SPEECH: CWU FRINGE MEETING AT LIB DEM CONFERENCE- HAYES

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.billyhayes.co.uk/index.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The CWU represents around 220,000 workers in the financial services, telecommunications and postal industry. We are affiliated to the Labour Party.

In normal times, we tend to confine our political lobbying to the Labour Party. But with the election of the coalition government, we recognise the need to adapt to new political circumstances.

So we are lobbying all the party conferences to oppose the privatisation and break up of Royal Mail.

I must make one thing clear, the partial privatisation of Royal Mail, proposed by Lord Mandelson last year is no more acceptable to the CWU than the full privatisation proposed by the coalition government this year.

Royal Mail offers a unique blend of business and community services. As a public sector company, it has been very successful in providing a universal service, with stamp tariffs half the price of privatised rivals such as Deutsche Post and TNT.

Successive governments have failed to properly invest in Royal Mail, but in the last 10 years we have seen some progress.

The current modernisation programme is fully funded – and Royal Mail is paying down its loan from government.

Once the government takes on its obligation for the pension deficit – Royal Mail will receive an extra 300 million pounds a year.

Why should the benefit of such a windfall be paid out to private shareholders rather than to the public and Royal Mail’s customers?

The arguments for privatisation are weak and incoherent.

Not so long ago, Vince Cable MP said “privatisation was necessary for Royal Mail in order that it can compete”.

Royal Mail is successfully competing when it is allowed too.

At the moment, Royal Mail has retained over 99% in the delivery of previously reserved mail. Nor is there any sign that another company is likely to set up a network to challenge Royal Mail in delivery.

But where Royal Mail can’t compete is where it is being prevented from competing by the regulator Postcomm.

This is most clear on the profitable bulk mail of businesses, where access contracts have been won by competitors.

The problem lays in Postcomm having legislated against Royal Mail, to the extent that Royal Mail cannot win a contested access contract.

This was well understood by the lib dems before the coalition government. Sarah Teather, when she had responsibilities for BIS, made the argument for fair competition in access pricing with great clarity.

Suddenly, your Party spokes people have gone silent on this. Perhaps the pleasures of power are more important than the rigours of fact.

Equally vacuous is the suggestion that the sale of Royal Mail is necessary in order to maintain post office branches.

Has no one in the coalition considered what attitude the shareholders of privatised Royal Mail may take towards a loss making, and publicly owned post office counters network.

Is it not just likely – indeed inevitable – that the shareholders would prefer a private retail network, or private agencies, to provide their public counters.

And if so, the receipts of Royal Mail’s privatisation will not save post office counters, on the contrary, we will witness thousands of counters closures.

This, we are convinced, is inevitable once you privatise Royal Mail and separate it from post office counters.

Certainly when BT was separated from the Post Office and privatised it dispensed with all the services it received from Royal Mail.

Are coalition Ministers prepared to answer the concerns of their constituents about post office closures?

What guarantees are you going to offer?

Will there not also be a question from the Treasury or elsewhere, to the effect that there are better uses for the receipts received in Royal Mail privatisation than propping up an ailing Post Office network.

Nor are we convinced by the argument that only privatisation will provide future guarantees on investment programmes in Royal Mail.

Perhaps we could leave asides the fact that the recession was, above all characterised by the collapse in private investment?

56% of the loss of GDP in the UK as a result of the decline in fixed investment. It was only government spending that kept the economy afloat.

Still, the coalition government is convinced that private investment is going to fill the gap created by the slashing of public spending. So perhaps these facts can sidelined too.


If we leave aside the best value argument for public investment, there is no reason why Royal Mail cannot be allowed to borrow money in the financial—- markets, without being privatised.

That is, unless you believe that other public services – like the NHS trusts – should be allowed such funding, but Royal Mail cannot.

Again, we have to say there are no coherent arguments for privatisation.

Most threadbare, is the lie that this will allow the work force to have greater involvement, particularly if they get shares. Royal Mail could even be the new John Lewis – apparently.

The whole argument is deeply patronising – and ignores the actual position of postal workers and their dependents.

For a start postal workers are dependant upon Royal Mail for their livelihood, housing, pension and general welfare. That’s a pretty big stake in the industry and comes from the facts of life associated with earning wages.

On top of that, postal workers have a certain rights to have a say in their working lives and in the direction of their industry. That is why they organised a union.

In this sense, postal workers have already achieved more say than John Lewis workers, who aren’t organised.

And further, postal workers have comprehensive local and national negotiating rights, thanks to their union organisation. This is not just an issue interest to democratically elected officials. It is a daily and serious concern for all Postal workers.

Why should they give up such rights – John Lewis workers certainly don’t have them?

Now, through the great and direct efforts of postal workers, a comprehensive agreement exists which covers the next 3 years of modernisation in Royal Mail.

This is transforming the industry and allowing postal workers to fully involve themselves in that process.

Doubtless, Dave will elaborate how we can further improve on this – given the commitment to agree by the employer and the government. This may be a big ask from a privatised employer.

But instead of this, the coalition government is going to disrupt the present stability in the industry, even though that was achieved at substantial cost.

Some nameless firm firms, hedge funds, asset strippers or gamblers are going to be offered this profitable industry for their own ends.

From day one, such people will be talking down the need and scope of the universal service, the links with post office counters, and the modernisation agreements in place.

Are you as liberal democrats prepared to stake the future of Royal Mail upon outdated and discredited tory policies of supporting privatisation of anything that moves?

For our part, the CWU will join with those who value the public service provided by Royal Mail and postal workers.

The breadth of support for this is shown by the endorsement of our campaign last week by the Women’s Institute. And we have hardly begun yet.
Thanks for listening.
Posted by Billy Hayes on 09/17 at 02:43 PM

[Wild Rover]

Whatever Billy....

Anything you say is just bullshit now after they way you sold us out on the "new agreement".

[BELIAL]

Good speech though. Well done Billy Just a shame he was so tame when New Labour were in office

[maisymoo04]

STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE

[jockstrapp]

STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE

Not for that wee fat b@stard...........................NEVER

[barbario]

The rights and wrongs of privatisation doesn't come into it. The Government are desparate for money and would sell their own Granny if it would make them a profit.

[BELIAL]

STRIKE STRIKE STRIKE

Not for that wee fat b@stard...........................NEVER

Never have done,always for us us us,and well he knows it

[POSTMAN]

Hear hear BELIAL on both counts.

[maisymoo04]

very true postman

[Wiggins79]

On top of that, postal workers have a certain rights to have a say in their working lives and in the direction of their industry. That is why they organised a union.

In this sense, postal workers have already achieved more say than John Lewis workers, who aren’t organised.

And further, postal workers have comprehensive local and national negotiating rights, thanks to their union organisation. This is not just an issue interest to democratically elected officials. It is a daily and serious concern for all Postal workers.

Ahh, methinks I see what he is most concerned about here. Worrying whose going to pay for your gold-plated pension once all the worker realise what a total waste of space you have been for the last 5 years? Lets face it, if privatisation happens (and it will as there is no way this new lot will lose face and back down now), who on earth is going to carry on paying into an utterly toothless union?

[baldrick]

BT was privatised and there is still CWU membership there.
And all the other privatised industries, rail, buses, power, airports, BAA etc still have union membership.
We will probbly need a union even more as we will be facing even more attacks by management.

[windermeredave]

can you really see any of us voting for strike action after we were stitched up last time?..not a chance.

[clashcityrocker]

can you really see any of us voting for strike action after we were stitched up last time?

Yes

[windermeredave]

can you really see any of us voting for strike action after we were stitched up last time?

Yes

I disagree, because wouldn`t we just be hurting the company when its the coalition that we should be aiming our action at, RM don`t have a say in government policies

[fishtank]

The real question isn't whether we would vote for strike action or not...but whether the union would ballot us and on what grounds?
Answers anybody?