Postal union to fight Royal Mail sell-off

[fishtank]

Postal union to fight Royal Mail sell-off

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c47f4cee-11e2 ... z19OgxxtcF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
By Brian Groom, Business and Employment Editor


The postal workers’ leader has refused to rule out ind­ustrial action to stop Royal Mail privatisation, saying his union’s political campaign can still put a stick in the coalition’s spokes.

Pensions and forced redundancies are among potential flashpoints.

Billy Hayes, general secretary of the Communication Workers’ Union, said Royal Mail would provoke the “next big rebellion” by coalition MPs, some of whom feared that a new owner would undermine the “one price goes anywhere” universal service and take business away from post offices.

“We want to see the modernisation of Royal Mail, but our members haven’t gone through all this pain just to see some gambler or spiv – to quote Vince Cable [the business secretary] – recoup the rewards,” Mr Hayes told the Financial Times. The union would defend the terms of a three-year pay, hours and conditions deal reached this year.

The CWU is lobbying Liberal Democrat and Tory backbenchers to oppose the postal services bill.

Mr Hayes said he thought some MPs would want amendments to try to preserve the universal service and protect post offices when the bill returned to parliament on January 12.

A question remains over whether CWU members would be prepared to strike over privatisation, having gone through two national disputes over modernisation in three years.

Strikes in pursuit of political objectives are illegal, but lawyers said the union could get round this by engineering a dispute over terms and conditions with Royal Mail – such as de­manding a long-term guarantee against pension cuts or compulsory job losses.

The government wants to sell all or part of Royal Mail through a flotation or industry sale, probably in 2011 or 2012. It wants eventually to convert the Post Office, which will not be part of the privatisation, into a mutual structure owned by employees, subpostmasters and communities.

The union was instrumental in frustrating Labour’s plan to sell off 30 per cent of Royal Mail, but it faces a tough task this time, given the coalition’s working majority of 84.


“In terms of our track record on privatisation, we have had three successful campaigns in terms of defeating it,” said Mr Hayes. “It’s more difficult now, but we don’t regard it as impossible.”

CWU members were concerned about their pensions, particularly after the government’s switch from the retail to the consumer prices index of inflation as the benchmark for retired public-sector workers.

Ministers plan to absorb Royal Mail’s pension deficit – currently £8.4bn – as well as taking over the scheme’s £26bn assets on privatisation, but have yet to spell out what this would mean for postal workers and pensioners. Mr Hayes said the government’s proposals amounted to “nationalising the [pension] debt and privatising the profits”.

The three-year modernisation deal promises no compulsory redundancies. “We will protect that deal,” said Mr Hayes. Royal Mail, which employs 180,000, is still shedding thousands of jobs by voluntary methods.

Mr Hayes expressed concern that the bill would allow the government to sell Royal Mail in tranches without having to go back to parliament each time, unlike in previous privatisations such as telecoms.

He said Ed Davey, the postal affairs minister, was on a “power kick”, boasting that he would privatise Royal Mail where Lords Heseltine and Mandelson had failed, and more concerned about his own image than postal services.

The CWU wants the government to plug Royal Mail’s pension deficit without privatising it. Mr Hayes said the company should be given access to the bond market if it needed capital.

[pyphon]

striking won't make a scrap of difference, just drag this once famous company into a more sorry state before the eventual happens

[Lounge Lizard]

striking won't make a scrap of difference, just drag this once famous company into a more sorry state before the eventual happens

and after what happened last time support for a strike would be minimal.

[DGP1]

striking won't make a scrap of difference, just drag this once famous company into a more sorry state before the eventual happens

and after what happened last time support for a strike would be minimal.

Very true, they burnt many bridges with Infinity and Beyond (and the winners and losers mentality).

[dvbuk55]

“We want to see the modernisation of Royal Mail, but our members haven’t gone through all this pain just to see some gambler or spiv – to quote Vince Cable [the business secretary] – recoup the rewards,” Mr Hayes told the Financial Times. The union would defend the terms of a three-year pay, hours and conditions deal reached this year.

Strikes in pursuit of political objectives are illegal, but lawyers said the union could get round this by engineering a dispute over terms and conditions with Royal Mail – such as de­manding a long-term guarantee against pension cuts or compulsory job losses


Now there's two statements that are laughable. In the first instance the deal was not a good one and certainly the pay deal was risible and the pension has already been cut undefended and secondly although not necessarily compulsory job losses but certainly job losses that are unwarranted due to travel etc and already agreed.

Engineering a dispute.....................don't make me laugh, the last agreement made the CWU a partner in the modernisation until 2012.......by which time RM/CWU will no longer exist.

[fishtank]

The union would defend the terms of a three-year pay, hours and conditions deal reached this year.

Does industrial action defend the deal...or does it open the way for executive action?

Does the membership actually even believe that the agreement is worth defending?

Is this just a bit of pointless sabre rattling that isn't fooling anyone?

[barbario]

After reading all your comments, although you all make good points,can i take it then we are beaten. Despite whats gone on in the past and forgetting the wrongs and the rights of the last strikes.If we don't fight in the future,we really have had it.

[dvbuk55]

After reading all your comments, although you all make good points,can i take it then we are beaten. Despite whats gone on in the past and forgetting the wrongs and the rights of the last strikes.If we don't fight in the future,we really have had it.

Have we lost the fight? Well really you need to choose the ground on which you fight and put forward a defence which fulfils the aims of the privatisation.
I have to agree that there does need to be a change of management because the current management group has quite obviously failed because the new 2010 and Beyond is very poor and sadly actually roped in the CWU as a co-conspirator.

The pension deficit needs to be addressed which the Government has agreed to fund on privatisation thereby freeing up funds.

So the ground needs to be prepared for the defence that the Government takes on the pension deficit and that the USO is realigned and that pricing is restructured and DSA properly priced enabling profit without privatisation. The Government seems to be of the opinion that only privatisation can bring about the necessary changes and that simply isn't true.

So the slogan should be "Profit without Privatisation"..............as for the Queens Head on a stamp???????????????????? WGAF?

[fishtank]

If we don't fight in the future,we really have had it.

I think the point is...will we be asked to fight or are we witnessing empty rhetoric aimed at appeasing the masses..
How can you talk about industrial action and at the same time talk about defending a deal between the union and the very management you are about to go to war with.

Do you think that BT2010 would still be on the table after a bout of industrial action...or more importantly the commitment-ish to no compulsory redundancies and the 3.5%-ish pay deal for 2012.

[Lincox]

Ibelieve that the 2010 and Beyond agreement is already dead in the water and is being given lip service to enable Royal Mail to ease its way through the passage of privitisation without too much industrial interference. There is no way that any call for industrial action by billy and hi no mates will have any chance of being given a positive result in a ballot.

[dvbuk55]

If we don't fight in the future,we really have had it.

I think the point is...will we be asked to fight or are we witnessing empty rhetoric aimed at appeasing the masses..
How can you talk about industrial action and at the same time talk about defending a deal between the union and the very management you are about to go to war with.

Do you think that BT2010 would still be on the table after a bout of industrial action...or more importantly the commitment-ish to no compulsory redundancies and the 3.5%-ish pay deal for 2012.

I don't know that it is appeasing the masses, of employees at least. I speak to people in our office and quite frankly they couldn't give a toss one way or t'other. They are so downhearted at the moment it wouldn't matter to them who was running RM/CWU and the vast majority have already accepted that it is a done deal.

[fishtank]

I don't know that it is appeasing the masses, of employees at least. I speak to people in our office and quite frankly they couldn't give a toss one way or t'other. They are so downhearted at the moment it wouldn't matter to them who was running RM/CWU and the vast majority have already accepted that it is a done deal.

Well dv....when all the fighting talk last year was about how Royal Mail wanted to sideline the CWU it was pointed out that a piss poor deal would accomplish the same thing.
The difference of course is that if you try to beat a dog into submission you run the risk of being bitten...
Much easier to win it's trust with treats...before you slip the leash on.

[Martin Walsh]

It wont be this site which decides whether the members get the right to ballot for strike action and it will not be this site which decides whether the members in the CWU decide to vote to support their terms and condtions.

Now the arguements on whether members should or should not vote for strike action a legitimate debate but the arguements and case will be made both on this site and in the workplace and will make the case for striking.

Now lets discuss the issues on one hand we have a lot of posters who think they got stitched up under the last agreement and that they therefore will not support further strike action , now whilst i dont agree with that reason i can certainly understand the logic.

However lets make the case for the strike as not many on here will.

1, The Postal bill means that no new owner can have any risk on pensions in the future so therefore the pension scheme will cease with only the back service protected as the bill does not allow for the care scheme to continue as it can lead to a further defcit. Therefore the only scheme which cannot is a money purchase which means that the new owner does not fund pension scheme, only you fund it. In addition as POL will stay in public ownership the old scheme will have to be split into two meaning that your past years are not totally sercure.

2. The bill provides 15 opportunites for the USO to be watered down or removed including whats included in the USO , to franchising out the uso in some areas regions and the removal of the uso on certain days.

3, Now the issue of defending the agreement the bill does not state that the modensation agreement will hold the field under the new owner or owners well lets have a look at what is in this agreement , it safeguards full time jobs to a level of 75% , it overarching objective is to avoid complusory redunances , it gives you a payment for door to door , it gives you a pay rise and the numbers of revisons and payments linked to them. What happens if a new owner comes in an rips that up and removes your supplement , removes the safeguards etc and imposes harsher changes ?

[fishtank]

What happens if a new owner comes in an rips that up and removes your supplement , removes the safeguards etc and imposes harsher changes ?

I think that question was posed back in April dingo only then it was dismissed as a non-question.
When did the non-question become a question for the union to pose?

[Martin Walsh]

Well thats quite easy to answer we did not have this bill published and we did not have both davey and cable to the two Lib clowns who are saying that they are not willing to write into the bill any amendments which ensure the terms of the agreement is protected if any new owner comes in.

The theme and demand of the Labour Government and Hooper was that that the union and Royal Mail needed an agreement on modenisaton of the industry which had to have automation etc linked to it. The change is massive.