Strike-related inanity

[graculus]

Since the posties have been on strike this week and are also going on strike again next week (go to ACAS, for crying out loud!) I present to you a summary of the inane comments that have been making me grind my teeth this week where the strike action is concerned:

1. But it's so inconvenient!

That would be the point. A strike that didn't inconvenience anyone would be useless, as the idea is to make management think 'oh, this isn't good, let's think again...'

2. What do they think they're doing, striking when the economy is in such a mess?

They think they're exercising their democratic right to strike, in keeping with the laws around how strikes can be called in this country. Which are pretty clear, thanks very much.

3. Sack them all and replace them with folks who are currently unemployed!!11!! (also seen in conjunction with 1.)

Erm, no. That would be illegal. As long as the unions have gone along with the clear conditions about legal strikes, it's completely against the law for Royal Mail to sack union members for taking strike action in keeping with that law.

4. They should be grateful to have a job at all!

This one is always entertaining - it's usually prefaced by 'you public sector types with your high wages and your cushy conditions, the rest of us are paying our bosses for the right to work!' (echoes of the 4 Yorkshiremen). That always makes me wonder, if working for the public sector is such a well-paid easy ride, then why are you lot dumb enough to do something else?

5. They should be made to work!!!11!! (thanks, temaris, I forgot that one!)

Slavery was outlawed in 1833, thanks very much. And unlike nursing etc. you can't even use the emotional blackmail that being a postman is a vocation and therefore you shouldn't strike, you hard-hearted so and so! :P


Have I missed any common inanities? Those seem to be the main three five (with sub-variations) knocking around... BTW, my understanding of the planned 'modernisation' RM management are looking for involves the concept that since they're 10% down in volume of stuff sent, they need 30% less staff to deal with the remainder.

Comments

[rhade-rad.livejournal.com]

What the people I speak to seem not to realise is that the union supports modernisation: they just want to have discussions about properly implementing it. Some recognition that the actual postmen and women see their job as an important public service and want to be involved in making that service better. Like the train drivers' unions when the railways were privatised banging on about public safety over driver's training and the need, sometimes, for two drivers in the cab - and being justified at the enquiries into the Paddington and Hatfield crashes.

The whole issue also ignores that the competition is cherry picking the profitable stuff, not paying Royal Mail enough per letter to get the stuff they collect and sort delivered, and those who deliver parcels and secure mail don't have depots accessible by public transport, only deliver in the middle of the working day - god forbid their drivers should start before 9am! and why can't you have personal stuff delivered to work? -, can't guarantee to call in morning or afternoon - depends what's on the van love -, send out letters by second class post to tell you they've tried and failed, and have premium rate phone numbers for arranging alternative delivery.

Whereas Parcelforce and Royal Mail parcels hand a card to the postperson to drop through your letter box next day, and will arrange to leave items for collection at your local post office or sub-post office if you can't get to their office. So IMHO Royal Mail Customer Service is way better than any of the others.