A new level of collaboration with Royal Mail?

[goinpostal]

Postal Deal: A new level of collaboration with Royal Mail?
www.workerspower.com

In the new deal on the table, “Business Transformation 2010 and Beyond”, the CWU leadership under Dave Ward and Billy Hayes has signed up to a “shared vision of modernisation” with Royal Mail. Attached to this, and hidden in the deal’s small print are plans to trim back CWU democracy while creating a more “professional financial relationship” between the union and company.

This is a massive rightward shift in the leadership as it quakes in fear at the prospect of a general election followed by a Tory government. They are throwing everything overboard to make peace with Royal Mail bosses and show the Labour government that the CWU is a "responsible" partner in downsizing Royal Mail. They hope in return to get the £10 billion pension deficit - which the government created in the first place - underwritten by Labour while still in power. But even if that was likely, the concessions in the deal are an unacceptable price to pay.

Mutual or antagonistic interests?

The agreement makes this shift in the relationship between the company and the union bureaucracy absolutely open and explicit: it is “a critical step” aiming to “fundamentally transform relationships and quickly build a culture of mutual interest between managers, union and employees.” (p. 3 “Business Transformation 2010 and Beyond” agreement)

What does this mean concretely? Deepening officials’ collaboration in making cuts and taming the union's grassroots to fit the needs of the company that is being streamlined for privatisation. After years of struggle over Royal Mail’s downsizing programme, forced on them by postal workers’ resistance, Ward, Hayes and Co. have abandoned any pretence of opposition to Royal Mail’s modernisation agenda.

Of course CWU leaders never stood up to Royal Mail’s efficiency cuts and flexibility. They always preached that we had to be realistic, not every job or mail centre could be saved. They signed off the 2006 Efficiency Agreement, banning strikes and without a ballot of members, and the 2007 Pay and Modernisation agreement. Both saw union officials forcing local offices to agree cuts and flexibility.

However union leaders also opposed (in words at least) Royal Mail’s “slash and burn” business plans, arguing instead that the need was to “grow the business” through “innovative new products” and a better public service. Royal Mail’s plans were based on attacking the workforce and would end up in a worse public service.

Change in message

With the new deal, this has changed. They’ve swallowed Royal Mail’s message that “mail is declining, we have to change”, along with the smarmy management-speak required to spin downsizing as modernisation:

“Royal Mail is facing challenges on an unprecedented scale. The digital revolution, pensions deficit, competition and volume decline means that to secure our future everybody must work together and fully embrace radical change. To signal a fresh start Royal Mail and CWU have developed a shared vision of modernisation. At its core is our renewed commitment to align the interests of our customers, workforce and the company as a whole.”

Working fully together means a “change of culture” to shift industrial relations based on opposition to one where postal workers “trust” Royal Mail.

The problem is the interests of postal workers and Royal Mail bosses (and the City millionaires, stockbrokers and government that stand behind them) are not aligned but opposed – the proposed wage cuts, "slash and burn" office closures and workload hikes will make them millions in profit. We need to keep jobs not shed them when there aren’t any out there due to the recession.

The public has no interest in a service shaped for big business and with fewer local depots, later delivery times, higher stamp prices and swingeing service charges like the new £1.50 charge to get a package dropped at your local post office, a 300% hike.

And the whole point of modernisation is to create a massively profitable business, as a step towards privatisation. This deal doesn't stave the threat of privatisation off, it brings it closer.

Union democracy: a casualty of collaboration

In truth, it is the CWU leadership, not the workforce, that has now fully “aligned” its vision to meet Royal Mail’s. This latest, open step towards class collaboration with postal bosses shows that the interests of a well-paid, privileged bureaucracy and those of the workers and public is further apart than ever. To allow this degree of collaboration in cuts, the deal needs to remove more democracy in the union, to insulate the decisions of the officials from the anger of the members. And the 2010 deal does just that.

First are changes so that union officials can help managers “ensure that national agreements are consistently deployed at a local level”, undermining any resistance by local workers to the deal’s workload hikes. To do this CWU tops promise to not just downsize the Industrial Relations Framework but our own democracy:

“A more positive role with genuine involvement will require the CWU and its representatives to recognise the environment the business operates within, commit to the success of the company, and adopt quicker and improved decision making. The CWU has advised Royal Mail that it will reform its internal structures to facilitate this.” (p. 7)

The pay-off is that Royal Mail will guarantee to fund officials and full-time reps to allow what Royal Mail sees as “effective industrial relations”. The deal promises a “professional financial relationship” between the union and company “with funding arrangements on a more consistent footing”. (p. 7)

The message is clear: if the union is willing to play ball, Royal Mail will fund release so officials and reps can help them make cuts more effectively!

Financial crisis in union

Worse, the agreement seems to say the company will help out with financial problems in our union, making the union more dependent on the company:

“We will complete work on developing a new union release/branch debt recovery process and both parties are committed to new arrangements being implemented from May 2010.” (p. 8)

He who pays the piper calls the tune, and many members and reps will be outraged that the deal includes a massive attack on jobs and workload while CWU tops cement their “financial relationship” with the company to secure their own cushy jobs.

CWU officials certainly are worried about the financial crisis in the union, with branch level officials and NEC likely to have a tug of war between who pays the cost in future months and years. This crisis is to a large degree created by the policies of the current leadership. Their strategy of accepting the market has meant 60,000 jobs (and subs) being lost over the last few years. There are 30,000 non-CWU members in the post, many of them no doubt having left in disgust at the last sell-out, the 2007 flexibility agreement, and since.

The way to cut costs is to turn our union from a cash cow for comfortable bureaucrats into a organisation focussed on organising postal workers and leading a fight against modernisation and privatisation. We could start by getting rid of the flash Wimbledon HQ in Wimbledon and plush offices elsewhere. How about our leaders agreeing to put all officials, including tops like Dave Ward on up to £100,000 a year, on the average wage of the workers they represent?

A new direction needed for the CWU

This deal, coming after the 2006 Efficiency agreement and 2007 Pay and Modernisation agreements, shows we need a radical new direction for the union, rejecting the leadership and its strategy which have been disastrous for postal workers.

A mass of branches voting to recommend their members reject the deal and “No Confidence” in the current leadership would be an important step towards this goal. It would be a clear, public rejection of the impasse Ward & Co. have led our union into at every level – membership and finance included, alongside the most fundamental issues of postal workers’ jobs, workload, pay and condition. A high profile rebuff of the unpopular leadership and their policies would actually boost the image of the union in the eyes of the members and those outside our ranks.

An alternative leadership, drawn from the fighting wing of the union that led last year’s strikes, can quickly assemble through an energetic campaign to throw out the deal. It can remain a real democratic leadership that serves the members if it rejects all bureaucratic privileges and perks, and is based on a rank and file movement capable of holding it to account. The struggle to transform the CWU into a fighting, consistently democratic union remains absolutely central to the defence of our jobs and industry.

[BELIAL]

Well said brother

[cashman]

Totally agree with you!!!

[dvbuk55]

Isn't it strange that others see the same thing that many posters on here believe to be true.

What is the point in maintaining representation and actually financing it if it is no longer a true representation of the membership merely following a dogma that perpetuates itself.

For many years there has been a financial problem with the union without any real attempt to curb expenditure and continuing to increase subs year on year without any real representation is taking money under false pretences. We are the cash cow and being milked by both sides now.

[fishtank]

Isn't it strange that others see the same thing that many posters on here believe to be true.

What is the point in maintaining representation and actually financing it if it is no longer a true representation of the membership merely following a dogma that perpetuates itself.

For many years there has been a financial problem with the union without any real attempt to curb expenditure and continuing to increase subs year on year without any real representation is taking money under false pretences. We are the cash cow and being milked by both sides now.

It would seem dvb you have the most unlikely of allies to prove your point.
This is a proposed motion for this years conference and just look who is doing the proposing.

47 CATEGORY A: COMPOSITE MOTION
Conference agrees that the future of the CWU is threatened by decreasing membership levels across the Union. Conference acknowledges that the original NCU/UCW merger promised economies of scale that have never been fully realised. Conference further recognises that the biggest expenditure within the Union is CWU Headquarters. Therefore, Conference instructs the NEC to commission an immediate independent review into the overall funding and costs associated with running CWU Headquarters.
The review will provide recommendations on how to reduce expenditure whilst ensuring that the union continues to prioritise its industrial role and representation in the workplace.
Conference instructs the NEC to publish the independent review report alongside its recommendations by no later than January 2011 and place an appropriate motion(s) to Annual Conference 2011.
Northern/North West London
South East London Postal and Counters
London South West
London Parcels and Stations Amal
London Regional Committee

[dvbuk55]

Isn't it strange that others see the same thing that many posters on here believe to be true.

What is the point in maintaining representation and actually financing it if it is no longer a true representation of the membership merely following a dogma that perpetuates itself.

For many years there has been a financial problem with the union without any real attempt to curb expenditure and continuing to increase subs year on year without any real representation is taking money under false pretences. We are the cash cow and being milked by both sides now.

It would seem dvb you have the most unlikely of allies to prove your point.
This is a proposed motion for this years conference and just look who is doing the proposing.

47 CATEGORY A: COMPOSITE MOTION
Conference agrees that the future of the CWU is threatened by decreasing membership levels across the Union. Conference acknowledges that the original NCU/UCW merger promised economies of scale that have never been fully realised. Conference further recognises that the biggest expenditure within the Union is CWU Headquarters. Therefore, Conference instructs the NEC to commission an immediate independent review into the overall funding and costs associated with running CWU Headquarters.
The review will provide recommendations on how to reduce expenditure whilst ensuring that the union continues to prioritise its industrial role and representation in the workplace.
Conference instructs the NEC to publish the independent review report alongside its recommendations by no later than January 2011 and place an appropriate motion(s) to Annual Conference 2011.
Northern/North West London
South East London Postal and Counters
London South West
London Parcels and Stations Amal
London Regional Committee

You are certainly a fount of knowledge ft. There is an overhaul of the union long overdue. If this deal goes through and the CWU becomes just an adjunct to Royal Mail management and financially under its control there seems little point in contributing to our own downfall and I, and many like me will not.

[Body Beyond Repair]

Brilliant article,no wonder the men at the top are pushing for our ratification of the proposed agreement.As i thought CWU is finished as a union no power to influence weak leaders,weak membership.Accept defeat and withdraw your support this union is powerless to stop royal mail's relentless attacks especially locally, you see, no point in a national union.

[naughton]

There will be no collaboration between CWU and myself ,my subs will be cancelled,looks like ROYALMAIL,will be getting enough from me in the future with killer workload--BYE.

[bexhil palace]

On friday in London We sat through 4 hours of RM spiel(oh sorry i mean CWU),and not once did we hear the word service.All we heard was what financial
straights RM are in, and how massive changes have to be made to safe guard FT jobs. Well i'm all for saving jobs, but what use is that if the remaining
jobs are untenable? Sad to report, that the top table took the look of being in the last chance saloon.I never thought i would see our elected officials
taking the business line.I'm not naive enough to think that everything in the garden is rosy,but the top table seemed content to base all there negotiations
with RM on their facts and figures,Dave Ward admited as much when challenged.Now iv'e been a postie for 23 years and i can count on one finger how many
times RM have been up front with their figures.The fact that the CWU are pinning everything on this new RELATIONSHIP with RM fears me with dread.
How are supposed to believe that RM will not revert to type as soon as they can't get the agreements that they want?Don't get me wrong there are some good things
for many people in the agreement,and some real crap,but i refuse to believe that Higson and his cohorts have turned over a new leaf.To agree 2010 and beyond
with such ambiguity will i fear be not only the death of the CWU with many members leaving, but also the death of a once proud public service.
Many of the problems that RM have encountered are a direct result of DSA,not for one moment am i suggesting the removal of DSA will be a panacea
for all our ills, but it is a cancer within the service, and it has to be removed before we can contemplate the need for such radical changes.
I feel strongly that that the removal of DSA restrictions should take CWU priority, not the destruction of our terms and conditions to placate
an up to now a bullying and agressive employer.

RANT OVER.

[POSTMAN]

Northern/North West London
South East London Postal and Counters
London South West
London Parcels and Stations Amal
London Regional Committee

Would this now dismiss the 'London is up HQ's arse' malarkey?

[goinpostal]

Would this now dismiss the 'London is up HQ's arse' malarkey?

It will if London Division campaign for a no vote for the deal - of course branches are right to insist that the bloated head office is shrunk.

Thanks for feedback will pass it on - let's not leave the union, let's reclaim it! Generations of postal workers built it so we can defend our jobs and conditions, we can't just walk away without a fight.