Striking Royal Mail Workers.

[Mblaster]

Perhaps they enjoy their present job and the people they work with? Perhaps it suits their pattern of work and their travel arrangements? Perhaps what they do is a family tradition? Perhaps they are proud to provide this particular public service? Who knows? Whatever, they deserve a wage they can live on. If they leave for another job, whoever replaces them will be earning a pittance and we're back to square one.

If there is someone willing to come and replace them, then there is obviously nothing wrong with the wage that they are being paid. Wages should be decided on if there's someone competent and willing out there to replace you for your current wage, like supply and demand, they should not be artificially boosted through striking.

Basically, If you can find a better offer then take it, otherwise accept your current pay (or quit ).

[Salazaar]

None of those jobs have ever been classed as unskilled. Apart fro the Mechanic, all of those jobs require a lengthly apprenticeship/course to be passed before they can practice. Mechanics also generally have completed an apprenticeship.

Yeah, that was my point. The jobs I listed were all ones you'd generally go into without academic qualifications but would never be classed as unskilled, you still need to work long and hard to do any of them to a professional level. Where as (pretty much) anyone could walk into a post office and do the job, a small amount of training not withstanding.

[Virtual Monkey]

Isn't it also strange that the best paid jobs, are NOT unoinised?

You mean the wealthy are more content with their wages than the poor? Gee, that is strange!

The argument here, is if the pay is so bad relative to the alternative options, then people would not go for those positions in the first place, and RM would then be forced to raise their wages. This process does sound more natural than taking the job, band together, and demand a pay rise.

Unfortunately that's not the way things work. There are always going to be people willing to work for a pittance. The idea that 'people would not go for those positions' is absurd, especially with current immigration and unemployment rates.

If there is someone willing to come and replace them, then there is obviously nothing wrong with the wage that they are being paid...Basically, If you can find a better offer then take it, otherwise accept your current pay (or quit ).

The idea that you should do your job for as little as possible, because someone else will do it for less, is called exploitation. Just because it seems to be commonplace across a lot of the world, does not make it right

[TooNice]

Unfortunately that's not the way things work. There are always going to be people willing to work for a pittance. The idea that 'people would not go for those positions' is absurd, especially with current immigration and unemployment rates.

How do immigrants manage to get by? They are still people who need to eat, live under a roof and deal with the UK's high cost of living just like anyone else.

The issue here is that there whether one is content or not is subjective. Not everyone may feel exploited given a certain amount of pay, and some people may not be content even when they are earning above average. So who should decide what is fair pay and what is not?

Before I go on, I would like someone to explain this to me. Technically, is there anything (i.e. law) that restrict when/how often/the demands of a union? On basis of that I'll decide whether I agree with TheAnimus that it is basically extortion (a company can't do much if their workers decide to strike).

[schmunk]

Before I go on, I would like someone to explain this to me. Technically, is there anything (i.e. law) that restrict when/how often/the demands of a union? On basis of that I'll decide whether I agree with TheAnimus that it is basically extortion (a company can't do much if their workers decide to strike).

http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/empl...page18476.html

[Mblaster]

The idea that you should do your job for as little as possible, because someone else will do it for less, is called exploitation. Just because it seems to be commonplace across a lot of the world, does not make it right

It's called getting paid a fair wage for your work, the minimum wage is in place to make sure people are not getting paid a pathetic wage. No-one's forcing them to do the job, they have looked at the options available to them and decided they want to work there.

[santa claus]

It's called getting paid a fair wage for your work, the minimum wage is in place to make sure people are not getting paid a pathetic wage. No-one's forcing them to do the job, they have looked at the options available to them and decided they want to work there.

Nope, it's called..., oh nevermind . Some things you just have to learn from experience.

In the meantime, unscrupulous employers will continue to try and treat people like doormats. Fortunately, they have to be very careful who they tread on or the mat can be pulled from beneath them. Power to the people .

[shaithis]

How do immigrants manage to get by? They are still people who need to eat, live under a roof and deal with the UK's high cost of living just like anyone else.

In a lot of cases they will accept a lower standard of living then most UK residents.

Whether that is living in extremely poor accomodation, over-crowded accomodation, buying nothing but the cheapest crap etc.

What you think of as "bare minimum" someone else may think of as luxery.


And that is why a minimum wage is a must.

[TooNice]

What you think of as "bare minimum" someone else may think of as luxery.

Absolutely, and I've acknowledged it in next line by stating that it is subjective. Now do RM workers get paid more than the minimum wage? If they do, and it is still deemed insufficient to get by/get up for, then perhaps there is something wrong with this minimum wage (i.e. it's too low). Or perhaps, their job is more demanding than the average job that only pays the minimum wage. How much so? I still think that it's best determined by natural supply/demand of the job market.

[BigGlenn]

I wouldn't normally get involved in this kind of thread, but having read this thread I couldn't help but notice that there only appears (and correct me if I am wrong) to be 1 person that works for RM and in my opinion, is best placed to comment on the situation

When people comment about unskilled workers, I would like to see you try the job and see just how naive you are as to what skills are actually required to do the job - I did do the job temporarily one summer after leaving college before starting my first job and it is nowhere near as simple as you think. I don't know if things have changed, but when I started the job you were required to sign the Offical Secrets Act.... so try and say that that does not signify a level of responsibility... now combine that with the unsociable hours (and weather conditions that nobody has any control over) that are worked and ask yourself - would you work for that kind of money?????

Now admittedly, my job is a skilled job, but I have better working hours, better working conditions, less responsibility in relative terms and I get paid a fair amount more than what postal staff do so I consider myself lucky

So until you have experienced something, don't have a go at people when you don't know the circumstances.... rant over...

[Dingo]

To summarise: what you're really saying is that you would like the unskilled, unwashed serf rabble to just stfu and get on with their jobs whilst getting paid the wage of a church mouse because times are tough and someone has to be poor and that could be you if they keep queering up your deliveries goddamit?

No, what he is saying is that "everyone" has to tighten their belt, and accept that the Global Economy is making demands of us all, demands which most people understand, due to the situation that is prevalent.

Associating RM pay to a "church mouse" is demeaning to the majority of workers who are members of a Union......when the Unions work to "truly" increase the T&C of a minority group who are being marginalised, then the Public, as a whole, will always be behind them.

You appear to be a "middle class" warrior, with an axe to grind against his parents, for being too well off, so that they can afford for you to flunk "one too many exams", and still go to Cambridge?.....after you have had your "taste of the real world of course".......try living it for real old son, and not just as an exercise in exhumation of your parent's wealth......snotty nosed yoof are the same the world over......full of promise but short on reality....give it some years and.........

[badass]

In the meantime, unscrupulous employers will continue to try and treat people like doormats. Fortunately, they have to be very careful who they tread on or the mat can be pulled from beneath them. Power to the people .

Yep power to the striking people. Just like the cotton mill workers. Just like the coal miners. Striking really helped their long term job prospects.

[santa claus]

You appear to be a "middle class" warrior, with an axe to grind against his parents, for being too well off, so that they can afford for you to flunk "one too many exams", and still go to Cambridge?.....after you have had your "taste of the real world of course".......try living it for real old son, and not just as an exercise in exhumation of your parent's wealth......snotty nosed yoof are the same the world over......full of promise but short on reality....give it some years and.........

On the basis of a few posts in a thread about the Royal Mail you make the assessment that I am middle class, seethingly frustrated, academically unsuccessful but able to buy success, I'm naive, not streetwise, young, have swine flu, am full of what will inevitably be unrealised potential and I will come to terms with the error of my ways in good time once I've learned the hard way?

My assessment of you is shorter.

You're wrong.

Yep power to the striking people. Just like the cotton mill workers. Just like the coal miners. Striking really helped their long term job prospects.

Yep, damn them for the having the courage of their convictions. They shoulda gone belly up and been shafted good and proper nice and slowly.

[Whiternoise]

I'll pay my postie more when he turns up before 8am. And don't give me crap about "oh it's a tough job", fact is they sure as hell managed to do it up until about the time i went to college. There weren't suddenly a thousand more houses built where i live. And i'm sorry, but late morning is not an unsociable hour. Top Gear showed that in general, Royal Mail do a very good job and i agree with that, my mum sent a letter second class from Edinburgh and it arrived in London the next morning. However, that has little to do with the actual postmen (who just do the last leg), that's the sorting office and the "ground crew".

I don't agree with posties and iPods though, frankly not on. As i said, i regularly got post before i left for school in the mornings, or at least passed him on his rounds before 9am on the way to school. Now we're lucky if the post arrives before the afternoon and God help us if we're expecting a parcel guaranteed before 1pm (though to their credit they're van delivered separately).


As for the issue at hand, let's be clear who is actually asking for more money. From the BBC article it seemed pretty clear that the issues are to do with the sorting office, not the postmen (who can't really complain about changing conditions).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8143620.stm

Now, the key sentence is this: Mail centre staff walked out amid claims of pay cuts and service cutbacks without modernisation. . So, it's not really the postmen's fault. If there was no mail to deliver because it was lying unsorted and i was a postman, i sure as hell wouldn't turn up for work. I think the people who work behind the scenes deserve more of a rise than the postmen. They are the ones that have to be up at unsociable hours doing tedious labour and probably trying to work out what the hell people have written on their envelopes. Of course, it is tedious manual labour, but why should they get a significant pay rise over cleaners who often barely get minimum wage?

Striking barely gets them anywhere though, from past events, it just creates more tension, the public get irate and then ask "well WHY should they get paid more?" and the Post Office continue their "We don't negotiate with terrorists strikers" policy. It's the business equivalent of having a tantrum. Just get into a damned board meeting and talk it over. Of course they want to show that they have a fair amount of power over the country (and indeed they do), but can't they just say "you saw what happened last time!"?

[TheAnimus]

Oh dear, i'm back in this thread now.

Some of the regional sorting offices, i will have some sympathy for, the old its grim up north addage holds true that they will be plenty of these striking workers who don't have any other jobs on offer they could do. As such they are not been 'Marked to Market' in the same easy way to prove your paying an OK rate.

[peterb]

Yep power to the striking people.* Just like the cotton mill workers. Just like the coal miners.* Striking really helped their long term job prospects.

Yep, damn them for the having the courage of their convictions. They shoulda gone belly up and been shafted good and proper nice and slowly.

In the case of the cotton workers, they were undercut (as is the case for many of the manufacturing industries now) by cheaper overseas labour - protectionism by trying to maintain artificially high pay will and does lead to long term job losses - as consumers we are all to 'blame' for that because we won't pay higher prices to support UK manufacturing - do you pay (for example) £50 for a shirt manufactured in the UK, or £15 for something manufactured in a cheap labour market - India or China?

In the case of the miners, they were exploited by the very union (or the leader) that was supposed to protect them.* His stated intent was to bring down the democratically elected government of the day - which was wrong however justifiable (or otherwise) the original case might have been.* Coal mining itself was becoming uneconomic anyway as easily reached seams were exhausted, and cheaper imported coal was available.* Even the privatised (and arguably more efficient) mining operations eventually ceased trading because of increased costs in mining deeper seams and the competition of cheaper imports.* Import controls are not the answer as they in turn lead to import controls against items we manufacture and again makes them uncompetitive.

While trade Unions may have a role to play in worker safety, protection against unfair terms of employment, and the support of individuals, the attempts to control wages can be counter-productive - at worst it leads to the demise of the jobs for the workers whose jobs they claim to be protecting.* Ultimately going on strike causes more longer term damage to the workers themselves, in addition to the short term harm caused by the loss of earnings. Sadly - in some cases - it appears that some industrial action has more to do with the egos and political aspirations of the union leaders and less to do with the best interests of the workers they claim to represent.