Ofcon

[chrisj]

Competition also involves an anti-monopoly policy! It is not simply the the survival of the biggest.

When a nationalised industry is open to competition this is the sort of things that the Regulator allows to happen until there are enough viable and successful players in the market to justify the term competition.

Even the likes of Microsoft were made to sell some successful parts of their business to allow access for competitors. The same with Lloyds being made to sell TSB even at a lower than market value...
BT, Brit Gas, British Rail all had to open up their networks to competition and suck things up - its the way it is when you are already a beneficiary of huge legacy of public monopoly, markets and networks

Royal Mail is within their sensible rights to demand a review of the direct delivery by competitors because not only does it affect their overall future profits and markets but it also seriously threatens the USO.

But do the regulators really care about the USO nowadays given that the postal industry will be fully privatised in the near future? I do not think they do care much about the USO but use it presently as a stick to beat the RM and curtail its profits and ability to stamp on competitors.

RM cannot simply do what they want and cannot take on the Regulator as been highlighted, the fines will simply cripple the business and things will be even worse in terms of bad publicity from all angles - press, competitors, OFCOM, politicians, EU and the customers...

[Brain Fury]

Competition also involves an anti-monopoly policy! It is not simply the the survival of the biggest.

When a nationalised industry is open to competition this is the sort of things that the Regulator allows to happen until there are enough viable and successful players in the market to justify the term competition.

Even the likes of Microsoft were made to sell some successful parts of their business to allow access for competitors. The same with Lloyds being made to sell TSB even at a lower than market value...
BT, Brit Gas, British Rail all had to open up their networks to competition and suck things up - its the way it is when you are already a beneficiary of huge legacy of public monopoly, markets and networks

Royal Mail is within their sensible rights to demand a review of the direct delivery by competitors because not only does it affect their overall future profits and markets but it also seriously threatens the USO.

But do the regulators really care about the USO nowadays given that the postal industry will be fully privatised in the near future? I do not think they do care much about the USO but use it presently as a stick to beat the RM and curtail its profits and ability to stamp on competitors.

RM cannot simply do what they want and cannot take on the Regulator as been highlighted, the fines will simply cripple the business and things will be even worse in terms of bad publicity from all angles - press, competitors, OFCOM, politicians, EU and the customers...

Good analysis Chris. The decision to break up the monopoly will by definition mean that Royal Mail gets smaller and has to become more efficient in order to survive. The ways that Postcomm and now Ofcom have encouraged competition are absolutely standard and all the bleating from RM about it being unfair is just proof that it's working.

[Budfrog]

Competition also involves an anti-monopoly policy! It is not simply the the survival of the biggest.

When a nationalised industry is open to competition this is the sort of things that the Regulator allows to happen until there are enough viable and successful players in the market to justify the term competition.

Even the likes of Microsoft were made to sell some successful parts of their business to allow access for competitors. The same with Lloyds being made to sell TSB even at a lower than market value...
BT, Brit Gas, British Rail all had to open up their networks to competition and suck things up - its the way it is when you are already a beneficiary of huge legacy of public monopoly, markets and networks

Royal Mail is within their sensible rights to demand a review of the direct delivery by competitors because not only does it affect their overall future profits and markets but it also seriously threatens the USO.

But do the regulators really care about the USO nowadays given that the postal industry will be fully privatised in the near future? I do not think they do care much about the USO but use it presently as a stick to beat the RM and curtail its profits and ability to stamp on competitors.

RM cannot simply do what they want and cannot take on the Regulator as been highlighted, the fines will simply cripple the business and things will be even worse in terms of bad publicity from all angles - press, competitors, OFCOM, politicians, EU and the customers...

Good analysis Chris. The decision to break up the monopoly will by definition mean that Royal Mail gets smaller and has to become more efficient in order to survive. The ways that Postcomm and now Ofcom have encouraged competition are absolutely standard and all the bleating from RM about it being unfair is just proof that it's working.

Agree

[Martin Walsh]

Jack sadly Royal Mail cannot undercut the companies they recently tried to increase the price their charge to certain companies and TNT complained and now of com has put it on hold whilst a review takes place. There is no level playing field.

Chris you mention BT , BR and BG , the difference is that competition meant that others companies could use their telephone cables , their tracks and stations and their cables and pipelines. TNT and other competitors simply take our work and remove more jobs and the service.

Of com primary task is to protect the USO and at the moment they are on path to destroy it.

In terms of what the union are faced with is less work and less revenue and the growth is where it is more costly to deliver. If a shipyard builds 4 ships per year and suddenly builds 1 then it cannot afford to maintain the same number of jobs.

Are you suggesting the union simply covers it's eyes and ingnored what is happening ? Every union has to face up to what we are at this moment in time. It's easy to sit from a afar and criticise without see the impact on the ground in the areas which have lost out to TNT and Amazon ! Far harder to have to deal with this as a reality.

[dvbuk55]

Well it must be a little more complicated than that. Not least of all that despite massive investment, higher productivity, major job losses, a management/union collaboration we are still failing to produce the goods - so who is at fault - apart from the regulator and government there must be culpability within the organisation. Could it be that some areas failed to embrace modernisation revisions for years, that some areas are vastly over manned and show no sign of slimming down manpower and or hours - perhaps those involved in those practices should shoulder some of the blame.

I repost my original post because nowhere did I mention London - and yet someone assumed I was referring to London - now why would that be? You see dingo doesn't countenance the idea that by using the tools provided to modernise sooner keeping costs down may have dissuaded the likes of TNT and Amazon from entering the market IF Royal Mail had the market and workforce under control NATIONALLY. There's nothing like trying to bolt the stable door when the horse is in the next field. As for the USO you can safely assume it's going but there's no assurance that ANYWHERE is going to get a daily delivery, in fact it's more than likely that nowhere will have a daily delivery despite any case made to the contrary. Cable has been on TV just today to maintain that the selling price was set lower in order to PRESERVE the USO - now how that gels I wouldn't know but he has used the politico speak widely used by politicians and union leaders to serve as an assurance that they have made the right decisions - quite contrary to the obvious.

[chrisj]

Chris you mention BT , BR and BG , the difference is that competition meant that others companies could use their telephone cables , their tracks and stations and their cables and pipelines. TNT and other competitors simply take our work and remove more jobs and the service.

I would have thought that DSA is exactly the same as the examples you have given above. And what happens after the ability to use the cables, stations and tracks is that the competition will eventually take work away from the privatised/liberalised public companies. Just how come Talk Talk can offer a cheaper service (broadband e.g) whilst using BT lines?

The started with DSA and now have moved on to Direct Delivery - yes, they are cherry picking but that is what will happen naturally. If someone is going to buy a franchise, they will opt for the easiest and most profitable.

Competition is their to take work and market share away from the monopoly. Competitors often compete on the bases of price and through better efficiencies, reduced overheads and wages (including job losses). That is the way it is!

I am not saying it is right but then we have been privatised and the government/EU wants the UK postal service to be open and competitive - there is no going back!

My point is that what do you suggest we do about things? You can answer as a postal employee or as a CWU official. (Writing to our MPs will be as much help as it did prior to privatisation)

[Bahia Feliz]

* funny enough, the only real way to compete is to take pay cuts.

Race to the bottom Chris?

[k979aaa]

If it's a competitive market, as we keep being told, then RM should charge all these DSA companies a realistic price, with a lump it or like it attitude, how can it be seen as fair competition, when one company in the market is being forced to deliver a competitors mail at a loss.

RM should tell these companies that the cost of delivering their mail within the USO is going to cost them 75p per item. Then see if they want to deliver one letter on a Tuesday to a farm at the end of a one mile track.

In the mean time RM sales force go through the motions of undercutting TNT and the like, by contacting all their customers and offering to deliver the mail cheaper than TNT.

That is a competitive market, not what we have now.

Or stream their mail at third class just as long as we don't throw it in the bushes!

[Budfrog]

Slightly off topic I know but this page gives some idea of the T&Cs that employees (self employed franchisees) of DPD 'enjoy' (one of the best companies in terms of QofS) which is owned by Geopost (in turn owned by La Poste).

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/sho ... ?t=3012966" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[wabbithunta]

Slightly off topic I know but this page gives some idea of the T&Cs that employees (self employed franchisees) of DPD 'enjoy' (one of the best companies in terms of QofS) which is owned by Geopost (in turn owned by La Poste).

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/sho ... ?t=3012966" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So basically this explains why couriers act the way they do then..!

[Budfrog]

Slightly off topic I know but this page gives some idea of the T&Cs that employees (self employed franchisees) of DPD 'enjoy' (one of the best companies in terms of QofS) which is owned by Geopost (in turn owned by La Poste).

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/sho ... ?t=3012966" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So basically this explains why couriers act the way they do then..!

Swings and Roundabouts:

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2013/02/28 ... rier-ever/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;