the management contingent of posters)

If you understood the principles behind AI you'd know why the TPOs were phased out; then again if you understood those principles you wouldn't have posted the above.....

axeman · Post by **axeman** » 10 Dec 2008, 19:24

You cannot travel in the back of an articulated vehicle or indeed a 600 /900 so therefore unless the machines are self sufficent and can feed them selves sort out any jams etc.. it's a no go or do you know better ????? or indeed more like dissagree

opps i fogot unless your an illegal immigrant .....silly me of course we are being outsourced to poland

Night Tonic · Post by **Night Tonic** » 11 Dec 2008, 01:25

Might help if you actually read and understood what Tman posted rather than what you think he said.

andy2007 · Post by **andy2007** » 11 Dec 2008, 07:32

Tman, I can't see how it's possible to process mail on the roads. As Axeman pointed out, the Law prevents anyone being in the back of a Lorry or Van on the move. So the only way to do that, would be on the Railways. Wchich is why he menioned the TPO as an example.

Although currently there is little automation in most of the RDCs. That will be happening soon (so were told). So if something goes badly wrong (e.g. fire), we can just move to a temporary location, until the damage is repaired. It would require a lot of extra Staff or overtime, as it's unlikley we'd have enough space, or Bays, to work efficiently. But we could maintain a good Service under those conditions.

But in the already highly automated sites (and once we're automated): If something happened, which prevented us using the normal building. Everything would have to stop.

Axeman has already given one example of what can happen. We need some spare capacity, within practical traveling distance. I know that redundant backups would be impractical, due to the cost. But machines which aren't running at full capacity, will last longer (as they aren't under as much strain) and can take some of the extra load, if something goes wrong. Then there's the traveling distances to consider.

As I said earlier: You've obviously put a lot of thought into this, and are making some good points. But I'm still not convinced that it's a wise course of action.