Correct to suspend postman?

  WhiteTruckMan 22:19 29 Aug 2006

click here

Was he doing the right thing? it wasnt as if he was giving away confidential information or procedures.


  Forum Editor 22:31 29 Aug 2006

is that this postman - an employee of Royal Mail - took it upon himself to decide that he wasn't going to deliver items for which his employers had been paid. By doing so he caused his employers to be technically in breach of contract, and exposed them to the possibility of legal action.

It's not up to Royal Mail employees to make decisions like this, and he has been rightfully suspended. If anyone wants to opt out of the Royal Mail unaddressed mail system they can easily do so.

If all of us took that action we would all be free of the piles of junk which flood through our letterboxes............and normal postal charges would be far higher.

  ezypcy 22:40 29 Aug 2006

I don't think that he is paid to think.
What is junk mail? A begging letter from a charity.
Or an offer for 3 free copies of a pc mag?
A polling registration card or election propaganda?

Perhaps the letter from the P.O. explaining the new
higher postal charges?
The kid's birthday card with a tenner inside!
Who really knows.

  oresome 22:42 29 Aug 2006

No, he was clearly not doing the right thing.

He and his employer are paid for delivering mail and to actively encourage people to opt out of receiving it suggests he doesn't want the job.

Advising a customer of the steps they need to take if directly approached is as far as he should have gone in my opinion.

  oresome 22:45 29 Aug 2006

What is junk mail?

In this context it's mail not personally addressed to the householder.

  anskyber 22:56 29 Aug 2006

Not sure you are right on this one.

Unless I have read it incorrectly the postman was suspended because he drew attention to the facility offered by the PO to submit a form requesting that junk mail is not delivered to a particular address. The only "mail" which would then be delivered would be "mail" addressed to "the occupier" which must be delivered.

The picture you paint, if I am wrong, would of course be entirely correct and he was rightfully suspended pending a disciplinary.

  namtas 23:00 29 Aug 2006

If all of us took that action....................
And normal postal charges would be far higher.

If all of us took that action there would be tons less of largely, useless junk mail to deliver and we could reduce the overall mail costs because arguably we would need hundreds of less Postal staff to recieve, sort, check, and deliver the rubbish.

  oresome 23:05 29 Aug 2006


The only sorting and checking that needs to done is for those that opt out.

  anskyber 23:05 29 Aug 2006

I think you will find that this "service" is very profitable for the PO and does in effect subsidise the main service.

  Forum Editor 23:08 29 Aug 2006

Think about it for a moment, and you'll realise how flawed your thinking is - abolishing junk mail would not reduce the delivery staff by one single person.

Unaddressed mail doesn't need to be sorted or 'checked', so there would be no reductions there, either.

  Forum Editor 23:18 29 Aug 2006

Read the article again.

He didn't draw peoples' attention to anything, he drew up his own form and distributed it himself. Residents thought it was an official Post Office form, and contacted the Post Office for more copies. There's no official form for the purpose, and that was what prompted the investigation.

What isn't mentioned is what this man did with the mail he was supposed to deliver. If he dumped it (and I have absolutely no reason to believe he did) he would indeed be guilty of gross misconduct, and subject to instant dismissal.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Xiaomi Mi Mix 2 review

Halloween Photoshop & Illustrator tutorials: 20 step-by-step guides to creating spook-tacular…

iPhone X news: Release date, price, new features & specs

Comment créer, modifier et réinitialiser un compte Apple ?