bt offer a years holiday at quarter pay!

[flaminmoses]

The same story with BA and BP, sold off on the cheap then butchered by bonus seeking management with the result that we have higher costs and lesser services

.

If anyone wanted to make a case against privatisation, BA and BP would easily be the worst examples to pick..
"Sold off then butchered by bonus seeking management".... yeah right.

dont think BA are helping out the pro privatisers at the moment.
BP are in an industry which is obviously strong at the moment.

BT and BG on the other hand dont show up well.
3 times i tried to get BG to install a new point and one i had to take a day off to do so.
3 times they never showed so i went elsewhere.

BT's broadband is outdated and imo is worse than all of the mainstream sellers like virgin sky etc.
the pathetic hubs are a joke from what ive heard......no choking the connection on my current isp.....as for phone charges they are a complete rip off.....yet they are the main installers.

if we go down that road god forbid.......ive heard stories from abroad re self employed posties where people dont know if they will get their post that day.
if you want to get something next day you will have to fork out for it in future imo......raising the actual cost .......and what was the point of de monopolising?

quick take back their bonuses

[mailsort6]

BT are offering its staff £1,000 for a year's holiday, this is not enough. Some law firms are offering trainee law graduates £10,000. This is just a cost cutting exercise which will save the business loads of money. Having a year's holidays will have an impact on employees redundancy package, because the 1 year's holiday will most likely not count when calculating an employee's redundancy package.

[BELIAL]

[BELIAL]

[Tman]

Was the dramatic fall in profits for both in the last year solely due to privatisation, or were there other factors?
What were the profits for (in BA's case) the previous 21 years? Can BP and it's subsidiary Amoco,despite a fall in profit, be considered to be ailing or failing in any way?

Oh yeah, No thread would be complete without them, eh Bubbles?

[BELIAL]

[Tman]

Dunno about "love affair", as it's the first time I've mentioned him as far as I can recall, but that aside, I see it's still the old "when questions get too difficult, take it off at a tangent" ploy then?

So, any more thoughts on BA or BP, pre or post privatisation, or will it be more of the same old waffle....

Hmm curiouser and curiouser. Bel's post get's edited in the last few minutes and certain phrases removed.

[andy2007]

I've got one: Quality of Sevice!

BT used to have great quality. They introduced Computerised Exchanges, back when such technology was still new, and expensive. But the Bills stayed reasonable. If there was a problem, they came out promptly. But just look at them now.

Their exchanges are now outdated, and rapidly falling behind the Competition. Ok, so the Phone service isn't bad. But thesedays, people want Broadband. Even in the best areas, they can only provide a fraction of the Bandwidth that Cable can. And in some areas they can't provide any Broadband at all. Why?
Lack of investment. Because they're only interested in profits. And not the service they provide.

[Tman]

Can't disagree with what you say Andy, but then to be fair, BT was poor before privatisation and the massive investment. It was still full of Strowger Exchanges and party lines back then, so in reality the question should be, would it be any better now if it hadn't been privatised?

Post war governments haven't had a great record in investing in long-term infrastructural upgrades in any industry.

[andy2007]

I thought that they'd already started installing the new Digital Exchanges, a year or two, before we first heard about the possibility of it being Privatised. Admittedly, by the time they'd completed the upgrade, they were already well into the process of Privatisation. Although of course, I could be wrong. It was quite a while ago now.

To be perfectly honest. And I know that I will probably upset some people by saying this: If I genuinely thought that we could have the quality of service, that we had, before the Government started preparing us for sale. Then I wouldn't really have a problem with RM being sold off.

Unfortunately, I've seen too many Privatised services, reduced to a shadow of their former selves, in the name of profit. It's only the fact that we have to be seen as profitable. That services have been slashed, and quality has been allowed to slide. And I can only see it getting worse, once the Private Sector gets it's claws into us.

[pinstripe]

so in reality the question should be, would it be any better now if it hadn't been privatised?

I can answer that. No. It would not be better, in fact IMO it would be far worse, simply due to this and previous Governments lack of investment.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Hmm curiouser and curiouser. Bel's post get's edited in the last few minutes and certain phrases removed.

Check the rules out and it may explain it - although I didn't amend the post I was in work at the time it does state Moderators and Admin can amend posts without explanation at any time and that as a member you agree to this. Just as a reminder for everyone I have quoted the relevant passages below.

You agree that royalmailchat have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time and without warning, should we see fit.

and

Please don't start complaint threads about the moderating