Queen's Speech: Controversial plans for RM to go-ahead

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Queen's Speech: Controversial plans for Royal Mail to go-ahead

http://www.birminghampost.net/birmingha ... -26517385/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The coalition Government set itself on a collision course with postal workers today by pressing ahead with controversial part-privatisation plans for the Royal Mail.

A Postal Services Bill was included in the Queen's Speech, which will enable the disposal of shares to third parties. Ministers believe the move will raise equity for reinvestment in the postal business.

The Government said there was a commitment to keep the Post Office in public ownership and raised the prospect of "employee engagement" in the Royal Mail.

Measures will also be taken to tackle the Royal Mail's huge pensions deficit, which could reach £10 billion when a new assessment is published soon.

The bill also raised the potential for a change in the regulatory framework for the postal service.

The Queen said: "My Government will modernise the Royal Mail, in partnership with employees, and will ensure it benefits from private sector capital and disciplines."

The Communication Workers Union has warned it will fight any move to part-privatise the Royal Mail, with industrial action if necessary.

Delegates at the union's annual conference in Bournemouth on Monday rejected the "discredited" policy of the previous government, which had to shelve plans to attract a private partner into the business.

Deputy general secretary Dave Ward said: "If we need to take industrial action to defeat privatisation to secure our members' pensions and jobs, we will not hesitate to do it.

"The battle for the future of this industry is on again. The CWU is ready for that battle."

The union ran a campaign last year which led to the Labour government abandoning plans to part-privatise the Royal Mail, and later took industrial action over jobs, pay and working practices.

"We deserved a bit of a break, but within days of winning the election, the Government has made it absolutely clear that we are back in a major battle for the future of the postal service and our members' jobs.

"We are battle-hardened, but we are certainly not battle-weary."

Mr Ward said the Royal Mail's pensions deficit could soon be put at £10 billion, but he maintained the business's assets had grown to £26 billion, which the new Government was "crudely" trying to raid.

CWU general secretary Billy Hayes said every opinion poll in the last 20 years had shown public opposition to privatising the Royal Mail.

The main competitors mentioned as possible buyers, including Dutch firm TNT, were not showing any interest in taking a stake in the Royal Mail, he told delegates.

"The Government majority will make it difficult for us, and our tactics will have to be new and innovative. It will not be easy, but we have shown our determination to fight this.

"Privatising the Royal Mail is old politics dressed up in new language. It is not needed. We have an agreement and it is now time to move on.

"It is essential that the public realise what this proposal means - it will be a disaster."

Mr Hayes said he believed the Government was trying to get bad news out of the way in one go, but he predicted there would be tensions between Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs.

"We will have a united parliamentary Labour Party and I expect candidates in the party leadership election will endorse our position. Our members will be a bit weary, but we will galvanise our activists and campaign strongly against this."

Mr Hayes added that the coalition government was wrong to press ahead with its part-privatisation plans.

"Royal Mail is a public sector success story, making hundreds of millions of pounds in profit while modernising and delivering first class services to every residential and business address in the UK.

"Privatising public services is deeply unpopular. Breaking up Royal Mail Group and flogging parts to private companies will damage services and lead to price hikes for customers. It's old politics dressed up in new language.

"The commitments given on post offices are misleading and disingenuous. Breaking the link with Royal Mail could take valuable business away from the Post Office while leading to greater costs for Royal Mail.

"The post office network is an expensive but vital community service but today's proposals place the Post Office in grave danger of further waves of closures.

"We will fight these proposals. There's no mandate from the public to privatise Britain's postal services, it's not supported by the public and it's not supported by postal workers."

Business Secretary Vince Cable said: "We need to deal with the longstanding problems facing Royal Mail - the dependence on finance from the taxpayer, the deficit in the pension fund, the dramatic decline in the number of letters being sent.

"These fundamental challenges are becoming more thorny and deep-rooted. Letting them grow is not in the best interests of consumers, businesses or Royal Mail's employees.

"We are looking at all of the issues and options with a fresh pair of eyes, but are clear that an injection of private capital is important.

"As is making this work for employees by tackling the pension deficit and exploring opportunities to give workers a real share in the future of the company."

[Dogs of War]

The Queen has given the go ahead then.

[SLOWPOST]

Industrial action really with who's support after selling us down the river.

[Jolly Roger]

The Communication Workers Union has warned it will fight any move to part-privatise the Royal Mail, with industrial action if necessary.

Not intrested

[DGP1]

There'll be no IA over this, the best the CWU can hope for is a campaign to convince the general public that the sell off is a bad idea (and TBH I can't see many people really caring when they are expecting cuts themselves).

The last time this came up I was busy writing to my MP and convincing other staff members to do the same (as well as talking to the public to tell them what would happen if we where sold off) but this time I won't be, I feel badly let down by the 'leadership' and I can't be bothered helping them out when they screwed me over the 2010 Infinity and Beyond deal.

[fishtank]

The resolution passed by conference on the part-privatisation of Royal Mail, however, stops short of calling for a repeat of last year's strikes. It specifically states: "Conference recognises that different tactics will be employed in comparison to the previous anti-privatisation campaigns."
The steps the National Executive Council is directed to take include launching a "broad-based" public campaign against the proposals while seeking "to establish early dialogue with the coalition government".
A second resolution which instructed the NEC to "use all means possible to protect jobs and services in a publicly owned Royal Mail Group including industrial action" was withdrawn.

CWU deputy general secretary for the postal sector Dave Ward gave the Tory-led government an "absolute guarantee that, if we need to take industrial action to defeat Royal Mail privatisation and secure our members' jobs and pension, we will not hesitate to do it."

Mixed Messages.........Again.

[Big Daz]

The Queen has given the go ahead then.

She dosent have the power to say no untill such time as a bill is given to her to give royal assent to.

[SpacePhoenix]

I don't think a strike could happen anyway as the dispute would not be with RM

[Big Daz]

What I would like to know if a political strike is illegal or simply does not enjoy the same protection for mbrs as a trade dispute with the employer does

[fishtank]

What I would like to know if a political strike is illegal or simply does not enjoy the same protection for mbrs as a trade dispute with the employer does

Thus, an inducement to break an employment contract by striking is unlawful at common law. However, that inducement is not unlawful if it is done in contemplation of a trade dispute. See section 219 of the 1992 Act.

Not a trade dispute....not illegal but unlawful therefore an unprotected breach of contract.

[charlie1]

Maybe we should all wait and see what form of part privatation is put forward by the ConDem coalition before condeming it out of hand ourselves.

The Tories were in favour of full privatisation, as apposed to the Lib Dems who preferred the John Lewis style partnership. The John Lewis model is very successful with all employees owning part of the firm, plus receiving a twice yearly share of profits, all paid pro rata, unlike the current Royal Mail set up, where the top directors trouser millions, other management grades trouser thousands and your humble postman at the bottom of the pile gets bugger all.

The people most at risk from privatisation are all the management grades, anybody who has ever worked in the private sector can see Royal Mail is far too top heavy. Any private venture involvement would seize on that fact almost immediately leading to a massive management cull, with colossal savings potential.

So surely it would be best for the CWU to wait and see whats suggested by the government first before being so dismissive, yes we do want our terms and conditions improved and protected, along with a long term solution to the pension problem. However I wouldnt expect to see many of my colleagues striking again anytime soon after last years fiasco, plus the Unite members have so much more to be concerned about than us, so lets let them fight their own battles without piggy backing off the the CWU yet again.

[fishtank]

In the main unions do not want employees having a stake in any company.
It makes union/employer/employee relationships rather.....awkward.

[smokerjim]

What I would like to know if a political strike is illegal or simply does not enjoy the same protection for mbrs as a trade dispute with the employer does

Thus, an inducement to break an employment contract by striking is unlawful at common law. However, that inducement is not unlawful if it is done in contemplation of a trade dispute. See section 219 of the 1992 Act.

Not a trade dispute....not illegal but unlawful therefore an unprotected breach of contract.

So in summary....goodbye postman, hello gaolbird - well Billy & Dave will have my support - I'll write to them every week that they're in the Scrubs...oh hang on, we won't have a RM with a USO by then....sorry lads, s**t happens

[guvenor]

i will not support industrial action any more gvmt can do what they want dont care any more
the "pie eater(s) " have destroyed any faith i had in our union with their protect labour sell out of a deal
who are we dave ward says are not battle weary we are battle weary it was we who got mandates for strikes last year
but it was THEM not we who sold US out.
so sorry cwu get it up you what goes round and all that
we look after ourselves now

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Maybe we should all wait and see what form of part privatation is put forward by the ConDem coalition before condeming it out of hand ourselves.

The Tories were in favour of full privatisation, as apposed to the Lib Dems who preferred the John Lewis style partnership. The John Lewis model is very successful with all employees owning part of the firm, plus receiving a twice yearly share of profits, all paid pro rata, unlike the current Royal Mail set up, where the top directors trouser millions, other management grades trouser thousands and your humble postman at the bottom of the pile gets bugger all.

The people most at risk from privatisation are all the management grades, anybody who has ever worked in the private sector can see Royal Mail is far too top heavy. Any private venture involvement would seize on that fact almost immediately leading to a massive management cull, with colossal savings potential.

So surely it would be best for the CWU to wait and see whats suggested by the government first before being so dismissive, yes we do want our terms and conditions improved and protected, along with a long term solution to the pension problem. However I wouldnt expect to see many of my colleagues striking again anytime soon after last years fiasco, plus the Unite members have so much more to be concerned about than us, so lets let them fight their own battles without piggy backing off the the CWU yet again.

The general picture of the type of privatisation is already known. Its going to be a Hooper style with 49% sold to the market and the remaining 51% divided between workers and Government. A sort of bastardised version of the John Lewis model. However, I don't think we will be "partners" like the JL workers are, and we therefore won't be able to affect future policy.

Cant argue with the management cull happening as having come from both a Forces Background and a Mail Order company before RM, I think that the Managers skill requirements are being eroded. That's either empire building by those above them to protect themselves, or more likely IMHO an attempt to dilute the effects of a future management cull.