Royal Mail privatisation... Would you?

AdrianC

custardy wrote: »

I said that was before you add on any overtime

This is exactly why I'm questioning your figures - because they're so flexible. That 60hrs _includes_ both the 2hrs a day extra and the sixth shift that you claim people work "most weeks". If that isn't the overtime you're referring to, what else is there?

If you wish your claims to be taken at face value, it may help if you made them consistently and credibly.

Glen - as for Royal Mail being owned by TNT, remember that what used to be Parcelline is now the UK wing of DPD, one of the world's largest courier firms - almost entirely owned by La Poste, the French (publicly owned) post office.

If they can do it, with a similar sized but even more geographically dispersed population in their home country, why can't RM?

Glen_Clark

AdrianC wrote: »

Glen - as for Royal Mail being owned by TNT, remember that what used to be Parcelline is now the UK wing of DPD, one of the world's largest courier firms - almost entirely owned by La Poste, the French (publicly owned) post office.

If they can do it, with a similar sized but even more geographically dispersed population in their home country, why can't RM?

I didn't say Royal Mail couldn't be owned by TNT. I suggested the Post Office couldn't be owned by TNT because the Queen would want to keep her face on the stamps. The French don't have that problem. They got rid of their monarchy about 200 years ago and proudly proclaim 'Republic' on their stamps (and banknotes).

custardy

AdrianC wrote: »

This is exactly why I'm questioning your figures - because they're so flexible. That 60hrs _includes_ both the 2hrs a day extra and the sixth shift that you claim people work "most weeks". If that isn't the overtime you're referring to, what else is there?

If you wish your claims to be taken at face value, it may help if you made them consistently and credibly.

Glen - as for Royal Mail being owned by TNT, remember that what used to be Parcelline is now the UK wing of DPD, one of the world's largest courier firms - almost entirely owned by La Poste, the French (publicly owned) post office.

If they can do it, with a similar sized but even more geographically dispersed population in their home country, why can't RM?

Im not sure where you say my figures are so flexible
how exactly would like me to lay it out
do I need to go to their houses and ransack them for P60s?
OT varies from a few minutes here and there to guys doing countless hours
however to hit £30K+ would take massive OT which in reality isnt feasible to do day after day. Even if it was available

As for the French comparison
Has La Poste been consistently underfunded for decades?
Have a look at the opening of their market. Unlike the UK government,France hasnt been in any hurry to open its market

http://www.postalconsumers.org/postal_freedom_index/France_La_Poste.shtml

grey_gym_sock

Glen_Clark wrote: »

But how could you do it to her satisfaction if the Post Office was owned by TNT or G4S for example? How can G4S be obliged to use the Queen's face for their company logo, and would she accept that? What if G4S got embroiled in another scandal when she was their figurehead? What if they became foreign owned, using the Queen as their logo?

it's very similar to "her majesty's government". it's in her name, but it's understood that she's not personally responsible for government policies.

at the state opening of parliament, she even reads a speech which says things like "my government will introduce a bill to ..." - but she reads it in a detached tone of voice, to make it clear that it has nothing to do with her in reality.

there's no need to oblige royal mail, or anybody who might buy it, to use her head. why would they want to change it? to put it in practical terms: how would that let them make more money out of royal mail? it wouldn't. and it would make their ownership of royal mail more controversial, which would probably be to their disadvantage.

Barbara Castle has said that when they introduced the Employment Protection Act, they had to exclude the Queen's domestic staff from Employment Protection rights to get the Royal Assent so the bill could become law. So she clearly does use her power behind the scenes. And nothing gets passed without the Royal Assent.

i'm sure she has some power behind the scenes. but not that much.

she can't actually refuse royal assent to a bill, though. that's clearly unconstitutional (bagehot said so, even back in the nineteenth century). and in practical terms, it would draw the monarchy openly into politics, which they clearly want to avoid.

AdrianC

custardy wrote: »

guys doing countless hours

So it would seem...

however to hit £30K+

The figure given was £22-23k.

scott_lithgows

Full time Posties get 390-400 p.w before tax etc

Overtime for working day off,early sorting start or xmas overtime etc is available.(most full timers I know though have turned their back on it though)

custardy

AdrianC wrote: »

So it would seem...



The figure given was £22-23k.

right which is done by working extra hours
which was my point
you wrote it as if its was simply a few extra K in the bank

custardy

scott_lithgows wrote: »

Full time Posties get 390-400 p.w before tax etc

Overtime for working day off,early sorting start or xmas overtime etc is available.(most full timers I know though have turned their back on it though)

As duties get longer and relationships with management worsen,less and less staff are willing/able to do overtime
My old office is now sitting around 5 hour deliveries
thats 1.5-2 hours longer than previously
with pressure to complete regardless of time available

AdrianC

custardy wrote: »

you wrote it as if its was simply a few extra K in the bank

That was certainly not my intent. My intent was merely to point out that being paid that close to national average is not bad for an unskilled job.

Glen_Clark

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

it's very similar to "her majesty's government". it's in her name, but it's understood that she's not personally responsible for government policies.

at the state opening of parliament, she even reads a speech which says things like "my government will introduce a bill to ..." - but she reads it in a detached tone of voice, to make it clear that it has nothing to do with her in reality.

there's no need to oblige royal mail, or anybody who might buy it, to use her head. why would they want to change it? to put it in practical terms: how would that let them make more money out of royal mail? it wouldn't. and it would make their ownership of royal mail more controversial, which would probably be to their disadvantage.

i'm sure she has some power behind the scenes. but not that much.

she can't actually refuse royal assent to a bill, though. that's clearly unconstitutional (bagehot said so, even back in the nineteenth century). and in practical terms, it would draw the monarchy openly into politics, which they clearly want to avoid.

When push comes to shove whoever controls the army controls the population, and soldiers swear their allegiance to her, not us. 'Country' is a suitably ambiguous word to make we plebs think it includes us, so to avoid any doubt they say 'Queen and Country' putting her first.
All we have is an unwritten understanding that she doesn't use her power as long as things are going her way.