Royal mail to "shed" 1,600 jobs one year after being privatized. You've gotta get mad.

For those of you that dont know, the profitable and publicly owned company Royal mail, first founded in 1516, was floated on the stock market in 2013 and sold for merely 30% of its estimated value. The company was making enough money to afford modernisation costs, and yet, some how ended up being sacrificed to the private sector. Today, almost 1 year on, the company announces plans to shed 1,600 jobs in order to save "£50 million a year"

Brian Scott, Unite's officer for Royal Mail, said: "First the government sells off Royal Mail on the cheap and now the newly privatised service is ruthlessly sacrificing jobs.

"We do not believe that it's a coincidence that this announcement has been made just before the company prepares to announce its first full set of accounts since privatisation. It's more proof that Royal Mail's primary reason for existing is now about making profits rather than serving the nation."

What an absolute and utter disgrace. Any national asset that has been privatized has been stripped to its bare bones in the name of profit.

Water.
Gas/Electric
Transport
British Telecoms
Work Programme

Not to mention all of the outsourcing to sh*t and useless companies like G4S, Serco, Capita.

The real reason why their trying to "save" £50 mil a year is pay their NEW shareholder's bigger bonuses for running the company into the ground. Those 1,600 are only going to end up in one place: ON BENEFITS.

And what does the government think of those on benefits? That they're scrounger's and they need to work harder to find a job in a climate where fascist corporatism is the new religion.

Next they'll be offering "work experience" at royal mail - If your a good little serf and there's actually a position open, they MIGHT offer you a job. But you'll have to beat the other 500 people applying for it.

Watch this company get run into the ground. Watch these new shareholders get even more rich. This is the brave new world.

Guardian Source: Royal Mail To Shed 1,600 Jobs

Or the new management is going to run a more streamlined business with less people. As you modernize an older business with new technology you need fewer people to do the same amount of work. I work in an Engine Plant, we have half the workers we had 30 years ago yet we are building three times number of engines. Technology is a double edged sword.

Beside Government Run Businesses are notorious for running an inefficient business which is why most are in the red. Royal Mail could still be profitable under these conditions but no as efficient as it could be.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


Actually all of its looming debt and generous pensions were paid off by UK taxpayers just to get it off the books.

JBRiddle
Or the new management is going to run a more streamlined business with less people. As you modernize an older business with new technology you need fewer people to do the same amount of work. I work in an Engine Plant, we have half the workers we had 30 years ago yet we are building three times number of engines. Technology is a double edged sword.

I agree that modernization happens and you need less man-power as technology progresses.

Beside Government Run Businesses are notorious for running an inefficient business which is why most are in the red. Royal Mail could still be profitable under these conditions but no as efficient as it could be.

Royal mail was turning a healthy profit and did not have to be privatized in order to afford "modernizations"

I guarantee you front line services will be effected, prices will sky rocket, the service itself will become poor and eventually it will become a company that no body is satisfied with - Because its bottom line is now profit and not service.

Every industry that has ever been made private has been affected in the above ways. Bottom line is profit, we'll do anything to get as much of it as possible.

These new shareholder's should be shot in the face and the politicians who enabled it to be bought for %30 of its estimated value.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc

Isnt a bit misleading to say that this was done simply in the "name of profit".

Obviously thats true to an extent but have you ever dealt with government employees and or bureaucracy?

They are NEVER in a hurry. Their customer "service" (if you can call it that) is almost non-existent. And if you know anyone thats worked for the government (state or federal) they will tell you that they barely do any work.

I had an acquaintance tell me (a co-worker of a friend) that there was one (40 hour) week where he did a total of 2 hours worth of real work. I'm not kidding.

On average, he said that he did 10 hours of work a week or 2 hours per day.

Now, does this mean its true of ALL government employees? No, but I would feel comfortable in saying that there are a TON of slackers.

Unlike the government, which steals our money or prints it when they run short (thereby causing prices to increase), private companies actually have to figure out a way to turn a profit.

Can you really blame them for getting rid of a bunch of do-nothings?

That having been said, it does piss me off when they dont get rid of redundant upper level management. Cut a few of their salaries and youre a third of the way to your goal.

Rather than get mad you should get elated. It's yet another example of the efficiencies to be gained by not relying on government to provide "services."

I wonder who first came up with the idea that a company HAS to make a profit every year to be successful. Think on this. When I worked for British Coal it was always a talking point and a joke that there were 2 men doing 1 mans job. Now not withstanding Mrs Thatcher tried to champion this concept only she called it job sharing. So (check this out if you disbelieve) 2 men doing 1 mans job, both working, both paying tax, both got wages to spend in the local economy and to top it British Coal could afford to pay them and still turn a profit. Question. Would you rather have the vast majority of people at work (paying taxes and have no dependence on welfare) with companies making little or no profit, breaking even, or high unemployment, a select few reaping the profits yet grumbling at paying the welfare bill for the people they put out of work? To me it's a no brainer. Yet some posters on here are clearly money driven. Profit, profit, profit and f*** the economy.

schuyler
Rather than get mad you should get elated. It's yet another example of the efficiencies to be gained by not relying on government to provide "services."

There was nothing wrong with the company before it was privatized. Now it will make people unemployed and turn a huge profit at the cost of service. I'd rather it still belonged to THE PEOPLE.

SearchLightsInc

schuyler
Rather than get mad you should get elated. It's yet another example of the efficiencies to be gained by not relying on government to provide "services."

There was nothing wrong with the company before it was privatized. Now it will make people unemployed and turn a huge profit at the cost of service. I'd rather it still belonged to THE PEOPLE.

It is far better now that is has been privatized. Because now instead of the profit going to the people it goes to a select few. If you don't support this then you are either a socialist or communist. Remember profit going to the few is always better than profit going to the useless masses.

the problem is the new owners know they can just run it into the ground and the government will bail them out (the high inflation we have from "quantitative easing" hardly helps either). Gone are the days when business leaders tried to create long term sustainable businesses, thanks to government policy and attitude we now have a system where fail is rewarded with bailouts and success is punished with more regulations and taxes.

reply to post by buster2010


so you'd rather it stays with a government that is either so massively incompetent that it sold it for 30% of its value or so corrupt they will openly screw the "people" to give their mates the deal of the century. Which ever way I look at that I can't help but think these are the sort of people that should be kept away from sharp objects and taken to a place where they are kept a close eye on for the rest of their lives.

reply to post by crayzeed


Here's the flip side - Government being what it is those same 2 men doing one man's job would also have generous benefits + pension. What happens when they retire, often early in a government position, and the company/government (meaning taxpayer) is then forced to pay for them in retirement for the rest of their lives?

This is what caused the big auto companies in the U.S. to go under, the unions bargained them into bad deals. They were paying so much on retirees and legacy benefits, they were only making about $2,000/car sold which wasn't enough to keep them afloat in the end.

So, sure the equation may be working in the now, but will it work long-term when all these employees retire and start drawing retirement off Royal Mail?

Anyone know a postman? I do. He says some of the postal practices - as supported by the Trade Unions - are a joke and instil business inefficiencies and silliness. He thinks that as improved business practices are introduced less staff will be needed. He thinks it's great!

Just to add that the government should not try to run businesses and privatisation has some very good outcomes, but I suspect that some people who complain were not around to travel on British Rail or watch the car industry be destroyed by feckless governments and selfish Unions. At least we don't need to wait ten weeks for a phone connection and can choose not to use BT.

Regards