Postmen get off your backsides and deliver my flippin' mail!

andyandy · 30th October 2009, 02:48 PM

So, with the postal strikes rumbling on whose side are the UK forumers on? I instinctively want to oppose whichever side Mandelson is on, and yet some of the union leaders sound like they still think it's the 1970s.....

I would oppose any further privatisation of the postal service, which as far as i can see benefits no-one but big business and the private sector operators, whilst at the same time bleeding the profitable sections of the royal mail....leaving them with the rump of non-profitable Plymouth to Shetland Island type of letters. Surely the postal service should be treated as a universal service rather than solely as a profit making enterprise? Because if not then rural services simply can't survive at anything like the current rates....

and yet, i want my bloomin parcels that i ordered from Amazon about 1 1/2 weeks ago and still haven't arrived......

opinions?

Darth Rotor · 30th October 2009, 03:36 PM

Maybe your posties ought to Go Postal, as has now and again been done in the U S of A, just to add spice to British life.

gtc · 30th October 2009, 03:48 PM

This is delaying the delivery of my favourite magazines down under.

Not happy Jan.

Dave Rogers · 2nd November 2009, 03:09 AM

I'm perfectly happy to have a brief pause in the torrent of paper-based spam that forms the overwhelming majority of my post. I suspect that the strikes won't solve anything, but I don't know enough details about the situation to judge.

Dave

Francesca R · 2nd November 2009, 06:26 AM

Here you go: from a previous time this came up (about the USPS).

Originally Posted by Francesca R

There is insufficient compelling reason for the state to operate a monopoly on mail delivery and impose barriers to non-state entrants in my view. If the USPS (or the Royal Mail) is good value for money, then it will survive competition.

The idea that the cost of sending a letter from Lerwick to Liskeard should be the same as from London to Leicester is also rather questionable.

Originally Posted by Francesca R

It is far more a state controlled organisation than a private concern. It has a protected monopoly rights (coercive pricing power), sovereign immunity and even compulsory purchase powers.

These might be desirable things for some economic functions. I don't think they are for delivering mail, now, in the US (or other developed countries).

fleabeetle · 2nd November 2009, 08:03 AM

I voted for the third option down (orange). No doubt deplorably, I don't care about the politics of it -- I just want things back to normal. I have a couple of valued Internet-less friends, for keeping in touch with whom I depend on "snail-mail" (for assorted reasons, phone basically doesn't do the job) -- deprivation-feelings are setting in !

GreyICE · 2nd November 2009, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

Here you go: from a previous time this came up (about the USPS).

There was compelling public interest in the past to ensure that speech was reasonably equitably priced. Remember that pre-internet, pre-telephone, pre-electricity, letters were the only reasonable means of communicating over distances. A partial mail carrier can place barriers on recipients, on senders, and on locations, on the basis of any reason, or none at all. The fact that none have chosen to do so speaks to the ability of USPS to be a 'sender of last resort' as even if FedEx and UPS chose not to deliver to or from certain people or places, USPS would have to.

I find this interest still compelling.

Francesca R · 2nd November 2009, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

There was compelling public interest in the past to ensure that speech was reasonably equitably priced.

Correct but technological change has rendered it mostly unnecessary for the public to need to ensure that now.

But "essential public service" is only part of it. Private organisations can run those, with the state merely applying service requirements to them. The Royal Mail is badly run. IMO a big part of the reason is that it has been insulated from market discipline (Nationwide strikes in the middle of a demand slump for mail services, with civilian unemployment at a 15 year max is one piece of evidence that that is the case, but it's not the only one. Nor does it mean that the workforce is the only thing so shielded).

Quote:

I find this interest still compelling.

There are several examples in Europe of countries that have privatised the mail service. Deutsche Post (one of these) even bought DHL which is a FedEx/UPS equivalent. Japan was planning to as well before its long-standing but reviled government was kicked out in August. I don't find the "public interest" argument compelling on its own. With the drawbacks of protected monopoly added to it, I find it to be mostly a sacred cow that should be skewered.

GreyICE · 2nd November 2009, 10:28 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

Correct but technological change has rendered it mostly unnecessary for the public to need to ensure that now.

But "essential public service" is only part of it. Private organisations can run those, with the state merely applying service requirements to them. The Royal Mail is badly run. IMO a big part of the reason is that it has been insulated from market discipline (Nationwide strikes in the middle of a demand slump for mail services, with civilian unemployment at a 15 year max is one piece of evidence that that is the case, but it's not the only one. Nor does it mean that the workforce is the only thing so shielded).

There are several examples in Europe of countries that have privatised the mail service. Deutsche Post (one of these) even bought DHL which is a FedEx/UPS equivalent. Japan was planning to as well before its long-standing but reviled government was kicked out in August. I don't find the "public interest" argument compelling on its own. With the drawbacks of protected monopoly added to it, I find it to be mostly a sacred cow that should be skewered.

Okay, so now we're on to a significantly regulated private firm that doesn't receive taxpayer dollars. Which, um... adequately describes USPS - as they haven't received taxpayer dollars since mid 1980s.

You'd have a bit more of a case if you stuck to the Royal Mail, which is a tad of a disaster of an organization, but your decision to lump everything in one bucket isn't helping matters much here.

If you agree that there's some need for regulation, disagree that taxs should be spent on this, and think the system should be private, you've described USPS. And yet you specifically slammed them, by name.

Matthew Best · 2nd November 2009, 10:47 AM

A blogger called Roy Mayall (do you see what he did there?) gave an interesting insight into the work of a postman in the London Review of Books recently.

His post can be found here.

It's worth a read if you're wondering why the postmen are striking.

Francesca R · 2nd November 2009, 10:47 AM

The USPS is not private, regardless of whether it made a loss for the taxpayer or not (which Royal Mail does). It is state owned, has monopoly protection/powers, and has an implicit government guarantee.

andyandy · 2nd November 2009, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

The idea that the cost of sending a letter from Lerwick to Liskeard should be the same as from London to Leicester is also rather questionable. .

we might have to disagree on that one

If you start having differentiated charges you're going to in effect start levying a greater charge for living in rural areas. With rural areas already losing out in terms of transport services, broadband access, social provision (museums, libraries, swimming pools, schools etc etc etc) this would be yet another push factor towards greater population concentration in urban cities. I'm not sure if this is necessarily a good thing for the country.....unless super-crammed population densities a la Tokyo/Singapore are your thing....

GreyICE · 2nd November 2009, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

The USPS is not private, regardless of whether it made a loss for the taxpayer or not (which Royal Mail does). It is state owned, has monopoly protection/powers, and has an implicit government guarantee.

Why yes, yes it does. Except for the monopoly thing (see UPS, DHL, FedEx). Of course DHL, which you're so proud of, has an implicit government guarantee too (lets face it, no country is going to allow their mail service to cease to exist - shuffle around the leadership a bit, maybe).

It still has to make a profit, answer to superiors, and generally act responsibly.

You still haven't explained how it's so different than a regulated private firm, except for the 'can't fail' thing (and none of them can 'fail' public or private, but the execs would still all lose their jobs).

Francesca R · 2nd November 2009, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by andyandy

If you start having differentiated charges you're going to in effect start levying a greater charge for living in rural areas.

Yes, of course you are. The cost of living rurally is higher, which is partly offset by cheaper property.

If society wants to provide a non-market subsidy to incentivise people not to live in cities, then it can do it better with tax transfers, not cross-subsidy of postage costs. In the UK I am not convinced there is a good case for doing this though.

Francesca R · 2nd November 2009, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

Why yes, yes it does. [ . . . ]

You could bring up the other thread if you want to discuss the USPS. (And no, I strongly suspect DHL would not be taken over by the German federal government. Deutsche post probably would.)

plumjam · 2nd November 2009, 11:19 AM

Yeah, let's privatise it. Like the railways, the water, the gas, the electricity, the phones... which turned to overpriced ****.

Oh, I forgot, now that I left the country I don't have to worry about this stuff.
"Darlinnnnngggg, bring more sangria will you? Muchas gracias, mi vida. And turn la tele up."

fleabeetle · 2nd November 2009, 01:00 PM

The last ten or so, have been way over my head (I have probably no business to be on a critical-thinking forum). However -- had recent message from Amazon, to the effect that British postal problems or not, they can guarantee getting books ordered, to British customers. So far as I'm concerned -- great !

Francesca R · 2nd November 2009, 01:21 PM

I think Amazon switched to a courier company some weeks ago even for their cheapest delivery method (which is normally free over a spend of about £15) So far they don't appear to be passing on any cost increase either. I assumed there was one but don't know. They switched solely because of the strike I think (which has been on/off in my area for a few months). No idea if this is temporary; probably not.

fleabeetle · 2nd November 2009, 02:46 PM

As far as I'm concerned -- whatever works...

Matthew Best · 3rd November 2009, 02:37 AM

Originally Posted by Francesca R

I think Amazon switched to a courier company some weeks ago even for their cheapest delivery method (which is normally free over a spend of about £15)

It's actually free delivery over a spend of £5, and even that isn't definite. I've managed to get free delivery for something that cost £3.48 before now.

ChrisH · 5th November 2009, 06:17 AM

The Union leaders don't seem to realise that they are just going to lose more custom for Royal Mail as firms turn to third party delivery services. That, added to the huge growth in the use of Internet mail services could well see them ALL out of work before too long.

Today we get get one daily delivery: over a hundred years ago, London had FIVE daily deliveries...

The Don · 5th November 2009, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by ChrisH

Today we get get one daily delivery: over a hundred years ago, London had FIVE daily deliveries...

Labour costs are rising. Time was a man would work himself to death for a roof over his head and a crust to eat, now there's an expectation of holidays, entertainment and a plasma screen telly to watch Sky on.

I do think that the expectation of a full day's pay for a half day's work is wide of the mark. Certainly the experience of friends who did publicly funded round-based jobs in the 1980s (posties and binmen) was that if they raced around like a madman they could be finshed for the day and in the pub by lunchtime.

I suppose what sticks in the craw is that a profoundly untalented manager like Adam Crozier who has presided over awful labour relations and has only turned a profit when prices have shot up gets a stonking bonus when "hard working posties" are on the breadline. Then again, expecting premium pay from a job where the sole qualification for entry is the ability to walk while carrying a bag is also a touch naiive.

It doesn't seem to make too much sense to me to have competing companies delivering mail to my door each day (in much the same way as it makes no sense to have several sets of water or electricity utilities coming to my house). Maybe there is a case for a "National Grid" which provides the "last yard" delivery into my house (and pick up from post boxes) but the innovation and efficiency comes from the companies who collect, sort and place the mail in the postie's sack (but who must adhere to SLAs and pay the going rate for the delivery service).

Marduk · 5th November 2009, 09:05 AM

hehe, my postman isn't striking and I'm getting my mail as usual.
still I don't see why he can't get out of bed a bit earlier to get my junk mail here before 1pm.

Beerina · 5th November 2009, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

A blogger called Roy Mayall (do you see what he did there?) gave an interesting insight into the work of a postman in the London Review of Books recently.

His post can be found here.

It's worth a read if you're wondering why the postmen are striking.

From TFA:

Quote:

For some weeks now the managers have been bullying and cajoling everyone in our office, saying that a second frame would have to be collapsed – ‘figures are down’ – and that the workforce would have to decide which frame that would be. Everyone refused. Collapsing a frame would mean that one person would have to move frames, while another person on a ‘flexible’ contract would lose his job altogether. No one wanted to be responsible for making that kind of decision. No one wanted to shaft their workmates. And then last week it was announced, on the heaviest day of the week, and without notice, that a second frame was going to be collapsed anyway, regardless of our opinion. When the shop steward put in a written objection it was ignored.

Hmmm. Bloated government union resisting efficiency adaptations because it cuts into their union numbers.

Nothing new to see here, folks. Move along, move along...

Fengirl · 5th November 2009, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Marduk

hehe, my postman isn't striking and I'm getting my mail as usual.
still I don't see why he can't get out of bed a bit earlier to get my junk mail here before 1pm.

Same here - My postie still seems to be delivering bills through my letterbox at the usual distressing rate.

Yes. If the Prince of Darkness is against the strike, then I'm all for it.	21	27.27%
No. The union leaders need to grow up.	9	11.69%
No i want my parcels delivered. It should be resolved without striking	7	9.09%
I have no interest in the question as i'm not british. I don't even know why i'm voting.	39	50.65%
Other.	1	1.30%
Voters: 77. You may not vote on this poll

30th October 2009, 02:48 PM	#1
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 5,805	Postmen get off your backsides and deliver my flippin' mail! So, with the postal strikes rumbling on whose side are the UK forumers on? I instinctively want to oppose whichever side Mandelson is on, and yet some of the union leaders sound like they still think it's the 1970s..... I would oppose any further privatisation of the postal service, which as far as i can see benefits no-one but big business and the private sector operators, whilst at the same time bleeding the profitable sections of the royal mail....leaving them with the rump of non-profitable Plymouth to Shetland Island type of letters. Surely the postal service should be treated as a universal service rather than solely as a profit making enterprise? Because if not then rural services simply can't survive at anything like the current rates.... and yet, i want my bloomin parcels that i ordered from Amazon about 1 1/2 weeks ago and still haven't arrived...... opinions?

30th October 2009, 03:36 PM	#2
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 24,955	Maybe your posties ought to Go Postal, as has now and again been done in the U S of A, just to add spice to British life.
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton____"Atheism is no safeguard against stupidity."--The Atheist____If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok____ "Your onus is aimed in the wrong direction." -- Cleon

30th October 2009, 03:48 PM	#3
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 6,785	This is delaying the delivery of my favourite magazines down under. Not happy Jan.
	__________________

2nd November 2009, 03:09 AM	#4
Dave Rogers The Unbanned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Notlob Posts: 7,484	I'm perfectly happy to have a brief pause in the torrent of paper-based spam that forms the overwhelming majority of my post. I suspect that the strikes won't solve anything, but I don't know enough details about the situation to judge. Dave
	__________________ "I guess for Truthers the great thing about Google is that it abolishes context automatically, thus saving your precious reserves of stupid for more important tasks." - Dr. Adequate GENERATION 6: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

2nd November 2009, 06:26 AM	#5
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 7,415	Here you go: from a previous time this came up (about the USPS). Originally Posted by Francesca R There is insufficient compelling reason for the state to operate a monopoly on mail delivery and impose barriers to non-state entrants in my view. If the USPS (or the Royal Mail) is good value for money, then it will survive competition. The idea that the cost of sending a letter from Lerwick to Liskeard should be the same as from London to Leicester is also rather questionable. Originally Posted by Francesca R It is far more a state controlled organisation than a private concern. It has a protected monopoly rights (coercive pricing power), sovereign immunity and even compulsory purchase powers. These might be desirable things for some economic functions. I don't think they are for delivering mail, now, in the US (or other developed countries).
	__________________ Anti Social Group

2nd November 2009, 08:03 AM	#6
fleabeetle Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 74	I voted for the third option down (orange). No doubt deplorably, I don't care about the politics of it -- I just want things back to normal. I have a couple of valued Internet-less friends, for keeping in touch with whom I depend on "snail-mail" (for assorted reasons, phone basically doesn't do the job) -- deprivation-feelings are setting in !
fleabeetle Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 74

2nd November 2009, 08:59 AM	#7
GreyICE Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 5,483	Originally Posted by Francesca R Here you go: from a previous time this came up (about the USPS). There was compelling public interest in the past to ensure that speech was reasonably equitably priced. Remember that pre-internet, pre-telephone, pre-electricity, letters were the only reasonable means of communicating over distances. A partial mail carrier can place barriers on recipients, on senders, and on locations, on the basis of any reason, or none at all. The fact that none have chosen to do so speaks to the ability of USPS to be a 'sender of last resort' as even if FedEx and UPS chose not to deliver to or from certain people or places, USPS would have to. I find this interest still compelling.
GreyICE Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 5,483	__________________ I know WTF is usually our kind of phonetics,but my bird is 5055 Papa,do you get that flow,or do I just have to pay the "Piper'Go?. But seriously now, I am the guy from the system who knows how things work,and have a 20 clearence at work. I give out tid-bits to trawl,not troll,as maybe there are some of my old guys around,but I expect not ,as most have been killed,and Im serious now.

2nd November 2009, 09:22 AM	#8
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 7,415	Originally Posted by GreyICE There was compelling public interest in the past to ensure that speech was reasonably equitably priced. Correct but technological change has rendered it mostly unnecessary for the public to need to ensure that now. But "essential public service" is only part of it. Private organisations can run those, with the state merely applying service requirements to them. The Royal Mail is badly run. IMO a big part of the reason is that it has been insulated from market discipline (Nationwide strikes in the middle of a demand slump for mail services, with civilian unemployment at a 15 year max is one piece of evidence that that is the case, but it's not the only one. Nor does it mean that the workforce is the only thing so shielded). Quote: I find this interest still compelling. There are several examples in Europe of countries that have privatised the mail service. Deutsche Post (one of these) even bought DHL which is a FedEx/UPS equivalent. Japan was planning to as well before its long-standing but reviled government was kicked out in August. I don't find the "public interest" argument compelling on its own. With the drawbacks of protected monopoly added to it, I find it to be mostly a sacred cow that should be skewered.
	__________________ Anti Social Group Last edited by Francesca R; 2nd November 2009 at 09:26 AM.

2nd November 2009, 10:28 AM	#9
GreyICE Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 5,483	Originally Posted by Francesca R Correct but technological change has rendered it mostly unnecessary for the public to need to ensure that now. But "essential public service" is only part of it. Private organisations can run those, with the state merely applying service requirements to them. The Royal Mail is badly run. IMO a big part of the reason is that it has been insulated from market discipline (Nationwide strikes in the middle of a demand slump for mail services, with civilian unemployment at a 15 year max is one piece of evidence that that is the case, but it's not the only one. Nor does it mean that the workforce is the only thing so shielded). There are several examples in Europe of countries that have privatised the mail service. Deutsche Post (one of these) even bought DHL which is a FedEx/UPS equivalent. Japan was planning to as well before its long-standing but reviled government was kicked out in August. I don't find the "public interest" argument compelling on its own. With the drawbacks of protected monopoly added to it, I find it to be mostly a sacred cow that should be skewered. Okay, so now we're on to a significantly regulated private firm that doesn't receive taxpayer dollars. Which, um... adequately describes USPS - as they haven't received taxpayer dollars since mid 1980s. You'd have a bit more of a case if you stuck to the Royal Mail, which is a tad of a disaster of an organization, but your decision to lump everything in one bucket isn't helping matters much here. If you agree that there's some need for regulation, disagree that taxs should be spent on this, and think the system should be private, you've described USPS. And yet you specifically slammed them, by name.
GreyICE Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 5,483	__________________ I know WTF is usually our kind of phonetics,but my bird is 5055 Papa,do you get that flow,or do I just have to pay the "Piper'Go?. But seriously now, I am the guy from the system who knows how things work,and have a 20 clearence at work. I give out tid-bits to trawl,not troll,as maybe there are some of my old guys around,but I expect not ,as most have been killed,and Im serious now.

2nd November 2009, 10:47 AM	#10
Matthew Best Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 1,074	A blogger called Roy Mayall (do you see what he did there?) gave an interesting insight into the work of a postman in the London Review of Books recently. His post can be found here. It's worth a read if you're wondering why the postmen are striking.

2nd November 2009, 10:50 AM	#12
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 5,805	Originally Posted by Francesca R The idea that the cost of sending a letter from Lerwick to Liskeard should be the same as from London to Leicester is also rather questionable. . we might have to disagree on that one If you start having differentiated charges you're going to in effect start levying a greater charge for living in rural areas. With rural areas already losing out in terms of transport services, broadband access, social provision (museums, libraries, swimming pools, schools etc etc etc) this would be yet another push factor towards greater population concentration in urban cities. I'm not sure if this is necessarily a good thing for the country.....unless super-crammed population densities a la Tokyo/Singapore are your thing....

2nd November 2009, 10:55 AM	#13
GreyICE Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 5,483	Originally Posted by Francesca R The USPS is not private, regardless of whether it made a loss for the taxpayer or not (which Royal Mail does). It is state owned, has monopoly protection/powers, and has an implicit government guarantee. Why yes, yes it does. Except for the monopoly thing (see UPS, DHL, FedEx). Of course DHL, which you're so proud of, has an implicit government guarantee too (lets face it, no country is going to allow their mail service to cease to exist - shuffle around the leadership a bit, maybe). It still has to make a profit, answer to superiors, and generally act responsibly. You still haven't explained how it's so different than a regulated private firm, except for the 'can't fail' thing (and none of them can 'fail' public or private, but the execs would still all lose their jobs).
GreyICE Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 5,483	__________________ I know WTF is usually our kind of phonetics,but my bird is 5055 Papa,do you get that flow,or do I just have to pay the "Piper'Go?. But seriously now, I am the guy from the system who knows how things work,and have a 20 clearence at work. I give out tid-bits to trawl,not troll,as maybe there are some of my old guys around,but I expect not ,as most have been killed,and Im serious now.

2nd November 2009, 10:57 AM	#14
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 7,415	Originally Posted by andyandy If you start having differentiated charges you're going to in effect start levying a greater charge for living in rural areas. Yes, of course you are. The cost of living rurally is higher, which is partly offset by cheaper property. If society wants to provide a non-market subsidy to incentivise people not to live in cities, then it can do it better with tax transfers, not cross-subsidy of postage costs. In the UK I am not convinced there is a good case for doing this though.
	__________________ Anti Social Group

2nd November 2009, 11:02 AM	#15
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 7,415	Originally Posted by GreyICE Why yes, yes it does. [ . . . ] You could bring up the other thread if you want to discuss the USPS. (And no, I strongly suspect DHL would not be taken over by the German federal government. Deutsche post probably would.)
	__________________ Anti Social Group

2nd November 2009, 11:19 AM	#16
plumjam Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Valencia, Spain Posts: 6,133	Yeah, let's privatise it. Like the railways, the water, the gas, the electricity, the phones... which turned to overpriced ****. Oh, I forgot, now that I left the country I don't have to worry about this stuff. "Darlinnnnngggg, bring more sangria will you? Muchas gracias, mi vida. And turn la tele up."

2nd November 2009, 01:00 PM	#17
fleabeetle Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 74	The last ten or so, have been way over my head (I have probably no business to be on a critical-thinking forum). However -- had recent message from Amazon, to the effect that British postal problems or not, they can guarantee getting books ordered, to British customers. So far as I'm concerned -- great !
fleabeetle Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 74

2nd November 2009, 01:21 PM	#18
Francesca R Girl Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: London EC1 Posts: 7,415	I think Amazon switched to a courier company some weeks ago even for their cheapest delivery method (which is normally free over a spend of about £15) So far they don't appear to be passing on any cost increase either. I assumed there was one but don't know. They switched solely because of the strike I think (which has been on/off in my area for a few months). No idea if this is temporary; probably not.
	__________________ Anti Social Group

2nd November 2009, 02:46 PM	#19
fleabeetle Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 74	As far as I'm concerned -- whatever works...
fleabeetle Scholar Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 74

3rd November 2009, 02:37 AM	#20
Matthew Best Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Leicester Square, London Posts: 1,074	Originally Posted by Francesca R I think Amazon switched to a courier company some weeks ago even for their cheapest delivery method (which is normally free over a spend of about £15) It's actually free delivery over a spend of £5, and even that isn't definite. I've managed to get free delivery for something that cost £3.48 before now.

5th November 2009, 06:17 AM	#21
ChrisH Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 131	The Union leaders don't seem to realise that they are just going to lose more custom for Royal Mail as firms turn to third party delivery services. That, added to the huge growth in the use of Internet mail services could well see them ALL out of work before too long. Today we get get one daily delivery: over a hundred years ago, London had FIVE daily deliveries...
ChrisH Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 131

5th November 2009, 08:58 AM	#22
The Don Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Brizzle Posts: 3,527	Originally Posted by ChrisH Today we get get one daily delivery: over a hundred years ago, London had FIVE daily deliveries... Labour costs are rising. Time was a man would work himself to death for a roof over his head and a crust to eat, now there's an expectation of holidays, entertainment and a plasma screen telly to watch Sky on. I do think that the expectation of a full day's pay for a half day's work is wide of the mark. Certainly the experience of friends who did publicly funded round-based jobs in the 1980s (posties and binmen) was that if they raced around like a madman they could be finshed for the day and in the pub by lunchtime. I suppose what sticks in the craw is that a profoundly untalented manager like Adam Crozier who has presided over awful labour relations and has only turned a profit when prices have shot up gets a stonking bonus when "hard working posties" are on the breadline. Then again, expecting premium pay from a job where the sole qualification for entry is the ability to walk while carrying a bag is also a touch naiive. It doesn't seem to make too much sense to me to have competing companies delivering mail to my door each day (in much the same way as it makes no sense to have several sets of water or electricity utilities coming to my house). Maybe there is a case for a "National Grid" which provides the "last yard" delivery into my house (and pick up from post boxes) but the innovation and efficiency comes from the companies who collect, sort and place the mail in the postie's sack (but who must adhere to SLAs and pay the going rate for the delivery service).

5th November 2009, 09:05 AM	#23
Marduk Dragon Killer Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 2,002	hehe, my postman isn't striking and I'm getting my mail as usual. still I don't see why he can't get out of bed a bit earlier to get my junk mail here before 1pm.
	__________________ Senno Ecto Gama ĝae haš dug zae ama kibid "Stupid humans" (Wollery) "Kill all humans" (Bender) "for while heaven may be closed I am always open, even on Christmas." (Lucifer)

5th November 2009, 10:30 AM	#24
Beerina Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 13,388	Originally Posted by Matthew Best A blogger called Roy Mayall (do you see what he did there?) gave an interesting insight into the work of a postman in the London Review of Books recently. His post can be found here. It's worth a read if you're wondering why the postmen are striking. From TFA: Quote: For some weeks now the managers have been bullying and cajoling everyone in our office, saying that a second frame would have to be collapsed – ‘figures are down’ – and that the workforce would have to decide which frame that would be. Everyone refused. Collapsing a frame would mean that one person would have to move frames, while another person on a ‘flexible’ contract would lose his job altogether. No one wanted to be responsible for making that kind of decision. No one wanted to shaft their workmates. And then last week it was announced, on the heaviest day of the week, and without notice, that a second frame was going to be collapsed anyway, *regardless of our opinion. When the shop steward* put in a written objection it was ignored.** Hmmm. Bloated government union resisting efficiency adaptations because it cuts into their union numbers. Nothing new to see here, folks. Move along, move along...
	__________________ Reid Fleming, World's Toughest Milkman, in *A Day Like Any Other* The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

5th November 2009, 10:46 AM	#25
Fengirl Muse Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Cambridgeshire, UK Posts: 881	Originally Posted by Marduk hehe, my postman isn't striking and I'm getting my mail as usual. still I don't see why he can't get out of bed a bit earlier to get my junk mail here before 1pm. Same here - My postie still seems to be delivering bills through my letterbox at the usual distressing rate.
	__________________ "'Tis with our judgments as our watches, none Go just alike, yet each believes his own." Alexander Pope: An Essay on Criticism lines 9-10