Richard Barker Departs

[goggins69]

I would just like to point out one thing... I am surrounded by people in my office who are either old, fat or lazy. Or a mixture of all three.

Didn't realise you worked with me

[billyhayes]

We can't all be Greek Adonis's.

Actually it's more like arm pit, rather than Brad Pitt.

[bc29]

Is F.S. baiting still leagal?

[billyhayes]

I think there's a referendum on it, coming soon...

[FinancialSpecialist]

In offices where there are 2 FS, the saving would be up to £41782, not £35000

I don't think they really will get rid of them - life on the laptop is the latest offering, being able to answer the medical questions and do the whole product in branch is a big leap forward. The possibility to talk about all the different products, instead of having to speak to the specialist for each different product type. If anything, the specialist roles for counter staff protect the FS role even more. From now on managers and non specialised staff can only introduce products and will not be able to carry out assisted sales.

In all fairness, I can understand why some think that FS should do more, but the role is so covered in red tape and compliance that it makes it very difficult. It has started to relax a bit, with the introductions and customer review forms toned down somewhat, but it has farther to go. It isn't as easy a job as some might think, but I personally really enjoy talking to people and building relationships for a living, I always got told I could talk the hind legs off a donkey so this suits me.

The general understanding in this forum seems to be that the counter staff on here believe FS think they are all lazy and all counter staff think that FS are ineffective. I personally love the counter staff I work with and know I couldn't survive without them, so that is not my belief at all. Day to day the people who have most annoyed me have been managers, although I have the utmost respect for my current manager and think he is the reason the office is the way it is.

In short, I don't think the business or the sales model or anything like that is inherently wrong. I think it's the same as anywhere else in that the staff make the office. In the Post Office the drastic change in the business direction has left experienced people in jobs which they perhaps have no experience of and maybe even no desire for. These people don't want to leave because they will lose out financially and feel the business owes them, and the business cannot ged rid of them without paying them off. A real Catch 22.

[andy2007]

I haven't had much to say on this thread, because I don't work in the PO (I work in RM Logistics). But I'd like to make a few points if I may.
1) It's important to make a distinction between those who repeatedly myther the same Customers about products they've repeatedly said they're not interested in, and those who target their sales talks.
2) It's easy to blame others for your problems. But there are also many problems, both in RM and POC which are totally beyond our control. Because they're created by Managers, and we don't have the authority to do anything other than ask the Union for help with them.
3) In my experience (and yes, I realise it's a very rare situation to have the choice these days), it's a much nicer experience to go to a smaller PO than a Crown one. Simply because they aren't as pushy. They listen to what I (and the other Customers) say, and only tell me (us) about relevant products. As a result, they get enough business to keep them all open. Now that isn't a dig at Crown POs in general, just the one near me. Although based on what I've read in this section of the Forum, I suspect that it's the same in a lot of Crown POs. Not because the staff aren't understanding, or good at their jobs. But just because they're expected to have sufficient "conversations", to avoid getting into trouble.

For obvious reasons, I won't say where I live. There's been more than enough closures already, without drawing attention to an area which still has enough POs, to avoid queueing down the road to get served. Which is what it's like in many areas.

4) As has already been said in here: There are 2 types of people (generally) who're hoping for the next round of EVRs to come ASAP. There's the ones who've always worked hard, and continue to do so. But have had enough of "the race to the bottom", or who's health has deteriorated as a result of their job, and want to get out before it gets too much worse.

Then there are the ones who've given up, and aren't amking the effort anymore. In my experience, they're a tiny minority (although obviously, I'm working in a different section to most of you, who've posted in here). But I agree, they're a burden on all of us, as we all end up carrying them, 'till they go.

[The BFO]

I don't think they really will get rid of them

Apparently, we are targeted with losing 61 hours per week in our office to achieve the required Staff Cost to Income ratio. We currently have an FS vacancy for 35 HPW.

It will be interesting to see if, and when, this is filled.

[billyhayes]

Same here. About 50 hours to lose I'm told.

Funny thing is; cut the hours = less bums on seats = less referrals from the counter = less sales = less income = FU@@ED.

They just don't get it though.

POL seem to think that the only result of a few hours cut from offices will be saving money. They are not looking past their own noses, (which are buried deep in the trough).

[Blue8]

I would love to know how much money is being wasted becouse of staff sat at home sick due to the pressure put on them by management.

Bums on seats will result in more sales, happy customers and relaxed staff.

There are to many people waiting at the end of a phone to hear how many sales have been got and then when the answer is none not listening to the reasons why.

I would love to see all those managers sat in their ivory towers get down on the counter and see how hard it is when there is 3 of you sat on the counter with no stock in your tills and a manager stood behind you making sure you say the right things.

We should have gone on Strike!!!!!!

[The BFO]

Funny thing is; cut the hours = less bums on seats = less referrals from the counter = less sales = less income = FU@@ED.

Your statement seems to imply that the solution is Sales. Laudable as this is there is some rudimentary arithmetic standing in the way. Crown Office losses are stated as being £55 million per annum – an average of £147,453 for each of the 373 offices. I work in a fairly average ‘large commercial’ Crown Office and our Focus Product Income for the year just ended was £89,596. How could my office generate this extra Income? There are of course many ways to do this, but to give some perspective let us say we were to do it through Special Delivery sales. We currently average just fewer than 300 per week, to achieve this extra Income we would need to sell an additional 1639 per week – with the same number of staff.
Alternatively, we could all take a pay cut of nearly 50%.

[billyhayes]

Yeah it does read that way, but I did not 'mean' that!
Simply that sales or not, cutting hours/staff will increase waiting times etc etc therefore the few of us poor buggers that are left will be under more pressure from the queues. It's a no win situation.
Cutting staff/hours is a quick fix for the books to look a little bit better at the end of the financial year, but in the longer term, this is not the answer.

Finally, the job is the job, therefore the pay is the pay.

I certainly wouldn't sit still for a pay cut for someone elses mistakes.

[The BFO]

It's a no win situation.

Yes, I suppose that's what I mean, I was just a bit more long winded!

[Druss]

Crown Office losses are stated as being £55 million per annum – an average of £147,453 for each of the 373 offices.

But who tells us we are making this amount of loss?. POL, do we really believe them! I think there may have some adjustment in their figures.

[The BFO]

But who tells us we are making this amount of loss?. POL, do we really believe them! I think there may have some adjustment in their figures.

Quite so. As I think I have demonstrated above, it is possible to play around with figures all day long.

[Running Man]

I've only just caught up with this thread and can't help responding to a couple of points made about Mr. Richard Barker.

1. The point about him being a 'decent' bloke who tries to do the right thing. One question; ask yourselves why POL are in such a mess and who has been in a position of great influence for many years now.

2. 'Good luck' to him in the future???

Having spent over 20 years with RMG I can honestly say that RB is without doubt the worst senior manager throughout that time, and there have been some terrible ones let me tell you. This man has spent umpteen years consistently doing the wrong thing, not attempting to do the right thing. POL are in a mess not only due to the recession, but also due to a consistently poor decision making at the top of the business (like Royal Mail by the way); the place where RB has been such an influential figure for years.

Do I wish him good luck to him in the future? It's POL who will need the luck not RB.

Thanks for absolutely nothing.