SPEECH TO TUC CONGRESS - MOVING MOTION 67 ON ROYAL MAIL

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/permalink.p ... 00_0_1_0_M

SPEECH TO TUC CONGRESS - MOVING MOTION 67 ON ROYAL MAIL

TRADES UNION CONGRESS 2008


BILLY HAYES, GENERAL SECRETARY, CWU –


TUESDAY, 9 SEPTEMBER

Earlier on this year, the Government fulfilled a commitment, given in its 2005 General Election Manifesto, by establishing a review of the liberalisation of Royal Mail.

This review, chaired by Richard Hooper, was necessary because the industries regulator, Postcomm, had removed Royal Mail’s centuries old monopoly.

The monopoly allowed Royal Mail to provide a universal service, at the uniform tariff, to 28.4 million addresses in the UK.

Having the monopoly, allowed Royal Mail to generate sufficient revenue to cover losses incurred in collecting and delivering to rural and geographically remote areas of the UK.

Postcomm’s removal of the monopoly, allowed the competitors to operate upon the profitable areas of Royal Mail’s service, without incurring the obligation to provide a universal service.

Since liberalisation, competition has won 40% of Royal Mail’s access products – that is, an initial sortation of business mail and trucking to Royal Mail sorting offices.

Yet actual delivery of letters – the so called final mile – is made by Royal Mail of 99.8% of addressed letters.

The loss of revenue for Royal Mail from the lucrative bulk mail, has created a financial crisis that threatens the future of the universal service.

Postcomm’s evidence to the Hooper Review proposes to privatise Royal Mail, and to break up the industry.

The Regulator wants the public to subsidise loss making areas – such as the Counters Network – and have profits transferred to the private sector.

Postcomm’s policy has created a financial crisis for Royal Mail – yet it has the gall to try and cover up its blunders by having the industry privatise.

Hooper’s interim report found that there were no benefits for the majority of consumers in Postcomm’s liberalisation of Royal Mail.

Postcomm is then the organisation least equipped to offer a future for the postal industry.

Royal Mail management proposes to privatise the industry because it wants the lucrative share options that privatisation will bring.

Royal Mail management of course have form on this question.

Between 2004 and 2007, Royal Mail management lobbied Government to have Royal Mail privatised.

Instead of preparing the industry for the challenges of competition, and instead of preparing an innovative business strategy, management concentrated on squashing down service and plumping up figures before an anticipated privatisation.

The CWU reject the proposals of both the regulator and management. We believe Royal Mail offers a unique combination of a commercial and social service which is best delivered as a public service.

The Hooper Review must recommend the ending of a rigged competition which sees a public service subsidising private firms.

Very soon – although after the Labour Party Conference – the Hooper Report is to be published.

We are alarmed by the pre-publication hints from Hooper’s team.

We say to the Labour Government:
• Honour the commitment made to the British electorate in 2005
• Honour the commitment made at the National Policy Form in July 2008 – the Government must overrule any attempt to privatise the Royal Mail.

We say to the Labour Government:
• Do not try to sell all or part of the Royal Mail to TNT – Deutche Post – Fed Ex – or any other private interest.
• Do not dare to hand over this valued national asset to private capital to be asset-stripped or broken up.

Whether it be by a share flotation – or by a joint venture – privatisation of Royal Mail will fragment a highly valued postal service offered to the public.

The CWU believes there is a positive future for Royal Mail as a public service.

If the Government allows a fair pricing regime then Royal Mail can thrive as an innovative public company responsive to customer demand.

We call upon the Government to meet all its responsibilities for all the industry by:
• Ending the continued destruction of the Post Office Network.
• And by ensuring the reopening of negotiations around retention of the final salary pension scheme for postal workers.

We invite all TUC affiliates to send a delegation to the CWU’s demonstration at Labour Party Conference on Monday, 22 September.

I move.

Posted by Billy Hayes | @ Tue, 9 Sep 2008 14:15:21 +0100

[dvbuk55]

Bravo Billy.

However, it is easy to say don't do this, don't do that BUT and it is a huge BUT what are you offering as a viable alternative?

Even at work place level we see the company proposing ideas that sound viable but lack any substance in practical terms and the unions answer is to go along with them without any regard to offering alternative solutions. We have just had a meeting between the manager and the sub rep where there appears to have been two scenarios put forward and the union response appears to be "it's either or", rather than say "we take on board what you are proposing, we don't agree at this stage but we are willing to look at it, analyze it and get back to you with our amended proposals". My first response would actually be "what's in it for us"? And - we're not prepared to flog our backsides for 1.5% again.

[k979aaa]

Bravo Billy.

However, it is easy to say don't do this, don't do that BUT and it is a huge BUT what are you offering as a viable alternative?

Even at work place level we see the company proposing ideas that sound viable but lack any substance in practical terms and the unions answer is to go along with them without any regard to offering alternative solutions. We have just had a meeting between the manager and the sub rep where there appears to have been two scenarios put forward and the union response appears to be "it's either or", rather than say "we take on board what you are proposing, we don't agree at this stage but we are willing to look at it, analyze it and get back to you with our amended proposals". My first response would actually be "what's in it for us"? And - we're not prepared to flog our backsides for 1.5% again.

What about a 35 hour week with no loss nor gain of pay in 2009!.

[Big Daz]

Put it like this if GB and co dont play ball then not even Billy will be able to convince the delegates at next years CWU conference to keep the link with Labour.

[Night Tonic]

Victor Meldrew would feel right at home reading all this.

[dvbuk55]

Put it like this if GB and co dont play ball then not even Billy will be able to convince the delegates at next years CWU conference to keep the link with Labour.

It won't matter a toss what GB thinks or does and what if it does form part of Labours' 2010 manifesto by then the die will be cast and they will be in no position except the opposition and the manifesto won't matter.

[BELIAL]

Well given recent voting response trends, in 5years there won't be a CWU postal section to speak of.Any organization that can lose 30% participation in a single year must surely ask some serious questions of it's tactics and direction. Unless of course everything is going to plan ?

[BELIAL]

Well it's a fair question ,you've got to ask yourself.Fine fighting prose ,they talk the talk then do their utmost to snuff out any effective and concerted action. Things like Trojan horse; smokescreen; decoy , and safe issues spring to mind