Printable View
It is the Royal Mail shareholders who will receive the money handed over to purchase Royal Mail. If Royal Mail had recently required substantial new funding they would have had a ‘right issue’ with their existing shareholders having the opportunity to purchase more shares in Royal Mail.Quote:
Originally Posted by BCram
The point I am trying to get across is to bring the value of the assets owned by Royal Mail into the equation and the liabilities for pension arrangements. What if the replacement value of the assets employed in Royal Mail was £15bn? Why should some foreign rich person pay £4bn for the shares and then dismantle the Royal Mail by selling off the assets. Private profit made from public asset stripping.
Similarly look at the pension liabilities. If the new owners are not responsible for these liabilities why should some smart financial trickery be allowed to avoid the liabilities and destroy the value of the pensions of those who have paid into the fund?
Hoping that the Labour Government will stop this sale. We are sleep walking into poverty by allowing British businesses to be sold to foreign owners. Beginning of the end when Hargreaves Landsdown PLC and AJ Bell start bleating about lack of money for them to invest. They want new rules to allow them to get their hands on £30bn of cash savings.
Posties need to explain why they need to be employed. Strike action and militancy will get them nowhere, imo. The privatisation of public utilities has not worked out over the longer term. Water companies, struggling because of the failure to understand that regulation of prices is not a substitute for the sound business practices needed to genherate profits to replace assets that were built over 100 years ago.
Trade Union leaders need to try to win arguments by persuading the general public to side with them rather than the bosses, BUT, they have to deliver change, rather than higher salaries, imo.
Trains are in trouble too. General population, 25% WFH. Who wants to commute when you can save a few £ooo's on travel costs and many hours of miserable commuting time?
On the bright side of things the best team in the Euros won, no amount of hype changed that and it looks like Lineker might have overstepped the mark with his criticism of Engerlund.
In my opinion there is no need for a Saturday delivery of mail by the posties.Quote:
Originally Posted by BCram
I agree. It needs a bit of commonsense to sort it out. No Saturday working might mean no overtime hours and it could have a big impact on wages. Bound to be a postie on here who can put us straight!Quote:
Originally Posted by islaydarkblue
Agree no need for Saturday letter deliveries, they reckon they could save £300 million by taking it outQuote:
Originally Posted by BCram
Companies don't exist to give employees loads of overtime and to make those employees rich. When people sign contracts of employment it's for 37.5 or 40 or whatever hours per week at a given rate of compensation. If that's not enough for them and they need more money from that employment they're in the wrong job.Quote:
Originally Posted by BCram
Ban overtime and employ enough people to fill capacity.
But we know that overtime rates are higher than the basic rate. Getting people to take a pay cut is impossible, imo. I agree with the basic principle you use about an set number of hours per week. The problem seems to be how do you change pay structures when you have large organisations with long held traditional union arrangements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeranged
I think the unions need to change their thinking. It's a bit like the SNP blamed Westminster for every difficulty they faced. Seems to me unions have allowed themselves to be manipulated by bosses so that the bosses, SNP, blame the Unions, Westminster, as being the cause of all the problems.
Is it the same in every industry in Beitain? Not ever worked in an organisation that had a union, so I am genuinely interested.
I enclose an article from the STV news website about the delivery of mail to remote parts of Scotland. https://news.stv.tv/highlands-island...inner-hebrides
Like most professionals I work extra hours but don't get paid at all for them, without unions and their fascination with collective bargaining maybe workers who wanted to could agree higher rates for themselves tied into an expectation that they do longer but more flexible hours?Quote:
Originally Posted by BCram
I've worked in one place where there was a union - there was no union when I started there but then some trouble makers insisted on introducing one and forced a vote. The place went from a good place to work to one I couldn't wait to get away from. For me unions should be banned, they're good for onion officials but not for workers or employers. I actually joined that union and went to two all hands meetings. I heard the Shop Steward say 'we think' more than once when referring to everyone. It seemed that what he thought was what we all had to think - as someone with a mind of my own I couldn't accept that so left the union. Let's just say I've done a fair bit better since then than the sheep who followed that Shop Steward.
Union officials are not manipulated by management, they conspire with management to protect themselves and to hell with their members.