Sequenced mail test.

[DirtyHarry]

A bulldozer scrapes and pushes just like a manager ! (it does not dig) ...... don't say they don't work but how well and just how accurate and for how long ? as we all know the human body will function with a far lower level of maintenence and do it far more accurately, just depends on wether you want quantity before quality.

It's just a well-use cliche rather than an opinion of shovels Vs bulldozers, and illustrates the fact that whatever you think of machines and automation, as soon as someone developes a machine to do the work of several humans, there's no going back.
Machines can and will improve, to the point that some happily sit indefinitely working away, and that's something the human body can and will never do.
It's a physical given; "ah yeah but" arguments are irrelevant.

Until Man is made almost completely redundant by machines, it's then the s**t will hit the fan.

[DGP1]

In my DO we still get at least 1/3 - 1/2 of our mail to be manually sorted (we were told that almost all our mail would come down to us walk sorted nearly 2 years ago) but we know have less sorters because so many people have to stay at their frames because their mail has increased so much. Automation will only work whenever there are competent management to sort it all out (and lets face it it'll never happen in RM too many management jobs for the boys)

[koffin kev]

these machines are good if they keep working ,but they have kicked off a whole new set of arguements among our posties .we all believe the only reason r.m. has changed our start time is to accomodate the roll-out nationally of these machines
i personally can,t wait for r.m to announce the testing of the "postus roboticus---linford christy speedmaster mail deliverater"--does three walks an hour does not need a meal relief coz it carries its own lunch box!!!!

[pinstripe]

Until Man is made almost completely redundant by machines, it's then the s**t will hit the fan.

What, like in Terminator? What a thought, Saddam Crazier, "I'll be back". But then again, he'd have to :cfo first

[Spedley]

Automation is a good thing. I can't understand anyone who thinks differently.

:?

[bigsharkboy]

Automation is a good thing. I can't understand anyone who thinks differently.

:?

?????????????????????????????

[Tman]

[

On a sort of philisophical note, I think it's worthwhile asking: what is the purpose of employment? Notwithstanding all the obvious answers, earning a wage, servicing the econonmy and so on, do you think at least a part of it is just about giving people self-worth and something to do. It seems to me that to resign oneself completely to the 'inevitabilities' of market forces is somewhat fatalistic - Once we cease to ask questions and challenge those who tell us what is best for us, we may as well give up.

Too deep. It's not about market forces, self-worth or employment (but that last bit did sound like it emanated from the old pseudo-socialist Communist Bloc think-tanks!) but more about the old saying "the only permanency is change".
For boring repetitive tasks a machine will always beat a human, so someone somewhere will be dreaming up just such machines.
Much as DO posties will always think they're "better" in some ways than automation, they're only fooling themselves. That battle was lost back in the 1970s, and on that alone I can't see why the UCW doesn't try to work to get a better deal rather than oppose the inevitable.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Automation is a good thing. I can't understand anyone who thinks differently.

:?

Automation in of itself is neither a good nor a bad thing. It is the processes and procedures that are introduced with automation that will affect the workers on the ground that is where the effect either good or bad will occur. If they make our walks longer and heavier and with no commensurate payment for improvement in efficiency and lay off posties, that will be a bad move. However, if they also bring in equipment to make the job easier even if we take more and perhaps reduce the working week with no loss of pay that will be good.

However, limited though my experience is, I think Royal Mail will fall somewhere in between with management pushing for more work with no increase in pay.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

On a sort of philosophical note, I think it's worthwhile asking: what is the purpose of employment? Notwithstanding all the obvious answers, earning a wage, servicing the economy and so on, do you think at least a part of it is just about giving people self-worth and something to do. It seems to me that to resign oneself completely to the 'inevitabilities' of market forces is somewhat fatalistic - Once we cease to ask questions and challenge those who tell us what is best for us, we may as well give up.

Too deep. It's not about market forces, self-worth or employment (but that last bit did sound like it emanated from the old pseudo-socialist Communist Bloc think-tanks!) but more about the old saying "the only permanency is change".
For boring repetitive tasks a machine will always beat a human, so someone somewhere will be dreaming up just such machines.
Much as DO posties will always think they're "better" in some ways than automation, they're only fooling themselves. That battle was lost back in the 1970s, and on that alone I can't see why the UCW doesn't try to work to get a better deal rather than oppose the inevitable.

UCW does not exist. We are now called the CWU.

Also the union is trying to get a better deal and recognises that modernisation and automation is inevitable in fact they are not fighting it they are trying to bring in protection for the workers.

With all the automation in the world I still believe unless they bring in something like transporters (which is according to current science is physically impossible) then there will always be someone somewhere delivery items both large and small.

Why are we fooling ourselves that we are better in some ways than machines, in some tasks we will always be and in other task machines will be. Is it wrong to try and find out what the balance should be.

The "Self-worth" argument is a valid one. If it wasn't why are there so many papers and articles out there discussing it:

However, work is more complex than this. We do not work just to earn money: there
are many other reasons for having a job. This is highlighted by women who, after
having children, want to return to work. They may need to work to increase the family
income, but they may also wish to work in order to satisfy other needs, such as
challenge, social relationships and a feeling of self-worth. Men are no different in this
respect

from http://www.philipallan.co.uk/pdfs//uitecobusn.pdf

Self-esteem - The costs and causes of low self-worth http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/1859352510.pdf

The working poor find dignity in earning a pay check and shunning the welfare system, arguing that even low-paying jobs give order to their lives. No Shame in My Game gives voice to a misrepresented segment of today's society, and is sure to spark dialogue over the issues surrounding poverty, working and welfare.

a quote from No Shame in My Game: the Working Poor in the Inner City by Katherine S. Newman.


The quote you are citing is probably this one

Change alone is eternal, perpetual, immortal.
- Arthur Schopenhauer

[kingtubby]

Too deep. It's not about market forces, self-worth or employment (but that last bit did sound like it emanated from the old pseudo-socialist Communist Bloc think-tanks!) but more about the old saying "the only permanency is change".
For boring repetitive tasks a machine will always beat a human, so someone somewhere will be dreaming up just such machines.
Much as DO posties will always think they're "better" in some ways than automation, they're only fooling themselves. That battle was lost back in the 1970s, and on that alone I can't see why the UCW doesn't try to work to get a better deal rather than oppose the inevitable.

Too deep? - the issue is nowhere near as black and white as you'd like to portray it, though simplifying an argument serves a purpose I suppose.

The CWU (as representative of the membership and including myself) has repeatedly stated that it is not against increased automation, and change in general for that matter, so the luddite argument you put is fallacious.
Of course you will always get some bitching and complaining at the user level but that just fills the gap between the trumpeted wonderfulness of the machinery and the reality of using the things. I'm not saying there's a huge gap, but the fact is that it's not as perfect as it says in all the glossy sales brochures!

But to reiterate - my point is not anti-automation, it's about where people fit into an increasingly automated system so that they feel valued. My initial response in this thread was to highlight RM's drive towards casualisation on the back of automation. In my view it is casualisation that should be resisted, not machinery.

[Tman]

[

But to reiterate - my point is not anti-automation, it's about where people fit into an increasingly automated system so that they feel valued. My initial response in this thread was to highlight RM's drive towards casualisation on the back of automation. In my view it is casualisation that should be resisted, not machinery.

Lots of tangents in this thread; I'd like to answer them all, but slow typing means too much time taken, and that's the reason for the "over-simplication" I'm accused of in the post above this one.
I didn't mean the CWU were Luddite-ish (if there is such a word) in thier principles or direction, but more that instead of recognising the future prosperity of RM is down to automation, they have consistently fudged and f***ed up various issues over the last twenty five years in an effort (presumably) to ensure members jobs and perks at all costs.
"Good" some will say "that's what they're there for" and to a point that's true, but when you see the incompetent, the willful, the bone-idle and wanna-be saboteur running £2 million machines on a daily basis as I do, you start to think something's wrong somewhere.
Would Ford (for instance) allow cars off the assembly line with poor paint jobs with the excuse that "ah yeah, but the paint sprayer's the most senior so we have to use him" or "no-one else wants the job, so he had it" or best of all, "he wants to come off this duty, so he's doing a crap job so they take him off".
And that is life in a modern-day mail centre; weak crap ex-postie Boggins turn management, part-time staff who couldn't give a toss, and a backward-looking union.
Shame, as the staff are generally top-notch and deserve more.

[axeman]

paint is sprayed by robots at the factorys .... automation has limits just as a car if you put in an 8.4lt v10 you can still only legally do 70 mph the rest is overkill same thing for mecanisation you can run what you like through a sequencer etc but at the end of the day if a postie works his / her hours what do you do with the residue ? horses for courses

[kingtubby]

...but when you see the incompetent, the willful, the bone-idle and wanna-be saboteur running £2 million machines on a daily basis as I do, you start to think something's wrong somewhere.

There's no denying that there is a small minority of less than ideal employees, but in a workforce of around 130,000 that's most likely inevitable.
I do appreciate the managers perspective regarding getting the best suited staff in a particular area and issues surrounding seniority, but as someone with 21+ years, seniority remains an important part of feeling valued and rewarded for long service. If there is viable alternative then I'm happy to listen..

...that is life in a modern-day mail centre; weak crap ex-postie Boggins turn management, part-time staff who couldn't give a toss...

Agreed.

Shame, as the staff are generally top-notch and deserve more.

Agreed 100%!

The bottom line is, a valued and motivated workforce will always be more successful and productive.


Mart.

[DirtyHarry]

Automation is a good thing. I can't understand anyone who thinks differently.

:?

I'm a Luddite, I'm against any sort of machinary that deprives people of jobs.

[DirtyHarry]

Until Man is made almost completely redundant by machines, it's then the s**t will hit the fan.

What, like in Terminator? What a thought, Saddam Crazier, "I'll be back". But then again, he'd have to :cfo first

Decent jobs are at a premium now, I dread to think what it will be like in another 10 years.