Extract from the CWU Reps DRP brief - Heavy and Light

[Chelseablue]

If RM have any intention of 7 into 8 or whatever then as above they would not have triggered the DRP. They also wouldn't have continued with the colour coded taping of frames as alternate colours and there would not be discussions in offices about the 4 into 3 disaster. There's also plenty of stuff on Robin about changes without actually saying what they'll be. I expect that the original change wanted by RM will be happening very soon and then we'll see if the CWU have any power at all left in RM.

Given they will have no options left, a vote to strike will be on the agenda.
Even if it gets a no vote the publicity it will generate will highlight what’s going on in RM.
I will personally vote yes.

. Big Yes here also. Strength in numbers is all we have going for us

[postslippete]

The workload data is flawed everywhere. No model will work. What is important is to identify the worst, most destructive model. Then by executive action, they will exact the most devastating collapse of the USO, forcing the government to act. Letters are taken away, postmen are let go in their thousands, contracts are torn up, parcel routes are franchised to gig economy fruit pickers, vans are sold off, no pay, no sick pay, no pension, no uniform and all that beautiful estate is freed up for sale. Royal Mail will be morphed into GLS. Daniel makes a fortune.

RM has a regulated statutory legal obligation to the USO and if they deliberately engineered a devastating collapse then that would expose the company to even stricter enforcement to Ofcom beyond fines. And if the government were ever forced to act they would be more likely to pressure reform than remove the national provider. Thats how the European postal markets have been handled because it's the lowest risk route. It doesn't make any commercial sense for RM to completely get rid of letters while they still have the network and generate a ton of revenue from letters and if we are delivering a shed load of parcels, we may as well deliver letters. Think about it - if the business really wanted to be completely rid of letters then why are we still delivering D2Ds which there are no statutory obligations to deliver?? It's because they are trying to extract more revenue from the existing network, rather than abandon it.

Postmen let go in their thousands, gig economy and fruit pickers.....Unlike gig courier firms, RM still has a fixed, nationwide delivery infrastructure which is regulated under the USO. You can't easily franchise this to gig labour when you also have a highly unionised workforce with national agreements in place. Many offices are already understaffed and a company currently struggling with recruitment and retention are unlikely to suddenly remove thousands of frontline staff without severe operational consequences. Contracts are unlikely to be torn up overnight without any legal challenges under UK employment laws and collective bargaining. If the company really wanted to do everything their own way, then why spend months negotiating with the CWU? People often berate the union but conveniently forget that in the last dispute the CWU ensured that there were no mass compulsory redundancies or universal Sunday working. The final settlement was not a full implementation of the original management wish list.

This idea that RM will "sell off the estate and morph into GLS" - RM is legally designated as the universal service provider so any fundamental shift away from letters requires legislative reform, regulatory approval and large scale restructuring which would take many years. It wouldn't be a quick corporate decision. What is happening now is driven by cost control due to declining letter volumes and intense parcel competition. It wouldn't make commercial sense for RM to completely abandon letters whilst they still generate revenue and removing that volume would mean the company having to rely even more heavily on an ultra-competitive parcel market to compensate for it.

[RuralVan]

All this quoting posts and multiple quoting of posts is just making everything on here go right over my head.

Just saying...

[A2B]

RM has a regulated statutory legal obligation to the USO and if they deliberately engineered a devastating collapse then that would expose the company to even stricter enforcement to Ofcom beyond fines.

The takeover deal commitments are expiring very soon and what happens if RM says thank you very much but we no longer want to be a company that delivers mail? They can't be forced to offer a service they claim is no longer viable in it's current form.

RM hold all the cards because no government wants to take mail delivery back under their control but they need to keep some sort of service going so they will instruct Ofcom to offer RM very favourable terms

[postslippete]

The takeover commitments expiring (job protections, HQ location etc) are entirely separate from its USO obligations due to the Postal Service Act 2011 and unless the law or designation of universal service provider changes, they cannot suddenly decide to not deliver post.

RM does have leverage over delivering the frequency of mail because no government wants to renationalise mail delivery. But if they pushed too hard into collapsing the mail service to try and force favourable terms the regulator are likely to punish them even greater than fines. Thats not the same as holding all the cards.

[Trumanity]

The workload data is flawed everywhere. No model will work. What is important is to identify the worst, most destructive model. Then by executive action, they will exact the most devastating collapse of the USO, forcing the government to act. Letters are taken away, postmen are let go in their thousands, contracts are torn up, parcel routes are franchised to gig economy fruit pickers, vans are sold off, no pay, no sick pay, no pension, no uniform and all that beautiful estate is freed up for sale. Royal Mail will be morphed into GLS. Daniel makes a fortune.

RM has a regulated statutory legal obligation to the USO and if they deliberately engineered a devastating collapse then that would expose the company to even stricter enforcement to Ofcom beyond fines. And if the government were ever forced to act they would be more likely to pressure reform than remove the national provider. Thats how the European postal markets have been handled because it's the lowest risk route. It doesn't make any commercial sense for RM to completely get rid of letters while they still have the network and generate a ton of revenue from letters and if we are delivering a shed load of parcels, we may as well deliver letters. Think about it - if the business really wanted to be completely rid of letters then why are we still delivering D2Ds which there are no statutory obligations to deliver?? It's because they are trying to extract more revenue from the existing network, rather than abandon it.

Postmen let go in their thousands, gig economy and fruit pickers.....Unlike gig courier firms, RM still has a fixed, nationwide delivery infrastructure which is regulated under the USO. You can't easily franchise this to gig labour when you also have a highly unionised workforce with national agreements in place. Many offices are already understaffed and a company currently struggling with recruitment and retention are unlikely to suddenly remove thousands of frontline staff without severe operational consequences. Contracts are unlikely to be torn up overnight without any legal challenges under UK employment laws and collective bargaining. If the company really wanted to do everything their own way, then why spend months negotiating with the CWU? People often berate the union but conveniently forget that in the last dispute the CWU ensured that there were no mass compulsory redundancies or universal Sunday working. The final settlement was not a full implementation of the original management wish list.

This idea that RM will "sell off the estate and morph into GLS" - RM is legally designated as the universal service provider so any fundamental shift away from letters requires legislative reform, regulatory approval and large scale restructuring which would take many years. It wouldn't be a quick corporate decision. What is happening now is driven by cost control due to declining letter volumes and intense parcel competition. It wouldn't make commercial sense for RM to completely abandon letters whilst they still generate revenue and removing that volume would mean the company having to rely even more heavily on an ultra-competitive parcel market to compensate for it.

I can see where you are coming from with all of that, but I think you , and all of that contractual legalese, are flying in the face of one reality. Daniel needs his money. It's just a matter of when.

[Pidleypoo]

I’d assume any split would be very costly.

They’d have to rebrand every single part of the company because there’d be no royal charter and I’d assume that would cost a fair bit.

Also not likely to happen but if a government wanted to take back a company the deemed essential to the national security infrastructure then they can under the national security and investment act and it wouldn’t cost them anything.

Royal Mail do not hold all of the cards and you’d hope we’re a long way off talk like that.

[A2B]

The takeover commitments expiring (job protections, HQ location etc) are entirely separate from its USO obligations due to the Postal Service Act 2011 and unless the law or designation of universal service provider changes, they cannot suddenly decide to not deliver post.

Geniue question because I don't know the answer but couldn't RM relieve itself from the Postal Service Act once their initial obligation expires? They obviously aren't tied to it until the end of time

[Rommagic]

Everybody guess work.

[DGH]

They’d have to rebrand every single part of the company because there’d be no royal charter and I’d assume that would cost a fair bit.

Royal Mail has neither Royal Charter nor Royal Warrant - and never has had either.
It has a coat of arms, which has changed from time to time, and it's allowed for historic reasons to retain 'Royal' in its title.

[POSTMAN]

Post

[Pidleypoo]

They’d have to rebrand every single part of the company because there’d be no royal charter and I’d assume that would cost a fair bit.

Royal Mail has neither Royal Charter nor Royal Warrant - and never has had either.
It has a coat of arms, which has changed from time to time, and it's allowed for historic reasons to retain 'Royal' in its title.

Allowed by who ?

[postslippete]

I can see where you are coming from with all of that, but I think you , and all of that contractual legalese, are flying in the face of one reality. Daniel needs his money. It's just a matter of when.

All investors want returns but he isn't likely to get it by deliberately collapsing a regulated universal service like you suggest. Think about it, if the strategy was truly to abandon letters entirely then why bother with any prolonged negotiations with the CWU whilst still continuing to try and maintain some semblance of USO compliance with the ongoing use of the existing delivery network to generate revenue with parcels, letters and D2Ds combined?

What investors in regulated utilities look for is reform and better efficiency because stability is what really protects their long term returns.

[postslippete]

Geniue question because I don't know the answer but couldn't RM relieve itself from the Postal Service Act once their initial obligation expires? They obviously aren't tied to it until the end of time

No. The Postal Services Act isn't a contract that RM can opt out of regardless of whether their takeover commitments expire.

[A2B]

Geniue question because I don't know the answer but couldn't RM relieve itself from the Postal Service Act once their initial obligation expires? They obviously aren't tied to it until the end of time

No. The Postal Services Act isn't a contract that RM can opt out of regardless of whether their takeover commitments expire.

I'm 100% not saying what you said is not true but what is the legal terms that hold RM/IDS or any private company to provide a service which they claim isn't viable