Postal privatisation and the zero-hour workers' nightmare

[fishtank]

I saw firsthand how introducing competition into the Royal Mail will create an army of low-paid workers in precarious jobs


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ur-workers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"TNT scum! How dare you set foot in the Post Office? Get the f**k out!"

This was the hostile introduction I got on my first day working undercover as a TNT postman for Channel 4's Dispatches investigation, Secrets of Your Missing Mail.

A weathered old-time postman was visibly irate when he saw me in the distinctive orange uniform of Royal Mail's rivals TNT, venturing on to his patch as I delivered a letter to a Central London Post Office . While this postie had picked the wrong person to do battle with – after all, I was just another guy trying to do a job – I soon understood his angry reaction to the imminent privatisation of the Royal Mail. Apart from the obvious threat to universal service, privatisation represents a direct affront to the working conditions that have been so hard-fought for by workers and unions over the years.

Last week marked the formal announcement by Michael Fallon, the minister for business and enterprise, that the Royal Mail will be sold off by next April, setting the ball rolling on what is set to be the biggest privatisation for over 20 years. This follows the deregulation of postal services in 2006, which allowed companies like TNT Post to win contracts to deliver mail from the supplier all the way to the letterbox on behalf of private and public sector organisations. TNT Post, who I worked for over the course of a month, are in a pilot phase in West and Central London this year, providing competition to deliver letters directly to the doorstep for the first time in Royal Mail's 360-year history. If successful, TNT will expand its operation across other parts of the country in the next five years, aiming to employ up to 20,000 postal workers.

So what does this mean for the 134,000 postal workers represented by the Communication Workers Union? And what can these changes in the postal industry teach us about how ongoing privatisations affect workers? As postal worker and blogger Roy Mayall points out, private companies are allowed to bid for these contracts with no obligation to meet the pay and conditions that Royal Mail workers have fought for over the years. During the time I spent as a TNT postman, I was able to see firsthand the ways in which widespread privatisations are leading to regressions in working conditions, with private companies exploiting the large numbers of desperate young unemployed to offer employment packages far inferior to their Royal Mail counterparts.

I was one of a growing number of workers on what is known as a "zero-hour contract". This term is used to describe an extremely precarious form of contract, in which workers are not guaranteed any hours of work. The number of major employers hiring on zero-hour contracts has risen from 11% in 2004 to 23% in 2011, with unions blaming government privatisation of services for this rise, denouncing these contracts as a throwback to the Victorian era.

Denied any fixed hours of employment, I was forced to hustle for my next day's work on an almost daily basis. Sometimes I took a gamble to come in as a "relief worker", arriving at the depot at 7.30am in the hope that someone would have dropped out so I could cover their rounds.

While zero-hour contracts prove convenient for students and part-timers, the reality is that these groups make up the minority of the workforce. For most workers, it proved to be a myth that zero-hour contracts translate to greater flexibility; I was advised by several colleagues that I should be ready and available for work whenever called upon if I hoped to get more regular shifts. It became clear that the balance of power in these arrangements is heavily weighted in the favour of employers.

Indeed, bosses are inclined to over-hire staff to ensure that they will always have enough staff for any given shift, which can leave workers without enough hours to make a sufficient living: on £7.10p/h (with London weighting), it is nearly impossible to make ends meet if you miss out on shifts for just a day or two. Workers are left walking this financial tightrope on a week-by-week basis.

This kind of "underemployment" is particularly insidious considering the fact that many of those recruited come off benefits upon gaining employment, only to earn an insufficient salary to adequately live on once they are actually in work. Official statistics of course show these people as being employed, despite the fact that in reality they are denied regular hours. This leaves workers obliged to navigate an uncomfortable no-man's land between secure work and benefits.

Furthermore, these kinds of contracts leave workers almost entirely at the whim of their bosses. With the decision as to who gets given shifts ultimately resting with the supervisor, workers are left vulnerable to favouritism. Employers do not need to find a reason for dismissal; they can simply phase out shifts until employees find themselves with little or no work.

A growing private sector workforce is being forced to live with no guaranteed level of earnings, unpredictable schedules, weak employment rights and precarious conditions.

In light of this, I can't say I blame the Royal Mail postman for losing his rag with me.

[gb93]

And when will the majority realise whats going on.
Far too late by all probabilities. Carrying on being spoon fed sh*t and taken it in.
Happily calling all unions & members scum, while all the rights their for fathers fought for are all taken away.
Ah the good old days before unions ruined the country

[borders]

sickening reading that, I dont know what else to say really....

[baldrick]

We're going back to the days when people had to stand outside the gates and hope to be taken on for a day's work, if their face fitted.
Only now it's done by mobile phone. And the Tories wondered why people celebrated Thatcher's death.

[Shaman Mao]

That article says it all. Most of my colleagues at the DO are sleepwalking into this privatisation (and seem to think that a handful of "shares" is a good idea). They've got no idea of what is around the corner if it goes ahead.

[NWpostie]

I would rather be on benefits than Zero hour contracts if it came to that, at least I can plan ahead, Zero hour contracts is a form of exploitation that would do a Victorian boss proud.

It should be made illegal.

[daveyeff]

thatcher brought all this shite in

[daveyeff]

does anyone know for sure how it will affect us if it is privatised. ive heard that some bt workers were better off. railway workers made more money. but the general talk is that they will either pay off long service people or buy the contracts off us for buttons, then pay minimum wage or just above to remaining staff with the removal of most if not all terms and conditions.

[fishtank]

ive heard that some bt workers were better off.

Restructuring at British Telecom
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/200 ... 03103f.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Following privatisation in 1984, management at BT embarked on a programme of organisational change which had significant consequences for employees: employment fell from 240,000 at the time of privatisation to 170,000 a decade later; collective bargaining over pay and conditions was decentralised to divisions; a number of the firm's new subsidiary companies refused to recognise unions at all; and shift patterns were changed so as to allow management much greater flexibility in the deployment of labour. In the mid-1990s, BT, now operating in a much more competitive market than hitherto, particularly in the mobile and business markets, continued to shed jobs in response to pressure from the financial markets to cut costs...........

[borders]

and don't forget we are basically unskilled labour.

[POSTMAN]

Don't panic...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22328897" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Labour should pledge to ban "zero hours contracts" at the next election, shadow health secretary Andy Burnham has said.

Mr Burnham praised his party leader Ed Miliband's proposal to reward firms for paying low paid workers more than the minimum wage.

But he said the Labour leader should "go further" and vow to ban so-called zero hours contracts as well.

Workers on such contracts are on call to work but can be given no hours and, as a result, no pay.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

bump

[Shambles]

http://blog.38degrees.org.uk/2013/08/15 ... nce-cable/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sign please