TrueBlueTerrier wrote:Responding to Bogstandards' and Andy2007s' posts
Swearing is allowed but should be kept at a minimum and only where its really applicable., otherwise these 2 emoticons would not be on here. :lfo :cfo
IMO as a Moderator what is not allowed are:
1. Posts that identify people. For example John Smith at Packetsgalore Deliver Office just crashed a van is not allowed but - A Postie at a local DO just had a crash - he is ok - is acceptable.
2. No personal abuse of any members is allowed
3. Only POSTMAN can ban people so no one should tell others to leave this forum.
4. Abuse of members of the public and Non-Royal Mail employees is frowned upon, however comments about what idiotic actions they have committed sometimes may merit a swear word, such as describing the abuse you received from them.
5. ON no account are non-RM visitors and members to be abused, treat them with respect, they do not fully understand the banter and culture of working within Royal Mail so they may take offence very easily.
6. What is definitely not allowed is responding to someone's opinion, which differs from yours, with personal abuse, threats of violence or requests to leave. If you cant argue your point clearly and without resorting to any of the above, then don't respond.
The promotion boards don't 'know' the applicant but are they given a report, information or recommrndation from the applicant's current manager, and if so might this count for 90% of the board's decision, what is said at the board being only 10%, and if this is so ( as I know it to be elsewhere ) isn't the promotion board just a sham to make things look fair, the actual decision effectively being that of the applicant's line manager ?
There obviously needs to be some input from the applicant's line manager, but the assertion was made that (paraphrased) only the yes men and thickos will be appointed, because that's who "they" want as managers, which is a rather juvenile and meaningless excuse used by those who failed the interviews.
And if the lino does not like you then you stand no chance. As an observation all iv'e seen 'promoted' in the last few years are indeed yes men and 'favourites' no one who poses a threat to there realms are even considered 'myself' i'd not go to the dark side. As a unionised employe i doubt wether i'd ever be accepted anyway. I have principles and have stuck to them all my life and most certainly could not lower my standards to become a yes man ever
Last edited by axeman on 19 Dec 2007, 15:23, edited 1 time in total.
bogstandard wrote:Forget about the above, point 2 clears it up, that with point 5 means to me then that there is no personal abuse at all by anyone to anyone.
plenty of abuse by pro-rm posters towards the union stalwarts , there might be no effing & blinding but it's also arrogant , smug , dismissive and self satisfied, sometimes by people who won't reveal their true position which is "interesting "?.A very strange form of "debate" .
It's strange that Unite , former RM manager and even some Asda managers are scathingly critical of Leighton's command & control style but it's all apparently juvenile sour grapes if people don't get promoted .. Sounds if some can't deal with any criticisim .
This has happened in ex nationalised industries too but I'm sure it was pure "coincidence
Last edited by norbet colon on 20 Dec 2007, 09:42, edited 4 times in total.
politics -showbiz for the ugly , powermad & inadequate
The promotion boards don't 'know' the applicant but are they given a report, information or recommrndation from the applicant's current manager, and if so might this count for 90% of the board's decision, what is said at the board being only 10%, and if this is so ( as I know it to be elsewhere ) isn't the promotion board just a sham to make things look fair, the actual decision effectively being that of the applicant's line manager ?
There obviously needs to be some input from the applicant's line manager, but the assertion was made that (paraphrased) only the yes men and thickos will be appointed, because that's who "they" want as managers, which is a rather juvenile and meaningless excuse used by those who failed the interviews.
Are you in a position to assert that failed applicants "normally" use these excuses? Can you back up your claims or is it simply another example of your company man opinion?
bogstandard wrote:Forget about the above, point 2 clears it up, that with point 5 means to me then that there is no personal abuse at all by anyone to anyone.
plenty of abuse by pro-rm posters towards the union stalwarts , there might be no effing & blinding but it's also arrogant , smug , dismissive and self satisfied, sometimes by people who won't reveal their true position which is "interesting "?.
It doesn't matter which side you are on. We all need to have a proper debate, instead of a slanging match. Hopefully, this will change in time.
Don't knock Insanity
it's just another outlook on Reality!
Sorry it realy does mater which side of the fence you are on ! debate maybe but please don't come on strong with big al's, lil adams 'bullshit'
or even be one that belives the 'company policy' as the truth, and will follow it with the upmost vigour and hail all they say as your 'mission , quest'
axeman wrote:Sorry it realy does mater which side of the fence you are on ! debate maybe but please don't come on strong with big al's, lil adams 'bullshit'
or even be one that belives the 'company policy' as the truth, and will follow it with the upmost vigour and hail all they say as your 'mission , quest'
Mods hat on - if these company men really do exist and I have my doubts - their points of view are just as relevant to a discussion as anyone else's - its just up to us the Union stalwarts to correct them without abuse.
All post by me in Green are Admin Posts. Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility. If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
Are you in a position to assert that failed applicants "normally" use these excuses? Can you back up your claims or is it simply another example of your company man opinion
I think you're just being abusive/confrontational for the sake of it now. I thought this forum had attempted to move on from those "happy" days.
Are you in a position to assert that failed applicants "normally" use these excuses? Can you back up your claims or is it simply another example of your company man opinion
I think you're just being abusive/confrontational for the sake of it now. I thought this forum had attempted to move on from those "happy" days.
Nope sorry can't spot any abuse. Care to answer the original question?
Similar observations about not being 'Yes' men apply in most industries where applicants fail. I'm sure local managers do play a part but confidence has far more to do with being selected than anything. On the whole though, those who tend to say "I was turned down because I wasn't likely to sing the company tune" have no real concept of what management entails.
Similar observations about not being 'Yes' men apply in most industries where applicants fail. I'm sure local managers do play a part but confidence has far more to do with being selected than anything.
Interesting statement, personally I've met loads of peeps whose confidence has been severley misplaced, perhaps ability should be promoted up the selection criteria list?
On the whole though, those who tend to say "I was turned down because I wasn't likely to sing the company tune" have no real concept of what management entails.
Another bold statement, any sources that can substantiate this pearl of wisdom? Or is it apocryphal?.
The question notwithstanding, since when has having no real concept of what management entails neccesarily been a bar to promotion?
Management entails selling your very soul to the 'hirearchy' and includes being able to tell porkies to your 'fellow workers' maybe with a 'self belief' that what was relayed to you is and must be the truth as it comes from above. And it's quite clear to see that 'nt' seems to be from the dark side
Oh right. I'm not even sure what selection process has to do with the original topic but these last few posts seem to be drifting into a recycling of the 'them and us' thing so I'll leave you to stretch that one out as you see fit. In the meantime I'll get up nice an early, daggers drawn and prepare myself for a miserable day then
