Royal Mail wins worst April Fools' joke 2023 Amid rampant inflation, spiraling costs and stagnant wages, there was little bandwidth for April Fools' this year when every day can feel like a bad joke. However, the prevailing atmosphere was lost on a Royal Mail delivery office in Gloucestershire, England, where a poster appeared on Saturday promising staff an 11 percent …
Not entirely true.
The problem with the NHS is largely a function of how it is structured. The only way to secure a payrise is to change bands - therefore after 12 months every single employee is incentivised to apply for alternative internal positions to hop up the ladder. Entire departments can exist where the staff have less than 18 months experience and half are looking for the next move.
Then you realise that all the most competent senior people are generally working in people management - due to the above salary banding. So you end up with the least experienced and lowest paid staff actually performing the main work. With lawyers constantly circling the ambulances looking for a payout, with inevitable mountains of paperwork created to mitigate against the lawyers.
Then you get into the surprisingly good pensions that are generally applied to people who may be earning £50-200kpa. The NHS pensions bill is astronomical. It is not unusual for a 40yr old NHS middle manager to have a £250k pension pot. Double or triple that for a 60yr old... And since NHS pensions are paid directly from public taxation (it is not cash invested in a share fund), you may be surprised to hear the taxpayer owes £650b to NHS pensioners
However, frankly it somehow works better than the ridiculous US system, so I am somewhat fond of the NHS despite its myriad of problems.
Strangely, was recently talking about how the NHS is seen as a cash cow by private companies.
A few years back, while I was still working for a hospital, it came to light that our stationary supplier had special pricing for public sector industries where the prices were two to three times that of the private sector. This was found when the person looking after our stationary got their hands on the other version of the catalogue and pricing and did a comparison. It started something of a game of getting quotes for things, like blinds and furniture first for private sector, then getting a quite for the hospital and comparing costs. And in near every single instance, public sector (NHS) quotes were higher for the exact same product.
That really doesn't help the NHS keep costs down and focus on patient care, now does it. Especially considering how much stationary the NHS goes through. So yes: private companies seem drawn to parasitic behavior when it comes to leeching on the public purse. Possibly, in their mind, a way to claim back taxes...
On the other hand I've seen firsthand the shit suppliers have to deal with when supplying public entities (local and regional municipalities, large hospitals, etc in the Netherlands in this case) and with all the extra trouble of having to deal with the bureaucracy and never getting paid (on time or at all, with "yeah, the guy who ordered those no longer works for this department, we didn't sign of on the order, now get lost" being frequent), the cost, risk and hastle for suppliers is quite often also much higher than it would be for any other entity. So there's a little bit of a dual problem going on. On the one hand inefficiencies and difficulties in dealing with public entities means that suppliers charge more just to be able to deal with them without losing their shirt, and on the other hand you have suppliers taking advantage of the fact that at many public entities there will be no-one in purchasing that actually knows what things SHOULD cost and purchase orders just get signed off. Because it's not their money they're wasting.
This is also true. Some of the people in the procurement roles are on fixed term contracts, and once they run out they leave. Some are just 'temporary', and then, because some processes are just terribly slow, end up leaving before their replacement arrives (the classic back-to-back) thing. I've seen this also in our own finance department where it eventually became clear that our financials were in a much worse state than thought/imagined because people left, thought that it would be clear how things are done, and replacements either didn't do it right or failed to do it at all. Even internally, having such changes happen is extremely frustrating.
Yes, I've heard about this too... apparently some NHS trusts wouldn't allow purchases to be made unless certain thresholds were met (i.e. you're down to your last X items, and you need to order a minimum of Y), so if one hospital was running low, but didn't need Y number of units (and no-one else in the same trust could take some off their hands), they were effectively SOL.
It came to stationery, items like loo roll and the like that even when ordered in those exorbitant (i.e. Y number of items) numbers, the price was technically still more than what you could get the *same* items from Amazon or your local Tesco (or B&M) from.
But because some faceless commercials manager somewhere in the hierarchy signed a supplier agreement that locked them into such ludicrous contracts, and that faceless manager couldn't possibly lose face, the people at the coal face (i.e. department heads/head nurses) were forbidden to buy from alternate sources.
That kind of crap just *really* winds me up, and it's something that costs the NHS extraordinary amounts of money. But, just to be clear, this is not limited to the NHS. It happens in government departments too.
It might seem wrong but a private company normally has 30 day or less to pay.
I suspect NHS is a lot longer
Then you have the huge paperwork to get on to the NHS perfered bider
That all costs money
I know when I did private work and work for the council
The council was double the amount
As it generally took 6 months to get paid
Private terms where 7 days
I am constantly surprised by how little people know about the NHS. What you mean by "tackle inefficiency and waste" is cutting services and rewarding the people who make those cuts.
A few years ago, maybe a couple of decades as time passes quickly, a Tory minister was interviewed on TV about removing "thousands of unnecessary regulations and business red tape" (my paraphrasing but accurate. He was put on the spot with a question like "such as?". His response was "errrrrrrrr licences for shoe blacks". That was his first and only answer.
Could the NHS do things more efficiently? I don't know for sure as I am not involved with it. But probably given its size it could.
We have a sanguine view of for profit health care in the UK. We see what it is like in the USA where people get a taxi rather than an ambulance because of the cost. And don't try and pretend that health care is better in the USA than in the UK. Life expectancy in the UK is higher than in the USA. And we also do not have an opioid epidemic caused by for-profit issuance of addictive pills. That's OK, there will always be some people to prescribe opium to = more profits.
Back when my mother was a nurse and wards had matrons, the NHS was fairly efficient and worked well.
They got rid of the matrons. They brought in levels of administration (who shuffle papers rather than anything to do with treating patients). They go on austerity drives and slash the budgets of departments time and time again. Private companies wander in to take up some of the slack (and whip the cream off the top).
And people wonder why it's a massive clusterfuck. I would be inclined to think that it was actual Tory policy to wreck the NHS, but I fear that would be crediting them with far too much intelligence when it's really a side effect of what should be criminal levels of negligence and incompetence. You know, like they're doing to the entire country now...
“ Back when my mother was a nurse and wards had matrons, the NHS was fairly efficient and worked well.”
40 upvotes for political posturing based on lies? Trump playbook.
Wards have matrons. Only the daily mail thinks they don’t. My wife works on cardiac high care and intensive care keeping people alive: both wards have matrons and effectively keep people alive with NHS junior doctors, consultants, nurses, pharmacists and support staff.
This myth about efficiency can suck my big one: it’s funding and wages. Keeping old people alive costs money: the nhs needs more money and all staff need paying right. Everything else is just politics.
I see that somebody has given you a down vote. That somebody no doubt has a very small brain.
The Royal Mail used to be reliable and relatively inexpensive. Then it was privatised and the service got worse and more expensive. I guess that some people enjoy lower quality service and higher prices.
Quite. Royal Mail's business model is optimised for delivering letters, and emails have taken over that role almost entirely; it used to be the case that wet signatures were required, but emails have even eaten that with the advent of easy electronic signatures.
This leaves Royal Mail being just another parcel delivery company.
The problem is that Royal Mail (RM) got the bum end of the deal. When the postal market was deregulated, new entrants (think TNT and others) ended up taking some of the lucrative business (like bulk business mail, etc) while RM continued to have the universal postal service obligation (UPSO). You'll be well aware (if you live oop t'North in the Highlands or the Islands) that couriers will usually add a surcharge to deliver to some post codes in the Highlands and in the Shetlands, because houses are far and in between or one post code covers several islands. Costs to cover those are invariably higher, so the surcharge offsets those. RM is not allowed to charge such a surcharge (after all, the UPSO means that second class in Shetland costs the same as second class in London and means the same service, even if delivering a single second class item in Shetland costs a damn sight more).
So, yes... RM got a bum deal, and they've been trying to keep their shareholders (surprise, surprise) happy by continuing to deliver divvies whilst struggling to cover the unprofitable bits of the UPSO. Of course, add the fact that the parcel deliveries went through the roof faster than you can say boo during the pandemic and *definitely* faster than their own internal measures expected, so everything is... well... struggling.
Just keep that in mind when you point at RM having been reliable and relatively inexpensive in the past. The government covered the losses back then. They don't anymore. So yes, those who use the RM services will have to cover them instead. That's how business works.
It would've been great to turn RM into a non-profit, i.e. all your profits are plowed back into improving your business, but non-profits are notoriously... non-sexy to investors, who were the ones buying into RM.
Then you also know what a protracted affair it was to get RM sold to investors. It dragged on for months and had to be done in tranches to not tank the stock price.
But a loss-making non-profit is useless... It has to be able to make a profit (albeit not handed to its shareholders) to be able to improve its services. RM didn't even have that because, again, it was lumbered with the UPSO while organisations like TNT and the like creamed off the profitable bits while they could.
Since the Royal Mail is allegedly on the verge of collapse it appears that nobody is making a profit out of delivering the mail. All good there then.
In all seriousness there is an argument that the private sector is more financially efficient that the public sector and the logic behind it seems to make sense. Except that it mostly doesn't. Having spent many years working in both sectors I have observed that while the public sector is not particularly efficient the private sector is generally even less so. Unfortunately when times are good private sector companies throw around money like there's no tomorrow. When tomorrow does arrive they find not only that they have wasted a lot of money, but that they are also probably contractually committed to continuing to do so. Only when the wolf is at the door do most private sector companies become financially efficient. More often than not that efficiency comes in the form of punishing employees for the management's incompetence with layoffs and paycuts.
Things are worse now than they one were. There were times when companies would pay bonuses to senior management and directors and dividends to shareholders only when they had an exceptionally good year. These days however it seems that these bonuses and dividends are paid every year. So even when things aren't so good the companies spaff money on bonuses and dividends thus making things even worse.
And of course it is late capitalist doctrine that you should never, ever give workers a pay rise. Spray money around on anything you like, but wages are one big expense and therefore an easy expense to control. When times are good the easiest way to save money is to freeze employee pay - more rises and bonuses for managers that way. And when times are bad cut wages and make redundancies - some money for bonuses and managers that way.
You'll notice plenty of companies who are making record profits (usually from price gouging) are still failing to give their staff a reasonable cost of living pay rise. Of course this is an easy way to maximise profits and appear efficient, but they are still spaffing loads of cash on bonuses and dividends which is a massively inefficient way to run a business. Part of the reason inflation is so high is because of all the price gouging private companies. And then we have politicians saying that giving workers a fair pay rise will lead to higher inflation.
The NHS is inefficient largely because it is forced to farm out work to private companies who are making a profit on that money when it would be more efficient to do the work in house mainly because even if that would be ineffient it there would be no profit to be made and therefore the bottom line cost would be lower. And we're not just talking about medical treatment here. Everything in the NHS is private these days, IT, FM, cleaning, property, parking, etc. One trust reported that they were forced to farm out parking to a private company following which revenue from parking went down significantly even though the first action of the private parking management company was to increase parking.
The other myth popularized by right wing politicians and the right wing press is that the public sector get paid more than the private sector. This largely isn't true. Generally the only time it is true is within the public sector itself. That is to say private companies contracting for the public sector TUPE public sector staff across, but the only way they have managed to win the contract is by bidding at way below their cost price. So as soon as the TUPE period comes to an end they either cut staff pay, increase staff hours for the same pay or the ultimate c*nt's trick, lay off the staff and re-employ them on lower wages.
As stated in the article "Royal Mail said in a statement: "The poster was removed and the local manager has apologised.""
So the local manager has apologised. They'd be unlikely to apologise if they thought it was a worker putting it up (likely they would be trying to find a way to sack them).
Doesn't matter if they did it or not, the manager is ultimately the person in charge of the depot. Unless he stamps on that sort of thing quickly, ie. before it becomes an issue/public then it's his fault.
If the culprit is found they will probably be fired quietly, behind the scenes, unless they are management level.
That's why the managers get paid the big bucks.
@codejunky
Maybe they want to provide a public service & are loathe to leave? Many is the occasion a postie has contacted the emergency services when they have seen signs of a break in, suspicious lack of activity at a property etc - it's not just about letter delivery. Remember, unlike most delivery drivers, posties know their areas and the residents very well
Postal rounds tend to be relatively local, and part time work often available, handy for people juggling work and kids, whereas most other delivery jobs are long days and often involve driving across large areas - there's a lot of female posties for that reason.
As an aside, a female postie I know is taking voluntary redundancy as she is getting on a bit & voluntary works out a lot better deal than taking early retirement as lots of inducements plus she can see how the owners are running the service into the ground, paying peanuts and huge profits are being creamed off instead of being re-invested. So she has a bit of supermarket work lined up for when she finishes to keep some cash arriving until she reaches retirement age proper. She has said *most* of the management she knows are OK (not all, but a majority though did say it strongly correlates with whether they did postie work first or just came in to management without ever having done the feet on the street part of the job), but they are having to go the "following orders" route imposed from above, else their jobs will go and has led to some of the more decent managerial staff quitting so she has seen start of a spiral of management layers getting progressively more full of the less pleasant individuals.
Many delivery services* do not directly employ a lot of their workers, instead you need to have your own van and essentially are a contractor for them, this could put people off as you need van & business insurance plus all the accountancy / legal hassles of some of the weird self employment style contracts on offer- hence the large number of deliveries you see in unbranded vans (& even worse those done by "hire" vans - workers cannot afford their own van so hire one & so a fair chunk of their pay ends up with the van hire company, the joys of the low wage gig economy) - so another reason posties might not want to change job.
* A few still do provide your van, uniform etc. Many do not.
@tiggity
"Maybe they want to provide a public service & are loathe to leave?"
Awesome so the pay is not too low to compensate them for their work because they are happy to remain there at current levels. Otherwise they would leave and if it caused a staffing problem would cause the salary to increase.
"Postal rounds tend to be relatively local, and part time work often available, handy for people juggling work and kids, whereas most other delivery jobs are long days and often involve driving across large areas - there's a lot of female posties for that reason."
So a job with non-pay benefits which attracts the workers.
"Many delivery services* do not directly employ a lot of their workers, instead you need to have your own van and essentially are a contractor for them, this could put people off as you need van & business insurance plus all the accountancy / legal hassles of some of the weird self employment style contracts on offer"
So the equipment for the job is provided instead of you having to deal with it all.
"so another reason posties might not want to change job."
And so this comes back to the compensation not increasing because the job is compensated enough to get the workers. The lack of desire (or ability) to leave for better compensated work keeps the wages where they are.
"it's not just about letter delivery"
Around these parts, it's possible to subscribe to a service where the postie can stop and check up on/chat with elderly people, and various other services. Could be useful, especially around here with the rural isolation, especially if the elderly person in question is alone.
Other times, I've had my postie tell me things like "don't go shopping today, the road is flooded" and even how to cut back a rose. They're a way of linking people and communities, not just turning up to hand over the daily newspaper.
"why dont they move to one of the other delivery companies who will pay them more?"
Apart from existing in your delusional imagination, where are these delivery companies?
Name one that offers better pay and conditions than Royal Mail - a very low bar - and doesn't treat their employees (sorry, self-employed contractors) like shit.
@AC
"Name one that offers better pay and conditions than Royal Mail - a very low bar - and doesn't treat their employees (sorry, self-employed contractors) like shit."
So you are saying RM provide the best compensation for the job? So why would they pay more if they are already the better place to work? Does mean the workers could do something else if they believe they are worth more than the compensation for deliveries.
While it may seem like a simple solution for workers to just "move to another company" if they believe they deserve higher pay, it's important to consider the realities of the job market and the challenges that workers face. It's not always easy for workers to find alternative employment options, especially if they have limited skills or experience in other industries.
Furthermore, it's worth noting that workers in the gig economy often have little bargaining power when it comes to negotiating their pay and working conditions. This is because they are classified as independent contractors rather than employees, which means they are not entitled to the same legal protections and benefits as traditional employees.
Ultimately, it's important for companies to treat their workers fairly and provide them with a living wage. This can help to reduce turnover and improve the overall quality of service, which benefits both workers and customers.
@AC
"if they believe they deserve higher pay"..."It's not always easy for workers to find alternative employment options, especially if they have limited skills or experience in other industries."
That there would show they are wrong. If they are paid as much as they are able to productively contribute then they either need more skills or to accept reality.
"Furthermore, it's worth noting that workers in the gig economy often have little bargaining power when it comes to negotiating their pay and working conditions."
Again go do another job. If they dont like the gig economy dont do it. They have the bargaining power of working for one place or another or do something themselves.
"Ultimately, it's important for companies to treat their workers fairly and provide them with a living wage. This can help to reduce turnover and improve the overall quality of service, which benefits both workers and customers."
Except it doesnt and puts people out of work and in worse conditions. If it was a positive for the business then all businesses would do it otherwise it is to suggest businesses dont want to make money. The living wage is pretty much a made up construct but it was pointed out (before the number kept being radically inflated) that the minimum wage untaxed was about the living wage. So if the gov stopped stealing so much money off people the people would have more money.
It's important to consider the reality that not all workers have the ability to easily find alternative employment options, particularly if they have limited skills or experience in other industries. While it's true that workers need to contribute productively to justify higher pay, it's also important for companies to treat their workers fairly and provide a living wage. This can ultimately benefit both workers and customers by reducing turnover and improving the quality of service.
In regards to workers in the gig economy, while it's true that they have the option to choose a different job or create their own business, it's important to acknowledge the power dynamics at play. Many workers in the gig economy have limited bargaining power when it comes to negotiating their pay and working conditions, and this can lead to unfair treatment and exploitation.
As for the concept of a living wage, while it may be a debated topic, it's important to recognize that ensuring workers have a wage that covers basic living expenses can improve their quality of life and contribute to a more stable and productive workforce. Additionally, companies that prioritize fair treatment of their workers and provide a living wage can benefit from reduced turnover and improved service quality
@AC
"It's important to consider the reality that not all workers have the ability to easily find alternative employment options, particularly if they have limited skills or experience in other industries."
I addressed this in my comment. They may believe they deserve a company car and £1million per year but reality doesnt care about their beliefs. If they cant leave for better conditions there is little motivation to increase their compensation for the job. The compensation increases to entice people to take the job.
"it's also important for companies to treat their workers fairly and provide a living wage. This can ultimately benefit both workers and customers by reducing turnover and improving the quality of service."
You repeat what I already answered. No that is completely incorrect. It is not a benefit to the business and without the business the workers dont have the job and the customers dont have the product/service.
"Many workers in the gig economy have limited bargaining power when it comes to negotiating their pay and working conditions, and this can lead to unfair treatment and exploitation."
See my starting response and my previous comment. If they have no ability to do something else then they are earning as much as their ability.
"it's important to recognize that ensuring workers have a wage that covers basic living expenses can improve their quality of life and contribute to a more stable and productive workforce"
Can improve the quality of life of that worker, removing work for other people making their lives much worse and if its so good for business then all businesses would already do it. And we know this is true as the 'living wage' doesnt exist, its not defined, its a moving target which keeps going up as it includes luxuries. But yet again in the early 'claims' of 'living wage' it was minimum wage without tax so it is the government that is the problem not the companies.
It seems like you have a difference of opinion on the concept of compensation and its impact on motivation and the value it brings to a business. While it's true that compensation can be used as a tool to attract and retain talent, it's not the only factor that motivates people to work. There are many other factors such as job satisfaction, sense of purpose, work-life balance, and career growth opportunities that can also influence a person's motivation to work.
Regarding the concept of a living wage, it's true that it can be a subjective term and can vary depending on the location and cost of living. However, the basic idea is to provide workers with a wage that enables them to afford the basic necessities of life such as food, shelter, healthcare, and education. The idea is not to provide them with luxuries but rather to ensure that they are not living in poverty and struggling to make ends meet.
While it's true that the government also has a role to play in ensuring fair wages and working conditions, it's also important for businesses to take responsibility and do their part in ensuring that their workers are being compensated fairly. This can not only improve the quality of life of their workers but also lead to higher productivity, job satisfaction, and retention rates. Ultimately, it's a win-win situation for both the business and the workers.
@AC
"While it's true that compensation can be used as a tool to attract and retain talent, it's not the only factor that motivates people to work. There are many other factors such as job satisfaction, sense of purpose, work-life balance, and career growth opportunities that can also influence a person's motivation to work."
That is compensation. I dont mean salary or holidays I mean the whole thing from pay to working conditions, everything.
"However, the basic idea is to provide workers with a wage that enables them to afford the basic necessities of life such as food, shelter, healthcare, and education. The idea is not to provide them with luxuries but rather to ensure that they are not living in poverty and struggling to make ends meet."
Ok so the earlier version which comes to about minimum wage without tax. And I would agree that taxing those earning the minimum to live is stupid. But what happens to lower value work which doesnt produce enough for a 'living wage' or even the minimum wage? And if they existed the market for compensating workers would allow people who wanted to do those jobs to do so.
"While it's true that the government also has a role to play in ensuring fair wages and working conditions, it's also important for businesses to take responsibility and do their part in ensuring that their workers are being compensated fairly"
Just as the business exists as long as it is profitable and yet some of the demands for higher wages would end a number of lower profit businesses and put a load of people out of work. The compensation increases when the demand for labour increases beyond easily available.
I do worry for the staff regarding their ongoing industrial action though as since the management didn't cave in with the strikes over the Christmas period, which is the RM busiest time of year. I don't see how strikes now are going to make the management thing again over the pay rises, unless its an all out indefinitely strike until. But that would be an absolute killer for small business like mine who rely on RM since they are the only reasonably priced service for small packets such a jiffy bags that fit through your letter box. The next cheapest courier option is more than twice as expensive and can be even more if they charge a surcharge for 'remote areas'
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
