New Delivery methods Q&As

[dvbuk55]

In the previous campaign there was a Labour Government whose back bench was against privatisation and the public too was not too happy with it either - so what's changed?

Well you now have a coalition in power both sides of whom are FOR privatisation and even if the whole of the opposition bench voted against it, they would lose. The CWU have no influence over the new powers that be and we are in recession with all the attendant problems of increased VAT, higher unemployment, massive national debt and aren't the ConDems going to make hay with those little nuggets - "selling off part/whole of RM will bring in x billion", will create x number of jobs," - the fact that it would be bullshit won't matter a flying feck to joe public.

So whats to stop the sell off? - finding someone with enough cash to make it worthwhile, the pension deficit, the antiquated working practices even with the "2010 and beyond agreement".

It'll come as sure as eggs is eggs - it's not IF though - it's WHEN.

[andy2007]

You may be right. But is that any reason to just give up?
As you said yourself: The ConDem (and they really HAVE Conned them (the Public)) Government will try to claim that it'll bring in money for them. But will fail to tell the Public that it'll cost them far more, for decades to come, by propping up our Pensions. Which is where an effective campaign comes in: We counter such arguments with the truth. It probably won't work. But I for one, plan to go down fighting!

Why should Shareholders pocket the dividends from hundreds of millions, whilst the rest of us pay for the much larger Pension Deficit?

[dvbuk55]

You may be right. But is that any reason to just give up?
As you said yourself: The ConDem (and they really HAVE Conned them (the Public)) Government will try to claim that it'll bring in money for them. But will fail to tell the Public that it'll cost them far more, for decades to come, by propping up our Pensions. Which is where an effective campaign comes in: We counter such arguments with the truth. It probably won't work. But I for one, plan to go down fighting!

Why should Shareholders pocket the dividends from hundreds of millions, whilst the rest of us pay for the much larger Pension Deficit?

Well, one of the shareholders will be you AND the likes of the CWU could well buy into those shares to finance their pension fund long term ................... they say lifes a bitch and in truth it is for some - do you know I may even buy some of those shares myself - they could well prove to be a good earner in the long run.

[POSTMAN]

Just curious,have the CWU got any shares in BT?

[fishtank]

Just curious,have the CWU got any shares in BT?

You would need to ask the pension fund manager but i don't see why not,it's a successful company that made a profit of £1 billion last year.
Whether individual senior officials on the telecom side still have them is anyone's guess, i don't know how many came through BT.

[rockytony67]

So whats to stop the sell off? - finding someone with enough cash to make it worthwhile, the pension deficit, the antiquated working practices even with the "2010 and beyond agreement".

It'll come as sure as eggs is eggs - it's not IF though - it's WHEN.

What antiquated working practices are you talking about dvbuk? or have you let your true colors shine though there

[dvbuk55]

So whats to stop the sell off? - finding someone with enough cash to make it worthwhile, the pension deficit, the antiquated working practices even with the "2010 and beyond agreement".

It'll come as sure as eggs is eggs - it's not IF though - it's WHEN.

What antiquated working practices are you talking about dvbuk? or have you let your true colors shine though there

Tell me you believe that Royal Mail utilises its manpower and equipment in the most efficient way for the 21st century? Now tell me you believe that any buyer of this organisation wouldn't change a thing.

You see one doesn't really gel with the other.

Many people who work for RM have done so for many years and some haven't worked anywhere else and have no idea how much different this organisation would be under private ownership.

[rockytony67]

I'm just a little confused dvbuk, does 2010 not go far enough or too far? you left the union because you felt it was a betrayal of the members, but now your saying that it has not gone far enough

the antiquated working practices even with the "2010 and beyond agreement".

And remember that's not private business view, it's yours

Sorry mate I'm just a dopey lazy cockney who has it easy everyday, and lives and work's in a place were the streets are paved with gold, but you just let yourself slip with that post

[dvbuk55]

I'm just a little confused dvbuk, does 2010 not go far enough or too far? you left the union because you felt it was a betrayal of the members, but now your saying that it has not gone far enough

the antiquated working practices even with the "2010 and beyond agreement".

And remember that's not private business view, it's yours

Sorry mate I'm just a dopey lazy cockney who has it easy everyday, and lives and work's in a place were the streets are paved with gold, but you just let yourself slip with that post

2010, doesn't go far enough. That's not to say it was a good deal for the CWU membership who pay for representation they didn't get.

The two are seperate issues and being one of those, the gilding will soon wear off when TNT, DHL, China Post, La Poste, get their hands on you - it will be back to the crap in the streets and Madame Guillotine for you - bring out your dead will never have seemed so real.

[fishtank]

And there's always that cherry on the top...that promised 3.5% in 2012 which is going to look rather extravagant amongst Mr Cameron's savage public sector cuts.
Any new Chairman/Company that reigns in that kind of waste would most probably be knighted.

[dvbuk55]

And there's always that cherry on the top...that promised 3.5% in 2012 which is going to look rather extravagant amongst Mr Cameron's savage public sector cuts.
Any new Chairman/Company that reigns in that kind of waste would most probably be knighted.

Ah Yes the fabled 3.5% - which as you will remember is to be "revisited" nearer to the time and will be dependent on a number of factors - although I will have been long gone by then - I can hardly wait to see what the excuses will be for the "revaluation" - some of those "valued" posters may have moved on to even greater heights with even more experience and responsibility.

[tragictramp]

so according to what i have underlined, if u can drive u will be forced into driving? load of bollox if u ask me lol



Q. What if an individual is unable to drive i.e. no driving licence or cannot drive for health reasons?

A. If there are employees in your unit that are unable to drive you will need to consider what other duty options are available. You may need to accommodate these employees on shared routes as a planned non driver. (There is a limit to the number of non drivers you can accommodate on shared deliveries. It is, therefore, recommended that this is not an option to employees that can drive but choose not to.) You should explore what other opportunities there are to accommodate the individual within your office. If individuals cannot be accommodated in your office, you may be able to accommodate them via a move to another unit within a reasonable distance, where suitable work is available. Where this is not possible an employee may effectively become surplus and in this instance you should take advice from your Regional ER/IR Manager.