Billy Hayes Speech AT THE IER CONFERENCE

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/permalink.p ... 29_0_1_0_M" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SATURDAY 28TH NOVEMBER
CONGRESS HOUSE

The direct impact of the ECJ decision on the postal sector is negligible at present.

Royal Mail provides a national service which no competitor is in a position to duplicate.

Further, the level of Union density in Royal Mail is sufficient to prevent any immediate threat of workers being introduced at lower rates on a permanent basis. –

Temporary or agency work is another problem but I will return to that.

My main point is that the type of break up of national agreements linked to the Viking/Laval judgements is not immediately posed.

There are however serious problems posed in the postal sector. There have been two EU postal directives. These have resulted in the end of the protected area of service – the monopoly on mail below 250g in weight and £1 in value.

I would stress that the directives do not impose privatisation upon the industry. Nor do they force Royal Mail to close local post offices.

There is a certain amount of myth making about this – both from Tories and some on the left who should know better.

For my part, I need to stress that as I believe it is crucial that Unions positively engage with the EU institution.

I remain of the view that the best line for socialists is to promote international co-operation between governments and workers organisations through the EU rather than seek withdrawal.

That said, there clearly is a problem for Royal Mail, or any European post office with the abolition of the work monopoly.

The national providers offer a universal service for customers – in the directive it is 5 days for delivery and collection – but in Britain it is a 6 day service.

The directive indicates that this service should be offered at an “affordable” rate – although in Britain it is at a uniform tariff – i.e. one price regardless of geography.

The problem arises from the fact that providing this universal service involves maintaining a very large infrastructure and relatively large work force.

Providing a service to rural addresses or collection points is more expensive than in the densely populated urban areas.

As a consequence, Royal Mail takes a loss on many of the services it delivers to many areas of the country.

An element of cross subsidy exists in fact – if not in law.

Removing the monopoly opens the way for competition on the profitable areas – no-one is going to compete for the loss making areas.

This is what has happened in the UK. Since 2001, the monopoly area has been reduced by stages until it was abolished completely in 2006.

Competitors have been able to bid for any of Royal Mail services. –
In reality, they have concentrated on the highly profitable bulk mail.

This means doing nothing more complicated than picking up bags of mail from large posters – part sorting it – then dropping off in Royal Mail to complete sortation and final delivery.

The industry regulator – Postcom, has further rigged the market by preventing Royal Mail from charging a market price for the service it offers competitors for completing delivery.

As a consequence, the industry subsidise competitors by around 2p per letter –

according to Adam Crozier, Royal Mail’s CEO –

which makes around £100 million a year subsidy.

So this is money for old rope. Royal Mail has not won a contested contract in this area – and the competition has secured around 40% of the bulk traffic.

Yet in delivery – Royal Mail continues to deliver 99.8% of previously reserved mail. No competitor is likely to break into this unless the regulator further rigs the market.

I must make it clear, that the system used in the UK is not used in any other country. It is uniquely bad.

Equally, I must stress, that the British government has gone further and faster on the question of liberalisation than necessary under the EU directive.

In my view, for decades British governments have pursued a very right wing line in the EU. British governments have been a by word for deregulation and liberalisation in Europe – following the experiences of the deregulated market in the US.

As you can see, I am not of the opinion that our problems arise primarily from the EU. I think they arise from under-investment and the promotion of neo-liberal policies by the British and other governments.

Of course, there has been no privatisation in the UK of Royal Mail. This is different from some European countries such as Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands, where there has been partial or complete privatisation.

But the only reason Royal Mail is not privatised is because the CWU has waged a number of successful campaigns. British governments have certainly tried.

Most recently the Union defeated the Postal Services Bill 2009 which would have seen the sale of up to 49% of Royal Mail to a private partner.

The Union campaigned inside and outside of Parliament, and inside and outside of the Labour Party.

A major split developed inside the PLP and Cabinet. Although the Bill completed its passage through the Lords, it was unable to get past the first reading in the House of Commons.

149 Labour MPs signed up to EDM 428 which opposed privatisation. As a consequence, the government faced having to rely upon Tory votes to get the Bill through.

Rather than take the risk, the Government dropped the Bill.


This followed our intensive and very public campaign. So we were very grateful for the support we received across the Trade Union and Labour movements.

Management were unable to reconcile themselves to this defeat. Instead they continued to attack our Union’s part in the modernisation of the industry – imposing changes without reference to the negotiating procedures.

Consequently the national strike was inevitable. –

This has been resolved with an interim agreement acceptable to the Union.

There are many obstacles to overcome – but we are determined to use the opportunity to also modernise our members terms and conditions.

There was a problem of the use of agency workers in the dispute.

The employer said it intended to employ up to 30,000 – although it never reached anything like that figure.

However, the Union prepared to test the law which indicated that agency workers should not be used for strike breaking.

In reality the law was much more ambiguous than it appeared.

So that, for example, it appears that if an agency worker has been hired to work while other staff are working, then it is not illegal for them to keep working after the staff had walked out.

But, unfortunately or not, the dispute was settled before we were able to go to court. John Hendy provided excellent assistance here. The argument though would have been eventually on agreement about the terms of British law.

The CWU fully supports the work of the IER. We also campaign alongside you and others in opposing the impact of the ECJ cases. Today’s conference is an important contribution to that work.
Thanks for listening.

Posted by Billy Hayes | @ Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:39:52 +0000

[TrueBlueTerrier]

IER = Institute of Employment Rights http://www.ier.org.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A think tank for the labour movement

[stokes11eg]

Another lacklustre speech from Billy---still seems to be hedging his bets.

[La Poste]

So that, for example, it appears that if an agency worker has been hired to work while other staff are working, then it is not illegal for them to keep working after the staff had walked out.

But, unfortunately or not, the dispute was settled before we were able to go to court. John Hendy provided excellent assistance here. The argument though would have been eventually on agreement about the terms of British law.

I was wondering what happened about the agency workers, I guess this is my answer.

[clashcityrocker]

Another lacklustre speech from Billy---still seems to be hedging his bets.

"Lacklustre"- surely that could only relate to the style of delivery.
I think it presents some of the problems we have faced over the past few years (which have driven the demand for "modernisation") and gives a clear indication how he thinks we should face up to those challenges.
Nice speech Billy!

[norbert]

Another lacklustre speech from Billy---still seems to be hedging his bets.

"Lacklustre"- surely that could only relate to the style of delivery.
I think it presents some of the problems we have faced over the past few years (which have driven the demand for "modernisation") and gives a clear indication how he thinks we should face up to those challenges.
Nice speech Billy!

Yes - the Pope is a Catholic and Bears sh* in the woods - any more profound findings Billy . Biggest Labourite going .

[stokes11eg]

Another lacklustre speech from Billy---still seems to be hedging his bets.

"Lacklustre"- surely that could only relate to the style of delivery.
I think it presents some of the problems we have faced over the past few years (which have driven the demand for "modernisation") and gives a clear indication how he thinks we should face up to those challenges.
Nice speech Billy!

Sorry, the first half of the speech is Billy reciting R/M propoganda, at least that his how I see it. He also keeps banging on about modernisation--fine in theory, but if modernisation means the vast majority of the workforce are losing their jobs, having their hours slashed, and being made to work under the current conditions,whose side is he on?

Yes - the Pope is a Catholic and Bears sh* in the woods - any more profound findings Billy . Biggest Labourite going .

[dvbuk55]

Billy said:


Consequently the national strike was inevitable. –

This has been resolved with an interim agreement acceptable to the Union.

Here we reach that decisive point - do we say "WE ARE THE UNION" or do we finally accept that the leadership couldn't give a sh1t about the membership and will do just as it pleases in the same way Royal Mail does - the mushroom effect, feed them crap and keep 'em in the dark, and screw them for more work and more union subs.

[clashcityrocker]

To quote you from another thread dvb -
"I am critcal - to me there is only right and wrong,black and white."

To me there are only 2 sides in this debate - the trade union and the management.With your constant criticisms of the PEC and the CWU leadership (the democratically elected leadership) it is clear which side you are on.Given that you appear to know better than them , I wonder why you are at home on your typewriter (giving ammunition to the anti-union brigade) and not actually involved in the negotiations yourself?

[dvbuk55]

To quote you from another thread dvb -
"I am critcal - to me there is only right and wrong,black and white."

To me there are only 2 sides in this debate - the trade union and the management.With your constant criticisms of the PEC and the CWU leadership (the democratically elected leadership) it is clear which side you are on.Given that you appear to know better than them , I wonder why you are at home on your typewriter (giving ammunition to the anti-union brigade) and not actually involved in the negotiations yourself?

Tell me - do you think they have done us proud? Democratically elected without contest in the most part. To me there is only ONE side in this debate. Typewriters are old hat clash and I do wonder myself why I am NOT in the debate - in fact why we are ALL not in the debate. I am not a member of a secret society but what is supposed to be a democratic organisation, bearing in mind we can all read and write perhaps we should be told what discussions are going on both nationally and locally. Do you want a job in the union too?

[clashcityrocker]

Do I think they have done us proud?
I am certainly happy to allow those democratically elected get on with the job they were elected to do.
As for this need to be constantly updated - I would agree that at times communication from the Communications Union is poor but you appear to want some sort of Reality TV show - I am a Trade Unionist get me out of here - where we can all constantly vote out whoever is not in favour.(Galloway and Sheridan to replace Ant and Dec?).
Maybe it is a generation thing.(How old must I be to talk about typewriters?). I support the trade union movement. What exactly do you support?

[mountec1]

Well said clashcityrocker,the one of the very few who talks a lot of sense and does not critize the union at every oppotunity unlike a lot of members on this site who just spout off but do not come up with any solutions except to go on strike all the time.

[themaze617]

I tell you what i'd like , a weekly email just telling me whats happening and where we are is that to much?
I also support the cwu but they need to communicate better to keep there membership.

[dvbuk55]

Do I think they have done us proud?
I am certainly happy to allow those democratically elected get on with the job they were elected to do.
As for this need to be constantly updated - I would agree that at times communication from the Communications Union is poor but you appear to want some sort of Reality TV show - I am a Trade Unionist get me out of here - where we can all constantly vote out whoever is not in favour.(Galloway and Sheridan to replace Ant and Dec?).
Maybe it is a generation thing.(How old must I be to talk about typewriters?). I support the trade union movement. What exactly do you support?

Well I have supported the trade union movement probably longer than you've lived - but not at any cost. How many times have I heard you apologists say "communication could be better" since before the 2007 strikes - and is it better? Well we do have CWU TV................. .

If a decision is taken we should have that information NOW - not when there has been time to sugar the pill.

Do you know what the basic problem with the modern union is? Honesty!

There are cock and bull tales put out to justify the unjustifiable. I would respect a union leader that came to the plate and said:

Friends, colleagues, members - this is a modern world of change, we cannot negotiate with someone who will not negotiate short of withdrawing your labour and we will not do that unless we are certain we have the means to win and a cohesive plan acceptable to the whole membership. We are at a distinct disadvantage because the 2007 agreement, which we genuinely thought would work, has been abused by Royal Mail and at least on paper does not fulfil its original concept and for that we apologise. That agreement has created division amongst the membership because many have been forced to accept working practices not in the spirit of the agreement. We accept criticism because it is the one way we can rectify past mistakes and improve our performance in the same way that you are having to improve yours.

That of course is not going to happen because they are too far removed from the shop floor.

[bunkerland]

Another lacklustre speech from Billy---still seems to be hedging his bets.

"Lacklustre"- surely that could only relate to the style of delivery.
I think it presents some of the problems we have faced over the past few years (which have driven the demand for "modernisation") and gives a clear indication how he thinks we should face up to those challenges.
Nice speech Billy!

Yes - the Pope is a Catholic and Bears sh* in the woods - any more profound findings Billy . Biggest Labourite going .

A fish has got a waterproof head?

I think it's the top men in the union that's needing to modernise,we've given them fantastic support and should be proud of ourselves for that,but when it came down to it,it looks like BH and co just weren't up to the challenge!! I'm reminded of the saying of a "turkey voting for Christmas" It seems to me this year the turkeys have voted to be cooked after Christmas!