Do you really care?

[borders]

Or just someone bored with the same 15 that feel they respresent the majority. As was shown during the last dispute, not everyone sees it the same way. Whatever you say about TNT its still making a lot of money and taking bigger slices all the time. Whether TNT delivers end to end is entirely irrelevant. If we were privatised its likely to be a shared excercise much like the railways

pretty easy for them to make a profit really , because they have taken advantage of a situation that has been engineered for them by our Government. when they opened up the postal market for competition it allowed these companies to cream off our best business and to rub salt in the wound they get to use the rest of our infrastructure on the cheap. everyone knows this , Business benefits and the workers and the public end up paying for it. i think most people at my workplace understand this , thats right Mr NT the vast majority who have spent any length of time working for RM but they generally feel helpless. Big Business, the Government, the State, the Ruling Elite are immensely powerful, you mention the last dispute in my eyes , in my workplace we had them by the balls, one more day and it would have come grinding to a halt but the top CWU boys had their collars felt and they pulled the plug on us. just my opinion of course.

[stokes11eg]

Just a thought, how often in the pages of history have companies'wound down' sold bits and pieces of the company to 'competition'and then bought back into the 'competition?--
It's odds on that after another couple of years, and after the wholesale slaughter of our original contracts,you WIll be
working for 'another' company----With Royal Mail being the umberella owners---and you wont't even have to leave the building as it were!!!!

[Tman]

Sadly Agent Yorkie, you probably don't even see the irony in your post above.

[borders]

Just a thought, how often in the pages of history have companies'wound down' sold bits and pieces of the company to 'competition'and then bought back into the 'competition?--
It's odds on that after another couple of years, and after the wholesale slaughter of our original contracts,you WIll be
working for 'another' company----With Royal Mail being the umberella owners---and you wont't even have to leave the building as it were!!!!

Venture Capitalists , i do believe they are called !

[stokes11eg]

Just a thought, how often in the pages of history have companies'wound down' sold bits and pieces of the company to 'competition'and then bought back into the 'competition?--
It's odds on that after another couple of years, and after the wholesale slaughter of our original contracts,you WIll be
working for 'another' company----With Royal Mail being the umberella owners---and you wont't even have to leave the building as it were!!!!

Venture Capitalists , i do believe they are called !

Just another thought, how many companies do we actually deliver mail for already?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

If TNT finally take over the postal service due to RMs own employees hindering the change and progress needed to compete in the real world:-

They wont take over Royal Mail because of the employees, but because the see a quick profit. In fact in their own country they operate a monopoly for letters under 50gms - hardly a level playing field.

Do you think they will be a better employer?

No - they don't use as many Full time employees in fact the normal contract in Holland is a maximum of 15 hours per week.

Do you think you will get a better deal?

No they are fighting the German government who have set a minimum wage for all postal workers in Germany. Why because it will affect their bottom line. AFAIR the amount is set at approximately £6.00

https://www.spiegel.de/international/bu ... 47,00.html The proposed minimum wages lie well above the rates that most of Deutsche Post's competitors pay. Deutsche Post itself pays a starting rate of €10.40 per hour, while its main competitors Pin Group and TNT Post are reported to pay between €7 and €7.50 per hour on average.

Would you really want to work for them?

No - they don't like unions in fact TNT employees as far as I know don't have a Union or if they do the work force is not unionised to any great degree.

It could happen, they are capable of doing everything RM does, given the chance.I have seen it happen in other industries ( not always worked for RM), and happen almost overnight.

Yes so have I - but Royal Mail and incumbent national providers of postal services are unique in that they have to provide a USO and the national government has to decide how to support that. AT present the Government have not addressed the USO and partly because of that, and also because RM get no support from other postal operators the USO is running at a loss - for TNT to take over RM the USO will need to be sorted and running at a profit.

Also you opened the debate with a loaded question so perhaps you would like to point out to the uninformed, me included, where we are hindering RM in its change and progress, or do I see it in a different way in that we are just trying to ensure that any Modernisation is done correctly and fairly, rather than just accepting it just because our masters say its the best way of doing things.


http://www.tntpost.co.uk/

Should make for an interesting debate.

A debate is not usually started by a one sided question that starts arguments. Open questions start a debate.

[axeman]

Had a swig of night tronic teaman ?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Of course that would mean everyone reapplying for their old jobs, for less money.

TUPE has been binned has it.

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file20761.pdf

Part 1 – Overview of the TUPE Regulations

Subject to certain qualifying conditions, the Regulations apply:

* when a business or undertaking, or part of one, is transferred to a new employer; or
* when a “service provision change” takes place (for example, where a contractor takes on a contract to provide a service for a client from another contractor).

These two circumstances are jointly categorised as “relevant transfers”.

Broadly speaking, the effect of the Regulations is to preserve the continuity of employment and terms and conditions of those employees who are transferred to a new employer when a relevant transfer takes place. This means that employees employed by the previous employer (the “transferor”) when the transfer takes effect automatically become employees of the new employer (the “transferee”) on the same terms and conditions (except for certain occupational pensions rights). It is as if their contracts of employment had originally been made with the transferee employer. However, the Regulations provide some limited opportunity for the transferee or transferor to vary, with the agreement of the employees concerned, the terms and conditions of employment contracts for a range of stipulated reasons connected with the transfer.

The Regulations contain specific provisions to protect employees from dismissal before or after a relevant transfer.

Representatives of affected employees have a right to be informed about a prospective transfer. They must also be consulted about any measures which the transferor or transferee employer envisages taking concerning the affected employees.

The Regulations also place a duty on the transferor employer to provide information about the transferring workforce to the new employer before the transfer occurs.

The Regulations make specific provision for cases where the transferor employer is insolvent by increasing, for example, the ability of the parties in such difficult situations to vary contracts of employment, thereby ensuring that jobs can be preserved because a relevant transfer can go ahead.

The Regulations can apply regardless of the size of the transferred business: so the Regulations equally apply to the transfer of a large business with thousands of employees or of a very small one (such as a shop, pub or garage). The Regulations also apply equally to public or private sector undertakings – and whether or not the business operates for gain, such as a charity.

[stokes11eg]

Of course that would mean everyone reapplying for their old jobs, for less money.

TUPE has been binned has it.

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file20761.pdf

Part 1 – Overview of the TUPE Regulations

Subject to certain qualifying conditions, the Regulations apply:

* when a business or undertaking, or part of one, is transferred to a new employer; or
* when a “service provision change” takes place (for example, where a contractor takes on a contract to provide a service for a client from another contractor).

These two circumstances are jointly categorised as “relevant transfers”.
In theory, yes. in practice(having lived through this twice. prior to joining R.M.) You will find after a month, your
new employers will start changing the terms of your contract) ----By then you are trapped--more work-- less money
etc.etc .etc
Broadly speaking, the effect of the Regulations is to preserve the continuity of employment and terms and conditions of those employees who are transferred to a new employer when a relevant transfer takes place. This means that employees employed by the previous employer (the “transferor”) when the transfer takes effect automatically become employees of the new employer (the “transferee”) on the same terms and conditions (except for certain occupational pensions rights). It is as if their contracts of employment had originally been made with the transferee employer. However, the Regulations provide some limited opportunity for the transferee or transferor to vary, with the agreement of the employees concerned, the terms and conditions of employment contracts for a range of stipulated reasons connected with the transfer.

The Regulations contain specific provisions to protect employees from dismissal before or after a relevant transfer.

Representatives of affected employees have a right to be informed about a prospective transfer. They must also be consulted about any measures which the transferor or transferee employer envisages taking concerning the affected employees.

The Regulations also place a duty on the transferor employer to provide information about the transferring workforce to the new employer before the transfer occurs.

The Regulations make specific provision for cases where the transferor employer is insolvent by increasing, for example, the ability of the parties in such difficult situations to vary contracts of employment, thereby ensuring that jobs can be preserved because a relevant transfer can go ahead.

The Regulations can apply regardless of the size of the transferred business: so the Regulations equally apply to the transfer of a large business with thousands of employees or of a very small one (such as a shop, pub or garage). The Regulations also apply equally to public or private sector undertakings – and whether or not the business operates for gain, such as a charity.

[greynut]

due to RMs own employees hindering the change and progress needed to compete in the real world:-

And as for poor management you find that everywhere to, but I don't think we are helping our selves in the instances where we try to prevent inevitable change, through industrial action. dont get me wrong I'm not anti union or fighting for rights, when the cause and the time is right. i.e Make it profitable and strong, than turn round and say right where is our cut? , we did this.
In the current climate looking at other large long standing businesses in difficulty, some times makes me worry at what happens in ours.

Sorry, we made £177 million last half year. Now Crozier wants another 15% cut from every office. And I always wonder. If TNT take over RM do they take over the pension defecit as well??? Will they make up the defecit. Will they want to take over a company where the majority of the workforce are in a commited union (don't laugh).

[BELIAL]

Of course that would mean everyone reapplying for their old jobs, for less money.

TUPE has been binned has it.

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file20761.pdf

Part 1 – Overview of the TUPE Regulations

Subject to certain qualifying conditions, the Regulations apply:

* when a business or undertaking, or part of one, is transferred to a new employer; or
* when a “service provision change” takes place (for example, where a contractor takes on a contract to provide a service for a client from another contractor).

These two circumstances are jointly categorised as “relevant transfers”.

Broadly speaking, the effect of the Regulations is to preserve the continuity of employment and terms and conditions of those employees who are transferred to a new employer when a relevant transfer takes place. This means that employees employed by the previous employer (the “transferor”) when the transfer takes effect automatically become employees of the new employer (the “transferee”) on the same terms and conditions (except for certain occupational pensions rights). It is as if their contracts of employment had originally been made with the transferee employer. However, the Regulations provide some limited opportunity for the transferee or transferor to vary, with the agreement of the employees concerned, the terms and conditions of employment contracts for a range of stipulated reasons connected with the transfer.

The Regulations contain specific provisions to protect employees from dismissal before or after a relevant transfer.

Representatives of affected employees have a right to be informed about a prospective transfer. They must also be consulted about any measures which the transferor or transferee employer envisages taking concerning the affected employees.

The Regulations also place a duty on the transferor employer to provide information about the transferring workforce to the new employer before the transfer occurs.

The Regulations make specific provision for cases where the transferor employer is insolvent by increasing, for example, the ability of the parties in such difficult situations to vary contracts of employment, thereby ensuring that jobs can be preserved because a relevant transfer can go ahead.

The Regulations can apply regardless of the size of the transferred business: so the Regulations equally apply to the transfer of a large business with thousands of employees or of a very small one (such as a shop, pub or garage). The Regulations also apply equally to public or private sector undertakings – and whether or not the business operates for gain, such as a charity.

Ah see what you mean now ,silly bugger didn't read everything These management bods are very selective

[Night Tonic]

in my workplace we had them by the balls, one more day and it would have come grinding to a halt but the top CWU boys had their collars felt and they pulled the plug on us. just my opinion of course.

Like the pensioners caught up in lottery scams that think it'll only take ONE more payment to release their win money. Don't you kid yourself Borders, RM wouldn't have budged if you'd stood on a picket line stark naked. I've always been consistent in saying that strikes don't work. Its your bobble hat and your flask though, fill your boots.

[Tman]

NT, I don't think some of these realise that MCs can be kept running at a fairly high efficiency by agency workers interspersed with a few managers and strike-breakers, and deliveries can and will be attempted also by more agency staff and RM desk workers.

Certainly the whole operation will be much worse and slower than usual, but letters will get delivered, and the media will proclaim loud and long about the "gallant few" coping against those nasty striking postmen.

Then again, many posties seem to be saying (despite the rantings of some on here) that they won't be going out again in the near future anyway, so the strike wouldn't be solid.

"Just one more day...." sadly, he probably believes it too.

[borders]

in my workplace we had them by the balls, one more day and it would have come grinding to a halt but the top CWU boys had their collars felt and they pulled the plug on us. just my opinion of course.

Like the pensioners caught up in lottery scams that think it'll only take ONE more payment to release their win money. Don't you kid yourself Borders, RM wouldn't have budged if you'd stood on a picket line stark naked. I've always been consistent in saying that strikes don't work. Its your bobble hat and your flask though, fill your boots.

your analogy is lost on me there mate[ mate being a figure of speech in this case]. my experience of the last strike was as i said and your use of the word budge would have been apt. if you remember we had rolling strike days and the pressure on the system had been building up to such an extent whereby it was grinding to a halt , simply because as the mail volumes built up we were running out of space and equipment . i was at work on this particular day and we were all stood around ,along with the managers i might add , and we were all thinking the same thing ,

[borders]

NT, I don't think some of these realise that MCs can be kept running at a fairly high efficiency by agency workers interspersed with a few managers and strike-breakers, and deliveries can and will be attempted also by more agency staff and RM desk workers.

Certainly the whole operation will be much worse and slower than usual, but letters will get delivered, and the media will proclaim loud and long about the "gallant few" coping against those nasty striking postmen.

Then again, many posties seem to be saying (despite the rantings of some on here) that they won't be going out again in the near future anyway, so the strike wouldn't be solid.

"Just one more day...." sadly, he probably believes it too.

the gallant strike breakers did a good job, but at our place they were in the minority and the pressure gradually took its toll and yes you are right in your assumption