Royal Mail to hire 30,000 scabs

[Dec]

Originally Posted by erithromycin

Almost everyone I know has a story about how the post have screwed up.

Cool man.

[TSR]

Originally Posted by endless psych

It doesn't "have to happen" that's the point. I think folks should have a look at the likes of http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/...equality Trust website. Makes a compelling case that we'd be better off as a society if we concentrated more on people then profits.

The lust for profit and power drives innovation. I'm not trying to claim that's ideal though, there should be limits

The natural selection analogy for market capitalism is also flawed as the advent of transglobal corporations and their effective monopolies effectively stifle anything that could be termed as "evolution".

Do you mean the likes of oil companies buying electric car patants? If so, I agree that that was wrong. A good tactical move by the oil companies, but still wrong

It's also seemingly based on the notion that somehow a free market somehow promotes greater freedom and democracy. Based on the idea that the market somehow "rights" itself due to the laws of supply and demand and we get the best goods for the best price.

If anyone has read a newspaper recently I think we can safely say we aren't getting the best journalism for our buck. The scandal of invented diseases and the medicalisation of social problems and insignificant ailments by big pharma being another example of an area that free market economics should get the fuck out of.

Market evolution and social evolution affect each other, which has to be taken into account. Fair Trade, for example, has changed the way business' operate and they no longer exploit developing countries (or less people buy the product). Social evolution does have to play a bit of catch up though

Perhaps a tad on the incoherent and rambling side but really I'd rather pay more for a less "efficient" (for efficient read less staff doing more work essentially) and less "modernised" (folk on the scrapheap) system if having more people in work led to a more equitable and ergo better society.

That's what unemployment benifits are for

Originally Posted by metallideth

Are you seriously trying to apply a biological theory to political decision-making?

Yes, but Addy's covered this now

Originally Posted by XMachina

Kindly read up on the likes of the NHS 'Agenda for Change' scheme if for no other reason to show how wide of the mark this armchair bullshit is.

Will try to remember to check it out

Originally Posted by metallideth

But when they make friends and fuck up later, they'll get a bailout. Survival of the fittest indeed, and aren't we all just such simply good apes?

Though if they don't 'modernise' they still need gov't funds, which is a bailout in disguise

Yet the problem isn't obsolescence or not, the problem is the definition of such - currently we're at a stage where the political consensus says that greed is good because the wealth it generates will trickle down to us mere proles. Fat chance, knows anyone with any intelligence. Given half a chance, hyper-capitalism will render us extinct before it renders our public services - which aren't 'businesses', by the way - obsolete.

Higher tax revenue from greater profits funds the likes of the NHS, which benifits the 'proles'. You're pretty much also guaranteed benifits as a minimum wage

[erithromycin]

Originally Posted by Dec

Cool man.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough - I'm fully aware that it's anecdotal, but enough people use the post and use it often enough that it's inevitable that there's going to be something that goes wrong. Motorways get traffic jams, your wireless router sometimes drops its connection - what I was then proceeding to talk about was the erosion of goodwill that appears to have developed with regards to those problems, and that the strike action hasn't done them any favours there.

Admittedly, Crozier and co. have had, what, seven or eight years in the job now, and you would have thought if they were any near competent there would have been some progress by now.

[Semprini]

Originally Posted by TSR

Higher tax revenue from greater profits funds the likes of the NHS, which benifits the 'proles'.

Or it would, if the rich (both individuals and corporations) didn't use every trick in the book to avoid paying tax, with the government letting them.

[endless psych]

Originally Posted by TSR

The lust for profit and power drives innovation. I'm not trying to claim that's ideal though, there should be limits.

The lust for profit and power? That's buying into a very simple incentive based view of human motivation. Besides even if the lure of profits and power drive innovation they bear little or no relation on what causes it. In reality we end up with 1001 (a catchy number probably thousands too small) unnessecary gadgets and luxuries each generation slightly better then the next. That to me can be considered innovation on a very small scale. True innovation is driven not by power or profit but by nessecity.

To illustrate why profit and power driving "innovation" is a bad, bad thing look at the example of big pharma since the golden age of medical discovery came and went. Innovation now means finding ways of sellng me-too drugs that have little benefit and treat conditions that are themselves spruious. Instead of creating the snake oil they are creating the ailments.

Lust for "power" might drive innovation to an extent. But power can also be status - which is perhaps why not all academics jump ship to the private sector...

Market evolution and social evolution affect each other, which has to be taken into account. Fair Trade, for example, has changed the way business' operate and they no longer exploit developing countries (or less people buy the product). Social evolution does have to play a bit of catch up though

No longer exploit developing countries? Are you mental? What about the abuses observed and documented in economic free zones?

That's what unemployment benifits are for

And who pray tell are unemployment benefits funded?

Higher tax revenue from greater profits funds the likes of the NHS, which benifits the 'proles'. You're pretty much also guaranteed benifits as a minimum wage

However it also contributes to the inequality in society, assuming current wage structures for management, CEO's and the like remain, which in turn excacerbates existing social problems like health, crime and low educational atainment. Which means that the increase in tax revenue is tempered by the need to spend it.

Originally Posted by Addy

It's certainly the way the business world works. Companies that can do the job better than others run the latter out of business.

In fact it's the way the world works - obsolete techniques and practices in every area, from sport to IT to business, will eventually cause their diehard or change-resisting adherents to become inefficient and therefore less successful than those who adapt.

It's how an idealised version of the world works. It's also how an idealised version of the business world works. Based on the notion that the high ideals to hold up are efficiency and profit. Perhaps all very fine and well when you could point to economic growth as being highly correlated with positive gains in health, education and a whole host of other measures but now you can't. The benefits of economic growth are tailing off and reaching a plateau. The problems of inequality generated by unbridled and unequal ecnomic growth are becoming more and more apparent.

[TSR]

Originally Posted by Semprini

Or it would, if the rich (both individuals and corporations) didn't use every trick in the book to avoid paying tax, with the government letting them.

You're blaming them for wanting to hang onto their money? Wouldn't you try to do the same thing if you saw 40/50% of your paycheck disapear in tax? And then have your morgage payment on top of that?

Originally Posted by endless psych

The lust for profit and power? That's buying into a very simple incentive based view of human motivation. Besides even if the lure of profits and power drive innovation they bear little or no relation on what causes it. In reality we end up with 1001 (a catchy number probably thousands too small) unnessecary gadgets and luxuries each generation slightly better then the next. That to me can be considered innovation on a very small scale. True innovation is driven not by power or profit but by nessecity.

True, it doens't take account of Jimmy waking up one day screaming "this is goona end world hunger! I'm going to give it to the world for free"
1001 small improvements later...

To illustrate why profit and power driving "innovation" is a bad, bad thing look at the example of big pharma since the golden age of medical discovery came and went. Innovation now means finding ways of sellng me-too drugs that have little benefit and treat conditions that are themselves spruious. Instead of creating the snake oil they are creating the ailments.

That requires society to put laws in place to prevent that. Social and economic development go hand in hand

No longer exploit developing countries? Are you mental? What about the abuses observed and documented in economic free zones?

I used FairTrade coffee as an example. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it is developing

And who pray tell are unemployment benefits funded?

?

However it also contributes to the inequality in society, assuming current wage structures for management, CEO's and the like remain, which in turn excacerbates existing social problems like health, crime and low educational atainment. Which means that the increase in tax revenue is tempered by the need to spend it.

More people are getting richer. Or at least, they were. Inequalities have always been there - way of the world. I'd like to think it's slowly improving, but that doens't happen with modern politicians

The problems of inequality generated by unbridled and unequal ecnomic growth are becoming more and more apparent.

Go back a few decades - early 18/1900s. Inequalities are significantly less today. Is the world perfect? No, of course not

[Semprini]

Originally Posted by TSR

You're blaming them for wanting to hang onto their money? Wouldn't you try to do the same thing if you saw 40/50% of your paycheck disapear in tax? And then have your morgage payment on top of that?

I'm absolutely blaming them for that.

Leave aside the fact that 40 - 50% is the marginal rate and no-one pays 50% total of their wages in tax. The system is completely geared (no matter how much Darling et al bleat otherwise) to ensure that the rich can avoid tax through loopholes not available to the lower-paid. Some of these loopholes require reasonable effort, some require next to none.

American example, but the principle's the same: Warren Buffett, a fucking billionaire, pays proportionately less tax than his secretary.

I'd happily pay Scandinavian levels of tax if we had Scandinavian levels of services etc. Most people wouldn't, because most people are inherently selfish, and believe the tabloid pish that their taxes are funding mansions for immigrants.

One final point: When Thatcher seized power, the top rate of tax was 83% (the basic rate was 30%). It was 60% for most of her reign, not dropping to the current 40% until 1989. And people now moan about paying too much? Cry me a fucking river.

[TSR]

Originally Posted by Semprini

I'm absolutely blaming them for that.

Leave aside the fact that 40 - 50% is the marginal rate and no-one pays 50% total of their wages in tax.

Not yet.

(as of April 2010) The new rate will only affect 1% of earners (earning £150k+), who will also see tax relief on their pension contributions curbed.

Those earning more than £100,000 will also lose their personal income tax allowance from next April.

The system is completely geared (no matter how much Darling et al bleat otherwise) to ensure that the rich can avoid tax through loopholes not available to the lower-paid. Some of these loopholes require reasonable effort, some require next to none.

I could say 'benifit fraud' here

I'd happily pay Scandinavian levels of tax if we had Scandinavian levels of services etc. Most people wouldn't, because most people are inherently selfish, and believe the tabloid pish that their taxes are funding mansions for immigrants.

You appear to have very little faith in humanity

One final point: When Thatcher seized power, the top rate of tax was 83% (the basic rate was 30%). It was 60% for most of her reign, not dropping to the current 40% until 1989. And people now moan about paying too much? Cry me a fucking river.

Did you just try to say that Thatcher was a positive creature?

On-topic, got this in via e-mails about this weeks strikes. Hopefully the layout works out ok

Dear Customer,

The Communication Workers Union (CWU) has chosen to call further national strike action next week. The details are as follows:

Date AFunction Striking General service impact
Thursday 29th October Mail Centres and Network Distribution Units Limited processing, movement and collection of mail (if local collections performed by a Mail Centre)
Friday 30th October Manual Data Entry Centres (MDEC) No direct impact on mail services
Saturday 31st October Delivery Offices Limited delivery and collection of mail (if local collections performed by a Delivery Office)


We are really sorry for the significant disruption and inconvenience national industrial action taken by the CWU is having on customers and for the uncertainty further announcements of CWU industrial action will cause. We are continuing to urge the CWU to call off all strike action and concentrate with us on supporting customers during the autumn and Christmas peak mail period.

In the event this planned strike action takes place, mail services on Thursday and Saturday will be very limited and delay to the collection, sorting, distribution and delivery of mail will be inevitable.

What we will do to maintain and recover service
If national industrial action takes place, Royal Mail has strong contingency plans to do all we can to keep mail moving and minimise disruption for our customers:

Keep mail moving – over 900 managerial and contract drivers will move mail around the country on strike days.
Delivering mail – we will continue to deliver premium services (Special Delivery™ and Royal Mail Tracked™) to customers throughout the week.
Use of around 5000 managerial and support people – to maintain premium services, open callers' offices and to collect mail from Post Office branches, posting boxes and customers where possible on strike days.
Support the distribution of packets and parcels – we have five additional dedicated and fully staffed sorting centres to aid the distribution of goods through our network.
Deploy a targeted service recovery plan – concentrate our substantial support resources in areas most affected to deliver mail after the strikes.

Collection of mail
Most collections will operate normally Monday-Friday next week.
If a mail centre or collection unit located on a mail centre site performs a customer collection, these customer collections are likely to be affected on Thursday 29th October. If performed by a delivery office, collections are likely to be affected - and very limited- on Saturday 31st October.
Wherever possible we will provide more certainty to customers about the day on which their collection is likely to be affected however, the nature of the CWU strike action means we may not be able to provide absolute certainty to all customers.
Royal Mail service teams will be contacting business collection customers early next week to advise as to how collection services will be affected and, in the event we may not be able to collect, provide alternatives for getting mail into our network.
We will be continuing to collect mail from all Post Office® branches and from posting boxes, prioritising heavily used boxes, such as those outside Post Offices®.

Delivery of mail
In most areas, mail deliveries will take place next week Monday – Friday although delivery times may be subject to some variation.
On Saturday 31st October, mail deliveries in most areas will be limited to the delivery of premium services (Special Delivery™ and Royal Mail Tracked™).
Where delivery offices are located on the same site as mail centres, deliveries made from these offices may be affected on Thursday 29th October but will take place on Saturday 31st October.

More information
More detailed information about mail services, including the answers to our most frequently asked questions relating to industrial action, can be found on our website at http://www.royalmail.com/serviceupdates.

Alternatively, if you are a business customer please talk to your usual Royal Mail contact or call the Business Service Helpline on 08457 950950. Residential customers can call Royal Mail Customer Service on 08457 740740.

Again we'd like to say we're really sorry for the inconvenience we know this industrial action may cause you, your business and your customers.

Regards,



Royal Mail Customer Services

If you wish to unsubscribe from these emails unsubscribe here.

Confidential Information: This e-mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorised review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.If you are not the intended recipient, please contact me by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

Royal Mail, the Cruciform and the colour red are registered trademarks of Royal Mail Group Ltd.
Royal Mail Group Ltd, registered in England and Wales, number 4138203, registered office: 100 Victoria Embankment, London, EC4Y OHQ. © Copyright Royal Mail Group Ltd 2009.

[Dec]

Ramblings of a handicap.

[Potatojunkie]

Originally Posted by TSR

Not yet.

Right. Do you have any idea how the tax system actually works?

Originally Posted by TSR

I could say 'benifit fraud' here

You could, but it would make you out to be a fucking spanner, and not just because you can't spell "benefit".

Christ.

[Charlie Parker]

where's my granny's birthday cards?

[TSR]

Originally Posted by Potatojunkie

Right. Do you have any idea how the tax system actually works?

Judging by that reaction, no

not just because you can't spell "benefit"

eegads. That's not even my worst typo today

[Potatojunkie]

Originally Posted by TSR

Judging by that reaction, no

Right. Essentially, everyone earning above the tax threshold pays the same amount of tax up to the next tax threshold. Those still earning above that threshold pay a higher rate of tax on that portion of their income, and so on. I think. I'm sure Semp, who works in the tax office, will be along to correct me in a bit.

[Semprini]

Originally Posted by TSR

Not yet.

Not at all. Rates of tax are marginal.

Originally Posted by TSR

I could say 'benifit fraud' here

And I could say 'chocolate digestive'. They both have the same relevance to the discussion.

Originally Posted by TSR

Did you just try to say that Thatcher was a positive creature?

No, I pointed out that the darling of the right charged more tax than the current government do.

Originally Posted by Potatojunkie

Right. Essentially, everyone earning above the tax threshold pays the same amount of tax up to the next tax threshold. Those still earning above that threshold pay a higher rate of tax on that portion of their income, and so on. I think. I'm sure Semp, who works in the tax office, will be along to correct me in a bit.

Stuart's pretty much spot on here. No one will pay 50% of their income in tax (well, there's the odd special case, but you don't fall into that category just by being rich)

And while we're at it, once you hit higher rate, your NI liability above the threshold drops from 11% to 1%.

[endless psych]

A thought occurs.

The assumption that natural selection is always a good thing is something pandas would probably disagree with.