Royal Mail - managed decline?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://kdtennent.blogspot.com/2009/10/r ... cline.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Today postal workers in the UK voted to strike nationally, following a series of local disputes regarding a range of issues affecting the organisation, which mostly stem from the gradual decline of post on paper. Royal Mail, which remains a state owned enterprise whose role is to provide a letter and parcel delivery service to every UK address, says that letter and parcel traffic is falling by 10% per annum, meaning a reduction in income of around £170m per annum. Despite this the company did manage to make an operating profit of £321m in the year to March 31 due to efficiency savings. Naturally however such efficiency savings are unpopular with the unions.

The decline of the Royal Mail does have true historical significance - it is one of the world's oldest surviving businesses, and particularly unusual in this sense that it still fulfils the same function. Its roots can be traced back to the 16th century at least, when it was literally the 'Royal Mail', carrying mail for royalty and government business. In this sense its roots parallel the internet somewhat, which was originally established by the US government for internal purposes. Members of the public were able to use the system from 1635 onwards, when Charles I opened up the service. It was granted a monopoly as the 'office of postage' by the dictator Oliver Cromwell in 1654, a monopoly only removed by government in 2006. A network of horse drawn carriages conveyed mail on contract for the post office, although originally the recipient paid for postage. This system was changed in 1840 with the innovation of the postage stamp, which meant that the sender paid the postage, which was reduced to 1d., or old penny (about 30p today). This, and the introduction of rail transport for letters led to a real boom in post office business, and about half of Prime Minister Gladstone's civil servants were postmen. The mail remained a government department, the 'General Post Office' until 1969, a period in which it had control over all communications in the UK (such as telgraph, telephony, radio and tv). Since that time it has been administered as a separate business, but still remained in the state sector, and still employs over 120,000 people today. With postal volumes declining so rapidly it seems unlikely to be a viable candidate for privatisation anytime soon - but at the same time it seems likely that unions may have to concede that with postmen having less to deliver, it may eventually become economically inefficient for society to continue to pay them to walk round everybody's front door every day. But how long will this take?

[DirtyHarry]

"with postmen having less to deliver"

Will somebody, somewhere, tell these idiots about falls in employee numbers, and the subsequent increase in workloads for those of us still left in the job? Sheesh!

[andy2007]

They won't believe us, even when we tell them. They blindly accept the RM propaganda.

Personally, I've seen a decline in the amount of Mail we ship around the Country. But that's only really hit, during the Credit Crunch. And besides. There's a lot less Posties around to deliver it. So the idea that individual Posties have less to deliver. Is in my opinion, complete rubbish!

[goinpostal]

Anyone seen any proof about Royal Mail changing the number of letters per perstorp? In my office we get loads of letters in flats now and are having a row about it. I can't believe that RM has cut the number of letters without our fulltimers knowing about it, and if so why havent they told us? Or did i miss that LTB? help much appreciated!

[Kevo00]

As the author of the above, I would point out that I did not say that postmen had less to deliver today (although I still only have one postman and one door!), I was talking about the future. I get much less post than I used to. They can make your round longer, but eventually there is only so much you will do for the same wages, and do before collapsing. After that point, if the volume of mail continues to fall then you will be delivering less post.

Kevin

[DirtyHarry]

As the author of the above, I would point out that I did not say that postmen had less to deliver today (although I still only have one postman and one door!), I was talking about the future. I get much less post than I used to. They can make your round longer, but eventually there is only so much you will do for the same wages, and do before collapsing. After that point, if the volume of mail continues to fall then you will be delivering less post.

Kevin

That's a bridge which should be crossed when we come to it, not before. This is the main fault with RM management, they love putting the cart before the bleedin' horse, such as, cutting the workforce by an estimated 50,000 pairs of hands before a single piece of the new automation was rolled out.

[mailman71]

As the author of the above, I would point out that I did not say that postmen had less to deliver today (although I still only have one postman and one door!), I was talking about the future. I get much less post than I used to. They can make your round longer, but eventually there is only so much you will do for the same wages, and do before collapsing. After that point, if the volume of mail continues to fall then you will be delivering less post.

Kevin

That's a bridge which should be crossed when we come to it, not before. This is the main fault with RM management, they love putting the cart before the bleedin' horse, such as, cutting the workforce by an estimated 50,000 pairs of hands before a single piece of the new automation was rolled out.

if you have 600 calls on your walk it does'nt matter if you go with 2 letters or 10 for each call it will take the same time to deliver.
this means that the so called 10% DROP IN MAIL IS INSIGNIFICANT.

[Kevo00]

DirtyHarry - can't comment about the specific case, but there is nothing wrong with planning ahead. My post is more of an 'if' scenario than a 'when' scenario.

Mailman71 - I have never worked as a postman so maybe you know some secret postman's technique that I don't. But it seems like common sense to me that while you might get 2 items at a time through a letter box, you might not get 10 through a letterbox at once, and it might not be that easy to get 10 letters in one handful. Even if you just take 5 seconds extra at each house, that means 3000 extra seconds overall - or adding 50 minutes onto the round. So working the other way, surely a 10% drop would indeed be significant if taken over the whole round.

[BELIAL]

DirtyHarry - can't comment about the specific case, but there is nothing wrong with planning ahead. My post is more of an 'if' scenario than a 'when' scenario.

Mailman71 - I have never worked as a postman so maybe you know some secret postman's technique that I don't. But it seems like common sense to me that while you might get 2 items at a time through a letter box, you might not get 10 through a letterbox at once, and it might not be that easy to get 10 letters in one handful. Even if you just take 5 seconds extra at each house, that means 3000 extra seconds overall - or adding 50 minutes onto the round. So working the other way, surely a 10% drop would indeed be significant if taken over the whole round.

You started off okay ,now your ignorance is shinning through and makes you look very dumb to those in the know. Not meaning to be harsh ,but all your assumptions are way off base and you end up talking shite. It's okay we are used to it

[Night Tonic]

You can see why the journalists are having a field day with comments like that

[Tman]

As the author of the above, I would point out that I did not say that postmen had less to deliver today (although I still only have one postman and one door!), I was talking about the future. I get much less post than I used to. They can make your round longer, but eventually there is only so much you will do for the same wages, and do before collapsing. After that point, if the volume of mail continues to fall then you will be delivering less post.

Don't bother pushing this one too much. All the evidence and reports would tell them volumes are dropping, and have been for the last couple of years, but the standard rebuttal for that is "yeahbut I'm still working just as hard".
MCs closing and shifts collapsing means nothing when DO posties "work just as hard". Common savvy says that with less staff the remainer will work as hard or harder for the same (or even less) mail, but that can be in short supply around here...

In reality, volumes dropping is a world-wide phenomenon rather than something RM "invented" (after all, who's going to send out mass advertising in the middle of a depression/credit crunch?) but as you can see by the post two above this one, some cannot or will not accept that. In "Denial", or something like that....

[OnAFlyer]

As the author of the above, I would point out that I did not say that postmen had less to deliver today (although I still only have one postman and one door!), I was talking about the future. I get much less post than I used to. They can make your round longer, but eventually there is only so much you will do for the same wages, and do before collapsing. After that point, if the volume of mail continues to fall then you will be delivering less post.

Don't bother pushing this one too much. All the evidence and reports would tell them volumes are dropping, and have been for the last couple of years, but the standard rebuttal for that is "yeahbut I'm still working just as hard". MCs closing and shifts collapsing means nothing when DO posties "work just as hard". Common savvy says that with less staff the remainer will work as hard or harder for the same (or even less) mail, but that can be in short supply around here...

In reality, volumes dropping is a world-wide phenomenon rather than something RM "invented" (after all, who's going to send out mass advertising in the middle of a depression/credit crunch?) but as you can see by the post two above this one, some cannot or will not accept that. In "Denial", or something like that....

Let's talk some facts shall we?

Now whether there are actually as many items as there were at peak levels 2-3 years ago I don't know, because I don't count them all (and neither do RM ) What I do know is that I have been doing the same delivery for 6 years and it now takes longer, on average, than it ever has done. I have more bags now and more weight, on average, than I have ever before. Those are facts, not lies or delusions.

The reason isn't mail volume - 1 letters or 3 letters for a house, well it doesnt really make a lot of difference. (In fact I would probably agree that there are less 'standard' letters now than there were a year or two ago).

The difference is the increase in the amount of packets, Recordeds, Special Deliveries and bulk/heavy items such as catalogues. these all take extra time to deliver, and cause the delivery to be broken down into more bags, hence more dead walking and more time wasted.

Those are the facts. It's not us in denial it's management such as you, who believe every figure they see on a computer screen.

Do you think people are striking for nothing?

[OnAFlyer]

As the author of the above, I would point out that I did not say that postmen had less to deliver today (although I still only have one postman and one door!), I was talking about the future. I get much less post than I used to. They can make your round longer, but eventually there is only so much you will do for the same wages, and do before collapsing. After that point, if the volume of mail continues to fall then you will be delivering less post.

Kevin

Royal Mail, which remains a state owned enterprise whose role is to provide a letter and parcel delivery service to every UK address, says that letter and parcel traffic is falling by 10% per annum

Where did you get your figures from that say parcel traffic is falling by 10% per annum?

Ever heard of Internet shopping and Ebay?

[Tman]

Let's talk some facts shall we?

I already was, but carry on..........

[Now whether there are actually as many items as there were at peak levels 2-3 years ago I don't know, because I don't count them all (and neither do RM ) What I do know is that I have been doing the same delivery for 6 years and it now takes longer, on average, than it ever has done. I have more bags now and more weight, on average, than I have ever before. Those are facts, not lies or delusions.
The reason isn't mail volume - 1 letters or 3 letters for a house, well it doesnt really make a lot of difference. (In fact I would probably agree that there are less 'standard' letters now than there were a year or two ago).

The difference is the increase in the amount of packets, Recordeds, Special Deliveries and bulk/heavy items such as catalogues. these all take extra time to deliver, and cause the delivery to be broken down into more bags, hence more dead walking and more time wasted.

I'm not talking about packets, specials or any such things, I'm talking about letters as processed through RM machines, and the totals are down (well down, in fact) on what they were.
The statement/argument/discussion never was about how hard posties work, how many packets they take out, how many blah blah blahs they carry,it was about the decline in mail traffic, pure and simple. Now tell me again about being in "denial"..

Those are the facts. It's not us in denial it's management such as you, who believe every figure they see on a computer screen.

No, it's your opinion based on what you see in your little part of RM world, and sadly far removed from anything "factual".
"Management" Same old lame reply as used about 1000 times now. Move on.

Do you think people are striking for nothing?

If I thought the issues were "just" as simple as that in the recent vote, I'd have voted NO. It's based on a something a little more substantial than believing or disbelieving RM's traffic figures, I hope.

[OnAFlyer]

Let's talk some facts shall we?

I already was, but carry on..........

[Now whether there are actually as many items as there were at peak levels 2-3 years ago I don't know, because I don't count them all (and neither do RM ) What I do know is that I have been doing the same delivery for 6 years and it now takes longer, on average, than it ever has done. I have more bags now and more weight, on average, than I have ever before. Those are facts, not lies or delusions.
The reason isn't mail volume - 1 letters or 3 letters for a house, well it doesnt really make a lot of difference. (In fact I would probably agree that there are less 'standard' letters now than there were a year or two ago).

The difference is the increase in the amount of packets, Recordeds, Special Deliveries and bulk/heavy items such as catalogues. these all take extra time to deliver, and cause the delivery to be broken down into more bags, hence more dead walking and more time wasted.

I'm not talking about packets, specials or any such things, I'm talking about letters as processed through RM machines, and the totals are down (well down, in fact) on what they were.

The statement/argument/discussion never was about how hard posties work, how many packets they take out, how many blah blah blahs they carry,it was about the decline in mail traffic, pure and simple. Now tell me again about being in "denial"..

Ah, the old 'mail going through the machines' argument. So catalogues, recordeds, Specials etc aren't classed as mail now? What about DSA, is that not mail as it doesn't go through a RM machine? I'm saying deliveries now take longer regardless of a drop (if there is one) in small letters, as we take more weight overall - meaning the article's suggestion that we soon may not need a door to door postal service is rubbish.

The original post didn't say anything about machined mail did it? So we're not talking about that at all. We're talking about a supposed 10% drop in mail and parcels, which is written in the article. I assume that means overall.

Those are the facts. It's not us in denial it's management such as you, who believe every figure they see on a computer screen.

No, it's your opinion based on what you see in your little part of RM world, and sadly far removed from anything "factual".
"Management" Same old lame reply as used about 1000 times now. Move on.

I don't often reply to these posts, and no it's not just based on my opinion - I take it you actually look around this forum? Or it only the people on here who are doing more work, and everyone else has it easy? I'll ask you the question - where do you get your figures from? It's either a sheet of paper or a computer screen, and you obviously believe them - so whether my reply was lame or not it was still correct

Do you think people are striking for nothing?

If I thought the issues were "just" as simple as that in the recent vote, I'd have voted NO. It's based on a something a little more substantial than believing or disbelieving RM's traffic figures, I hope.

Of course it is, again, look around this forum.

It's factually inaccurate statements in poorly written articles which get on my nerves.

Taken from the initial post:

Royal Mail, which remains a state owned enterprise whose role is to provide a letter and parcel delivery service to every UK address, says that letter and parcel traffic is falling by 10% per annum

10% per annum? Isn't that supposed to be 10% year-on-year? (there's a BIG difference!)

Parcels falling by 10% per annum? Total crap from another journalist too lazy to bother checking the facts