Member Info for IsleworthSpy

@ Oli G.
How long is a piece of string?
If we actually strike, the price will fall quite dramatically, IMO. From wherever it is at the time.

I cant work out what is or isn't priced in here.
IA isn't.
How much is RMG property worth?
If that's factored in that means the trading side is worth zilch.
Let's go back to flotation.
330p. Ridiculed at the time, but surely the property would've been factored in then?
If so, what value would've been attributed to the actual company without the property.
Not a great deal, IMO.

All in all, I would suggest that results tomorrow would have to be astounding to shift the price significantly.

Does anybody on this board know the current value of RMG's property?

And you also mentioned WCM. The biggest load of pants ever!! We had the head of WCM in our area actually drawing silly pictures and sticking them to the main sorting office walls.
It may have identified where costs could be saved, but the people we had heading it up should've been given some meaningful work to do. That would've saved a fortune.
And yes! Cost cutting starts with the white collar workers. So much dead time. Give them a pda.

I Spy

@ 200iq.

If it was cheaper, then why dont RMG use agency staff instead of employing.
As I said in a much earlier post, we had 4 applicants for interviews last week.
Why are these people not agency staff if it's cheaper?

I Spy

@ Feline.
Let's hope he doesn't just look at the lazy front line staff.
I know the white collar brigade has been reduced, but there is so much dead wood in the higher echelons, its embarrassing.
Jobs for the boys (& girls) I think it's called.
Start at the top and work your way down.
Less jibber jabber in the office? I agree!.

I Spy

@ 200iq.
Get your facts right please. You clearly stated that it was cheaper to employ agency staff. You are now backtracking.
I believe that in the current climate the use of agency staff will increase and not just because it's seasonal.
This in turn will affect profits. IMO.
That is the point i'm trying to make. Nothing sinister at all.

I Spy

@ 200iq.
I'm not sure where you get the double from.
If you read my initial post I said "twice", Far removed from double.
So if you can supply the break down figures for agency workers, Reed et al, proving that it is cheaper to employ this way, I will eat humble pie.

I Spy

@ 200iq.
So can you elaborate on the price increase on a PIP basis?
And you are now accepting that RMG have to pay Reed, albeit less than Manpower. How much would that equate to combined with the agency workers earnings?
You were adamant (as were others) that the Angard is cheaper than employment at RMG!
Are you admitting you were wrong?

I Spy

So 18 months in charge and Mr Back has overseen:
The decimation of the share price.
The decimation of the dividend.
The almost certainty of IA unless he gets back to the discussion table.
The goodwill being eroded from 80,000 plus posties.
The use of agency staff to further erode any profits.
And potentially figures in line with what has been predicted. So absolutely no upside anywhere.

I might sell my 81 shares and withdraw my weekly contribution for matching shares, and wait for a lower entry level.

@ Scamp. You're starting to sound like ScamptheDwarf. Which one of the 7 would you be?

I Spy

@ Scamp ( STD - Tee hee )
I totally agree with you mate. I would like a figure if anybody knows, how much it actually costs.
Yes, the payment to casuals is lower, but the overall cost is higher.
Some on here are deluded, and the fact is that RMG may have to use agency workers for a lot longer than they thought.
Thereby impacting on profits and of course the share price.
Now back to those figures!
I don't think it's even a toss of the coin. Parcel volumes will be down compared to this time last year. In My Opinion ONLY.

I Spy

@ wolvesposty.
Would you say that traffic is up, parcels only, compared to last year?
Your managers could answer that question as they get a daily report. Their forward planning is also based on what happened last year. So you could also ask your rep. Although with your anti CWU stance, I doubt that would get you far.
FWIW, I think parcel volumes are down. Yes we have had very heavy days, but on the whole, and judging by the excess booked, I would say down.
Let's see what the great and the good come up with.

On a different note and open to everybody: As Felines post yesterday would suggest, REED operate Angard. How much do Reed get paid for this? Has anyone any ideas?

I Spy

@ Scamp.
Thank you. I obviously had it wrong regarding the name.
That is what I was alluding to but have clearly got it wrong.
My point still stands though.
If posties no longer take up overtime, how much will it cost RMG going forward? In either the cost of agency staff or more front line posties?
RMG do not realise how good they've had it!

I Soy

@ Scamp.
Thanks again.
If this is the case then why don't RMG employ on a can do, will do basis?
As I've said before, and it was my original concern, it is not financially viable to employ casuals.

I Spy

@ Redceo.
Thanks for not answering any of my questions or indeed posting my offensive comments.
No surprise there.

I Spy

@ Scamp. ( STD- I can hear the laughter)
Thanks for that.
The point is that angard were set up by Reed. And therefore Reed have to be paid.
Unless I'm missing something.
As a casual, who did you get paid by. I know that recently angard casuals have their own pay number, which is sent to their agency along with their hours that they've worked.

I Soy

@ Redceo.
I can think of nothing worse than being accused of being wolvesposty. LOL.

So, are you actually saying that using casuals, is a financially astute move by RMG?
I hate to call you out but: If this was a financially viable scenario then every time somebody left they'd be replaced by a casual.
Why haven't RMG done this then?????

I Spy

@ Redceo.
Please post what you think is offensive, and I'll apologise.
And blowing a huge hole in their profits is not financial suicide. Not in my book anyway. It was merely a suggestion that if casuals are used on a continual basis, PROFITS would be down.

Looking forward to the offensive post.

I Spy

@ Redceo.
Are you suggesting that every single RMG employee has to do overtime??
RMG has over 140,000 employees.

I Spy

@ wolvesposty.
Read what Feline just posted.
Angard was set up to deal exclusively with RMG recruitment. Operated by Reed.
Of course Reed dont get payment, do they?

At Redceo. I didn't say financial suicide.
Stop making things up.

Thanks Feline. I couldn't remember who were pulling angard strings.
Now some of you may want to look into the back story of this "arrangement".

I Spy

@ wolvesposty.
Here we go again.
If you're referring to recruitment for RMG, we had 4 interviewees in our office last week.
If you're referring to recruitment of casuals, RMG have a comprehensive database of people willing to and have already, worked for RMG. This would be on a temporary basis
I would assume that should the levels on this database drop below a certain level, then recruitment would start again.
After all, security checks would be needed.

I Spy

@ Redceo and wolvesposty.
You should read back as to when and why RMG started using angard agency staff.
I believe that many questions were raised at the time as to why RMG were solely tied up to use angard.

Redceo. I offered discussion after I received a call today regarding RMG's use of casuals. It is on the south coast area if you need to know.
This should be of importance to you and other holders.
Please do not try to discredit what I've been posting.

I Spy

@ Redceo.
I'm not sure what point you are making.
I said that I didn't know how overtime would be allocated.
What I did say was that it would be more expensive to use casuals than RMG staff.
Therefore detrimental to profits.
If the overtime issues that I mentioned earlier, persist, then it would be cheaper to employ more staff than continually use casuals.
The hierarchy at RMG really do need to see the bigger picture here.
And before anyone says it, I know I got my name wrong!!

I Spy