25Avalon
I’m not sure how effective strikes are. Royal Mail workers who can ‘afford’ to (just about) go on strike now face losing their jobs as Royal Mail axe thousands of jobs and cut Saturday mail deliveries, thus making them less competitive than other couriers who pay peanuts to their self employed staff. A vicious downward spiral. Then we remember thousands of pounds spent on changing the name to consignor until they realised Royal Mail was the best name ever and changed back.
I,m afraid that I can't accept the 'race to the bottom' argument for not paying people properly.
The distribution of wealth in the UK is like an inverted pyramid, with workers at the bottom. It's as though the country's wealth is being sucked upward, with the Royal Mail being one of the 'suckers. The 'suckers' make very large profits, which come out of the pockets of us, the people who hand over their money to buy their goods and services, then they hand their profits over to their top executives and shareholders, crying 'poverty' when the workers who actually make their goods and services earn the profit, ask for a fair share of the rewards of their work.
The people who acquire this money are the least likely to spend much into the economy, because they have much of what they want or need anyway. It's the people at the bottom who spend any extra money they earn.
Of course, the less people are paid, the less they'll be able to buy the goods and services their employers are offering, so profits will diminish anyway.
It really doesn't make any sense to me.
Perhaps it does to others and they can explain how keeping workers very poor helps company profits in the long run if all companies are working on the same principles.