ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (Updated 2021)... HERE

ANNOUNCEMENT : PLEASE BE AWARE WE ARE NOT ON FACEBOOK AT ALL!

propaganda bombardment

Postal workers discussion forum. Discuss the day to day life in a Blue Shirt.
Tman
Posts: 4146
Joined: 21 Oct 2007, 09:57

propaganda bombardment

Post by Tman »

No doubt the same logic was used when the Bulldozer was invented; "but that's twelve blokes with shovels out of work".
All nonsense of course. RM's had automation since the 1960s and that'll only carry on.
The old Communist Bloc was good at job invention to ensure full employment, and look how that turned out.
postslippete
Posts: 4198
Joined: 14 Jul 2014, 16:27
Gender: Male

propaganda bombardment

Post by postslippete »

I'm not against Royal Mail investing in automation because it makes us more efficient as a company BUT you go ask your fellow colleagues if you think that its progress when the company then want us all to go out and work bigger duties and/or increased workloads in a 6 or 7 hour delivery outdoor spans and you might get a different response.
On the face of it, shareholder value is the dumbest idea in the world.
DGH
Posts: 710
Joined: 13 Dec 2014, 18:04
Gender: Male
Location: Neither here nor there

propaganda bombardment

Post by DGH »

Tman wrote:No doubt the same logic was used when the Bulldozer was invented; "but that's twelve blokes with shovels out of work".
All nonsense of course. RM's had automation since the 1960s and that'll only carry on.
The old Communist Bloc was good at job invention to ensure full employment, and look how that turned out.
No, that's not what I was saying, and well you know it.

There is no real problem primae facie with people being put out of work because of automation. There is a huge problem with people being made worse due to being put out of work (or on reduced hours/reduced pay) due to automation. Even you must be able to see that.
Tman
Posts: 4146
Joined: 21 Oct 2007, 09:57

propaganda bombardment

Post by Tman »

There is no real problem primae facie with people being put out of work because of automation. There is a huge problem with people being made worse due to being put out of work
"Even me" can see that you've said two contradictory consecutive sentences.
I have no idea what you're on about. So is it a "huge problem" or "no real problem"?
Either way, it's not going to go away...
IloveMYredTROLLEY!
EX ROYAL MAIL
Posts: 1923
Joined: 02 Apr 2010, 06:54
Gender: Male

propaganda bombardment

Post by IloveMYredTROLLEY! »

RM got tactical today...

A new character in WTLL, all softly spoken and seemed quite reserved, reading the script to tell us to vote no in the ballet! :left:
DGH
Posts: 710
Joined: 13 Dec 2014, 18:04
Gender: Male
Location: Neither here nor there

propaganda bombardment

Post by DGH »

Tman wrote:
There is no real problem primae facie with people being put out of work because of automation. There is a huge problem with people being made worse due to being put out of work
"Even me" can see that you've said two contradictory consecutive sentences.
I have no idea what you're on about. So is it a "huge problem" or "no real problem"?
Either way, it's not going to go away...
Not really.

If you are put out of work because a machine does your job but another job is available that is as well paid or better then you are not worse off financially.
Equally if you are put out of work by automation but are near retirement age, have a decent pension to draw upon and receive enough money to ease you through the 'gap years' then you're not worse off.

However if you are put out of work due to automation at a relatively young age and comparable jobs no longer exist, or are in too short supply for you to get one, and society doesn't see fit to mitigate your circumstances to any meaningful degree, then you are obviously materially worse off.
Tman
Posts: 4146
Joined: 21 Oct 2007, 09:57

propaganda bombardment

Post by Tman »

So your point is that there is no moral argument against automation, merely whether the individual can survive financially?
And who's to decide whether any individual can or cannot survive? You?-
LaggyBand
Posts: 1065
Joined: 29 Jun 2015, 14:07
Gender: Male

propaganda bombardment

Post by LaggyBand »

The problem is , the planet needs a revision.

We have technology that could free lots of humans from tedious labour.

But because we need bits of paper, or even digits on a screen, we see this technology as a threat to our survival.

We are begging to continue our tedious labour.

Aliens must think we are proper mad.
genesis
Posts: 220
Joined: 29 May 2007, 21:04

propaganda bombardment

Post by genesis »

Tman wrote:No doubt the same logic was used when the Bulldozer was invented; "but that's twelve blokes with shovels out of work".
All nonsense of course. RM's had automation since the 1960s and that'll only carry on.
The old Communist Bloc was good at job invention to ensure full employment, and look how that turned out.
What you should remember is the government lent the money to enable royal mail to purchase these machines, when it was still publicly owned.
Thus setting it up for privatisation .
Conclusion- Public investment for Private gain. (It should be called Piratisation)
Tman
Posts: 4146
Joined: 21 Oct 2007, 09:57

propaganda bombardment

Post by Tman »

What, they envisaged RM privatisation back in the late 1960s? :roll:
Interested-seeker
Posts: 442
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 11:50
Gender: Female

propaganda bombardment

Post by Interested-seeker »

DGH wrote:
Tman wrote:
="Interested-seeker expense of the working class, e.g. using automation to replace employees
That's what happens, it's called progress...unless you're some sort of Luddite?
No. Progress is an improvement in condition. Automation may improve conditions, it may not. Nobody, surely, would argue that someone made redundant and put on benefits by automation has improved their condition.

Automation can improve things by making dangerous or tedious jobs unnecessary of course, and/or by improving efficiency, resulting in greater productivity. But if the wealth created by that is concentrated largely in the hands of a few, that is hardly progress . . . unless you're some sort of Social Darwinist.
:thumbup :Applause :Applause :wave
Chimps_tea_party
EX ROYAL MAIL
Posts: 154
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 22:33
Gender: Male

propaganda bombardment

Post by Chimps_tea_party »

Tman wrote:
="Interested-seeker expense of the working class, e.g. using automation to replace employees
That's what happens, it's called progress...unless you're some sort of Luddite?
Cold comfort when you're trotting down to the dole office.
Retired ex- Royal Mail.
Tman
Posts: 4146
Joined: 21 Oct 2007, 09:57

propaganda bombardment

Post by Tman »

You'd be a lot colder if the mass-production of clothes, cars etc hadn't been automated and people still had to pay the prices for hand-made stuff, plus food, drugs, electronics, furniture etc would all be unaffordable to the average worker.
That's the problem with the one-perspective that is Luddism.
Chimps_tea_party
EX ROYAL MAIL
Posts: 154
Joined: 17 Sep 2010, 22:33
Gender: Male

propaganda bombardment

Post by Chimps_tea_party »

Tman wrote:You'd be a lot colder if the mass-production of clothes, cars etc hadn't been automated and people still had to pay the prices for hand-made stuff, plus food, drugs, electronics, furniture etc would all be unaffordable to the average worker.
That's the problem with the one-perspective that is Luddism.
Even more unaffordable if you have no job.
Retired ex- Royal Mail.
Tman
Posts: 4146
Joined: 21 Oct 2007, 09:57

propaganda bombardment

Post by Tman »

Dead right, so anything which makes things less unaffordable for the jobless must be a good thing.