Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Sancho Panza

Royal Mail Cuts 1,300 Jobs

Recommended Posts

Reuters 25/3/14

'(Reuters) - Just five months after its privatisation, Britain's Royal Mail postal service has announced plans to cut a net 1,300 jobs to reduce costs, prompting a threat of industrial action from a trade union. Royal Mail, sold off last October in Britain's biggest privatisation for decades, has shed 50,000 jobs in 11 years as it tries to adapt to the rise of electronic mail and a shift from traditional letters to more parcel deliveries.

The group said on Tuesday it planned to cut 1,600 managerial and head office jobs, offset by the creation of around 300 new or enhanced positions, in order to save an eventual 50 million pounds ($82.5 million) a year.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reuters 25/3/14

'(Reuters) - Just five months after its privatisation, Britain's Royal Mail postal service has announced plans to cut a net 1,300 jobs to reduce costs, prompting a threat of industrial action from a trade union. Royal Mail, sold off last October in Britain's biggest privatisation for decades, has shed 50,000 jobs in 11 years as it tries to adapt to the rise of electronic mail and a shift from traditional letters to more parcel deliveries.

The group said on Tuesday it planned to cut 1,600 managerial and head office jobs, offset by the creation of around 300 new or enhanced positions, in order to save an eventual 50 million pounds ($82.5 million) a year.'

sounds liek they are getting rid of the lazy incompetents dragging down the rest of the company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Royal Mail boss got a massive pay rise though!

Fancy that. Who would have thought it. Well you have to pay to get the talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this meant to be a bad thing? Royal Mail was state-owned for ages so its almost guaranteed to be bloated and inefficient, from the top down.

You cant just pay people do dig holes and fill them in again. If a job is useless then eliminating it is beneficial for society in the long term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this meant to be a bad thing? Royal Mail was state-owned for ages so its almost guaranteed to be bloated and inefficient, from the top down.

You cant just pay people do dig holes and fill them in again. If a job is useless then eliminating it is beneficial for society in the long term.

Fred Goodwin eliminated an awful lot of 'useless' jobs. Didn't prevent the rest of them at RBS continuing to dig holes until they blew up everybody else.

Have you considered you may have a bias?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fred Goodwin eliminated an awful lot of 'useless' jobs. Didn't prevent the rest of them at RBS continuing to dig holes until they blew up everybody else.

Have you considered you may have a bias?

The difference is that in a private company if some jobs are overpaid or unnecessary, then someone else with a direct connection to the company is actually losing their own money as a result - most obviously the shareholders who have chosen to invest in that company. So they have a very strong incentive to change things, either by taking action through voting, or just selling their shares and investing in a more efficient company instead.

On the other hand, in government owned companies if jobs are overpaid/useless then noone is directly financially accountable - its all just taxpayers money funding everything, so its not like anyone connected to the company is actually losing their own money or has any incentive to change things. So I would be amazed if there wasnt large amount of redundancies every time a company is privatised, simply because state-owned companies necessarily accumulate so much bloat due to the lack of accountability. The only time redundancies are avoided is when rent-seeking unions are able to exploit the legal system to protect useless jobs (see the current threat of tube strikes in London over closing unneeded ticket offices, for example).

Edited by Smyth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fred Goodwin eliminated an awful lot of 'useless' jobs. Didn't prevent the rest of them at RBS continuing to dig holes until they blew up everybody else.

As the last few years have proven, modern banks are public sector organizations in all but name (and profits).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is that in a private company if some jobs are overpaid or unnecessary, then someone else with a direct connection to the company is actually losing their own money as a result - most obviously the shareholders who have chosen to invest in that company. So they have a very strong incentive to change things, either by taking action through voting, or just selling their shares and investing in a more efficient company instead.

On the other hand, in government owned companies if jobs are overpaid/useless then noone is directly financially accountable - its all just taxpayers money funding everything, so its not like anyone connected to the company is actually losing their own money or has any incentive to change things. So I would be amazed if there wasnt large amount of redundancies every time a company is privatised, simply because state-owned companies necessarily accumulate so much bloat due to the lack of accountability. The only time redundancies are avoided is when rent-seeking unions are able to exploit the legal system to protect useless jobs (see the current threat of tube strikes in London over closing unneeded ticket offices, for example).

Dogmatic claptrap.

I worked all my life in large global corporate listed entities and never failed to be surprised by the opulence, waste, inefficiencies, self-entitlement, non-jobs, overpaid jobs, underworked jobs, sinecures, early retirees back on consultancy etc etc.

By contrast I've very rarely seen any of this in the public sector.

I realise it's not fashionable to contradict the 'private is uber efficient' and public sector jobs are non-jobs' memes but it is nonetheless infantile twaddle for the most part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not denying that you can also get large amounts of waste in the private sector, its just that there are some degree of checks and balances there (since a company that is wasting too much money will be less efficient than its competitors, which should eventually result in decreased profits/share price) that arent there for public companies. Especially one which has been granted a monopoly over certain types of services like Royal Mail has, which completely protects it from competition.

Noone would choose Royal Mail over Fedex/UPS to send a parcel now that competition is allowed, just like noone would choose BT for internet now that their broadband monopoly has been removed. Yet as soon as you want to send letters first-class you are forced to deal with Royal Mail and their outrageous prices. You can be as inefficient as you like when the government is forcing people to use your services (see also: the BBC)

Edited by Smyth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not denying that you can also get large amounts of waste in the private sector, its just that there are some degree of checks and balances there (since a company that is wasting too much money will be less efficient than its competitors, which should eventually result in decreased profits/share price) that arent there for public companies. Especially one which has been granted a monopoly over certain types of services like Royal Mail has, which completely protects it from competition.

Noone would choose Royal Mail over Fedex/UPS to send a parcel now that competition is allowed, just like noone would choose BT for internet now that their broadband monopoly has been removed. Yet as soon as you want to send letters first-class you are forced to deal with Royal Mail and their outrageous prices. You can be as inefficient as you like when the government is forcing people to use your services (see also: the BBC)

Checks/balances/accountability in large listed corps is nowhere near the scrutiny of the public sector. Nothing like. It's a complete myth.

Public sector have to suffer constant unwarranted attacks as yours, ongoing underinvestment (due to this political dogma) and in many cases are not permitted to re-invest profits from their endeavors.

So you end up with, for instance, all of Apple's components sponsored by US govt, but all the resultant profits taken by a private corp. which then shelters them from tax.

Agree with you re BBC. Every rule has an exception. But that's most likely due to the propaganda effect which is useful for govts. of all stripes to control so it's probably a unique case. But consider the astonishing fuss about Duncan Weldon's appointment to Newsnight. Don't remember any mention at all of Michael Crick's appointment to Ch4 yet they take public money and have to fulfill a public charter. No scrutiny at all at Sky - 'cause they're 'private' so must be uber efficient. You only have to listen to the Murdochs giving evidence to see that's utter bullsh1t.

The argument is completely false I'm afraid, though nonetheless widely repeated at a universal 'truth'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dogmatic claptrap.

I worked all my life in large global corporate listed entities and never failed to be surprised by the opulence, waste, inefficiencies, self-entitlement, non-jobs, overpaid jobs, underworked jobs, sinecures, early retirees back on consultancy etc etc.

By contrast I've very rarely seen any of this in the public sector.

I realise it's not fashionable to contradict the 'private is uber efficient' and public sector jobs are non-jobs' memes but it is nonetheless infantile twaddle for the most part.

Try the military/police for a start.then try the NHS and local councils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dogmatic claptrap.

I worked all my life in large global corporate listed entities and never failed to be surprised by the opulence, waste, inefficiencies, self-entitlement, non-jobs, overpaid jobs, underworked jobs, sinecures, early retirees back on consultancy etc etc.

By contrast I've very rarely seen any of this in the public sector.

I realise it's not fashionable to contradict the 'private is uber efficient' and public sector jobs are non-jobs' memes but it is nonetheless infantile twaddle for the most part.

Its large organizations in general.

Too big to fail isnt just the banks. Just ask GM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not denying that you can also get large amounts of waste in the private sector, its just that there are some degree of checks and balances there (since a company that is wasting too much money will be less efficient than its competitors, which should eventually result in decreased profits/share price) that arent there for public companies. Especially one which has been granted a monopoly over certain types of services like Royal Mail has, which completely protects it from competition.

Noone would choose Royal Mail over Fedex/UPS to send a parcel now that competition is allowed, just like noone would choose BT for internet now that their broadband monopoly has been removed. Yet as soon as you want to send letters first-class you are forced to deal with Royal Mail and their outrageous prices. You can be as inefficient as you like when the government is forcing people to use your services (see also: the BBC)

?.. The postal service has been open to everyone for the best part of a decade now. Also second class mail mostly arrives at the same time as a first class letter. TNT and the like pay Royal Mail a few peanuts to deliver letters the final mile for most places, or at least have done up to now for that decade with TNT now delivering to Cities and big Towns only, cherry picking if you like.

If you average out the price of sending a letter from the last 20 years it's been cheap as chips really. Even now it's not too bad really (for a one off letter anywhere in the country)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noone would choose Royal Mail over Fedex/UPS to send a parcel now that competition is allowed, just like noone would choose BT for internet now that their broadband monopoly has been removed. Yet as soon as you want to send letters first-class you are forced to deal with Royal Mail and their outrageous prices. You can be as inefficient as you like when the government is forcing people to use your services (see also: the BBC)

Who is this Noone character and why is he always sending parcels?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's too many managers in Royal Mail in general. For small offices they're only really needed for an hour or two in the morning at best, and in the bigger offices there's just too many layers. Often they clear off early and go down the gym or whatever.

Work place coaches have been added to many offices, ie pay a postie £30 quid a week extra to organise things, this will probably end up reducing the managerial count around the county.

I know you have to keep a group of blokes in line but the numbers of managers could be cut a fair bit nationwide with little effect on overall performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet as soon as you want to send letters first-class you are forced to deal with Royal Mail and their outrageous prices. You can be as inefficient as you like when the government is forcing people to use your services (see also: the BBC)

In almost all cases you have an alternative to sending letters (any class) at all. The most popular ones are email, phone and fax. I remember watching a news broadcast in the 1980s reporting that sales of fax machines had jumped 500% during the week of a postal strike, and my father commenting in response that this was the beginning of the end of the Royal Mail, just as the opening of the Ford factory was the beginning of the end of the horse and carriage. He was not quite right: it's now becoming pretty obvious that the only long-term business for the Royal Mail is in delivering goods bought online to rural addresses. But he was right in that the physical transportation of paper is no longer a mass-communications technology.

Here in the US, even the Obama administration, which has an almost Gordon Brown-eque approach to borrowing and spending, is being forced to address the $16bn a year operating loss made by the US Postal Service (the third largest employer in the country, after the federal government and WalMart). The reduction of deliveries to five days a week is very likely to happen, but even that would save barely a billion. I suspect that within a decade, deliveries will be down to once or twice a week if that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is this Noone character and why is he always sending parcels?

Peter Noone of Hermans Hermits

PeterNooneSheetMusic.jpg

Edited by aSecureTenant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's too many managers in Royal Mail in general. For small offices they're only really needed for an hour or two in the morning at best, and in the bigger offices there's just too many layers. Often they clear off early and go down the gym or whatever.

Work place coaches have been added to many offices, ie pay a postie £30 quid a week extra to organise things, this will probably end up reducing the managerial count around the county.

I know you have to keep a group of blokes in line but the numbers of managers could be cut a fair bit nationwide with little effect on overall performance.

What you have to ask yourself is not what actually needs doing, but what these managers will actually do.

My guess is save the superfluous middle management roles and make the people who actually do the work redundant, resulting in the boots on the ground having to move around like blue arsed flies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you have to ask yourself is not what actually needs doing, but what these managers will actually do.

My guess is save the superfluous middle management roles and make the people who actually do the work redundant, resulting in the boots on the ground having to move around like blue arsed flies.

Indeed, there's a lot of pressure being put on posties to deliver big workloads. Trouble is a lot of the blokes are their own worst enemies by coming in before their start times, cutting corners, carrying heavy bags, not using the correct equipment etc and trying to gain a bit of time back on the easier days ie finish early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   289 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.