RM will prosper under Government's privatisation plan

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Royal Mail will prosper under Government's privatisation plan

http://www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/story-19 ... z2fidbYDZo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AS A former Royal Mail employee, I would like to respond to comments regarding the sale of the Royal Mail.
This £3-billion sale of the business is naturally the right way forward for all concerned.

With increasing confidence in the burgeoning economy, the likely November flotation will expand the spread of share ownership.

The popular privatisation policy that characterised the 1980s with the likes of British Gas, British Telecom and British Airways are all now thriving in the private sector.

Predictably for purely stupefying ideological reasons, the Communications Workers' Union has responded in their time-honoured tradition by threatening to strike.

But how taking industrial action will benefit its members or Royal Mail is not clear.

Paradoxically, Labour has criticised the sale, yet ironically it was the last government that ended the Royal Mail monopoly and opened up the postal market to competition.

This move made privatisation inevitable so the Labour Party position reeks of ideological hypocrisy.
Now the commercially viable Royal Mail can prosper for years to come.

Peter Neal, Oxford Court, Cleethorpes.

[dvbuk55]

Probably worked as a Christmas casual 20 years ago and is totally clueless as to what the modern workforce has to contend with, just another "privatisation is best" blimp.

[Lincox]

How can anyone with a brain say that this is the right way forward for all concerned. Tell that to the next batch of posties to be made redundant when a privatised Royal Mail starts wielding the hammer, and to those that remain as there pay, terms and conditions, welfare, are given a kicking. If you judge a company purely on it,s bottom line then you may have an argument. However, as part of a democratic, humane society, a company needs to play a much more important role than manipulation of it,s workforce and downgrading of it,s services in order to prop up the goldmines of the rich. Your attitude is based on the cynical theories of capitalism, and survival of the fittest.

[Brain Fury]

Of course there is difference between what's good for RM as a business and what's good for its current employees. There isn't a solution that's right for all and the OP is right about the role of the Labour party in making privatisation an inevitability.

Potentially RM as a business could prosper after privatisation meaning that it could be profitable and therefore continue as a business. I don't think it will be easy or guaranteed. I don't think it has a long term future under public ownership.

Unfortunately, I don't think that RM's current employees can win either way. Under privatisation there will be cost cutting by reducing the number of employees and the pay bill. I think the same will happen if RM stays in pubic ownership. The problem with striking is that it might achieve short term objectives e.g. a better pay deal etc but this simply increases the costs that RM will be forced to cut later and also risks exacerbating the problem by causing RM to lose business and thus revenue to pay for the gains achieved. It's not unreasonable whether striking is in the best interests of the employees

[UnhappyGremlin]

Potentially RM as a business could prosper after privatisation meaning that it could be profitable and therefore continue as a business. I don't think it will be easy or guaranteed. I don't think it has a long term future under public ownership.

IT IS PROFITABLE. WELL OVER £400M THE LAST FINANCIAL YEAR.
It is currently prospering. And is on target to make a good profit again for this financial year.

Unfortunately, I don't think that RM's current employees can win either way. Under privatisation there will be cost cutting by reducing the number of employees and the pay bill. I think the same will happen if RM stays in pubic ownership.

But I don't believe to the same extent, or as fast as it would happen post privatisation. The Government needs the jobs for the moment, and RM is in profit.

The problem with striking is that it might achieve short term objectives e.g. a better pay deal etc but this simply increases the costs that RM will be forced to cut later and also risks exacerbating the problem by causing RM to lose business and thus revenue to pay for the gains achieved. It's not unreasonable whether striking is in the best interests of the employees

It's not about short term objectives, and is definitely not just about pay, though you and RM seem to think that is the only issue. PENSIONS (which you own union has an excellent consultative ballot result against) and T&C's are far more important to me and many others.
It will increase the cost to the company, but it doesn't necessarily follow that that will mean more cuts. Pay always goes up, as do living costs, it's the way of the world, bit of scaremongering on your part?
RM do not have to lose business, they have the chance to avoid a strike by being sensible ( not likely), and thus prevent any loss of business.

For once I agree with you, striking isn't in the best interests of the employees, at least not short term. But long term, it will be beneficial, we have no other way of fighting for what we believe is right, and without striking in the past, I'd hate to think what state our pay/pensions/T&C's would be in.

[labbloke]

Peter is not being so honest with the readers is he?


http://www.electionsuk.org/.../Ballot.asp?BP.." onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
3. The Conservative Party Candidate. NEAL. Peter Neal. 64 Mill Road, Cleethorpes. DN35 8JD. 4.

[Spedley]

Link didn't work for me but this one did
http://www.electionsuk.org/elect2003/as ... y.swf&CSS=

[Pete22]

Somebody should take this up with the charlatan.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Somebody should take this up with the charlatan.

I did

by TeebsRMCMonday, September 23 2013, 3:22PM
“Predictably for purely stupefying ideological reasons - yes ideological reasons such as rejecting the no strike deal and protecting their members Terms and conditions, and protecting the USO and of course trying to keep it affordable for the social users as well rather than just the business users.

Of course you forget to mention that British Gas are making vast profits, yet still increase prices for the consumer, that British Airways has a horrendous Industrial Relations record, and the BT has a lot less manpower than it did - all fine for shareholders and the board, not so good if you are an employee or a consumer - Royal Mail will end up the same.

But then of course Privatisation isn't ideological even if 70% of the public are against it in a democracy, and if all the profits going to shareholders instead of back to the exchequer.

As to expanding share-ownership, perhaps looking back at previous privatisations would educate you to the fact that very few shares remain in the public's hands, most have been purchased by pension and hedge funds, in fact most private buyers sold their allocation within a few years,”

[Pete22]

Somebody should take this up with the charlatan.

I did

by TeebsRMCMonday, September 23 2013, 3:22PM
“Predictably for purely stupefying ideological reasons - yes ideological reasons such as rejecting the no strike deal and protecting their members Terms and conditions, and protecting the USO and of course trying to keep it affordable for the social users as well rather than just the business users.

Of course you forget to mention that British Gas are making vast profits, yet still increase prices for the consumer, that British Airways has a horrendous Industrial Relations record, and the BT has a lot less manpower than it did - all fine for shareholders and the board, not so good if you are an employee or a consumer - Royal Mail will end up the same.

But then of course Privatisation isn't ideological even if 70% of the public are against it in a democracy, and if all the profits going to shareholders instead of back to the exchequer.

As to expanding share-ownership, perhaps looking back at previous privatisations would educate you to the fact that very few shares remain in the public's hands, most have been purchased by pension and hedge funds, in fact most private buyers sold their allocation within a few years,”

Fine job but did you happen to mention to him he was not revealing a vested interest by being a Tory candidate.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

No but another commentator did

“Agree absolutely with the comments above, I believe Mr Neal stood as prospective councillor for the Tories a few years ago and has clearly "brought in" to their privatisation at all costs ideology of any public owned organization that makes a profit.