By Billy Hayes
The publication of the document "The Future of the Universal Postal Service in the UK" by Lord Mandelson represents a serious mistake by the Government.
Not only does it represent a mis-step for the postal industry. It is a terrible blow to the credibility of Labour as a distinct party of Government. Both the Tories and Lib-Dems support the privatisation of Royal Mail,
We must lend every effort to changing the Government's mind before it pulls the trigger on its own head.
The Bill proposes to privatise Royal Mail by an initial instalment of 30%. Along with this minority share will come the effective management of the company by the "partner." Lord Mandelson has already suggested that the "gene pool" of British management talent does not include the ability to manage Royal Mail successfully. With the Bill it is clear, for example in Clause 4.16, that the partner will run the company on a day to day basis.
What is deeply damaging to the Government is to link this issue to the future pensions of postal workers. The employer (ie Conservative and Labour Governments) had a holiday from pension contributions for 13 years. This was undertaken on the understanding that there would be sufficient funding from the scheme without these contributions. Postal workers, of course, continued to contribute throughout this period. The scheme now has a substantial deficit, despite those long forgotten assurances. Instead of the Government simply honouring its contract with postal workers, it has engaged in an exercise of potential extortion. Submit to the Government breaking its commitment on privatisation, or face the loss of half of your pension. Some choice - some policy - fat chance.
What is being offered is an update of "there is no alternative". Either accept privatisation or the lot collapses. This was never true, and isn't true now. Royal Mail, which just reported better results than TNT, is a perfectly viable company.
The removal of the pension deficit immediately offers Royal Mail an additional capital of £280 million per year for the next 15 years. No-one has demonstrated that this is insufficient for "modernisation". Dogma must not prevail over evidence.
In addition the Bill suggests that some of the policies of the CWU could be carried through to assist the funding of the industry, notably on access contracts and on supporting the USO.
Therefore why is privatisation integral to the success of Royal Mail? Neither Hooper nor Lord Mandelson have demonstrated this.
Of course, there is going to be a whole-hearted campaign against this Bill. This makes sense from both the point of view of the consumer, and the workforce. From the consumers point of view, TNT delivers first class mail at around twice the cost of Royal Mail. From the workforce' s point of view, TNT have refused to pay the minimum wage in Germany where they set up a Trade Union whose General Secretary was TNT's Chief Executive.
Royal Mail is a trusted brand for the public. Handing it over to asset strippers will not affect the electoral fortunes of Lord Mandelson, but it will devastate the Labour Party.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Hearing Gordon Brown pleading with Labour supporters and MPs not to oppose "his" plans for Royal Mail today, took me back to 1995 when, in another totally unnecessary and unwanted - and finally fataly flawed - privatisation, John Major issued a similar plea to Tories regarding rail privatisation.
It's just a totally unnecessary piece of braggadocio that will split the party.
It doesn't go far enough.
The whole lot should be privatised, the only thing that Royal Mail does that could be described as a public good is a universal fee for mail. Fine, keep that and enshrine that in law.
Then privatise the lot. Royal Mail's service offerings are woeful compared to the competition, I use City Link a lot, they deliver on time, their fees are excellent for the service they offer compared to Parcelforce.
Why is that I wonder? Could it be that they focus on the customer and not as a means to the employee's own ends?
Why should the taxpayer come to the rescue of another failing business? Why should the taxpayer pay twice (once in taxes and to Royal Mail) for a business whose services are not comparable to the free competition?
Gordon Brown says "We should not reward failure." Well that suits Labour and its members when it's bankers that screw up, but everyone else is exempt?
If you want to give the workers a say in how the company is run, workplace democracy has a very, very chequered past and nationalisation is not the way to do it.
What is lacking in this article is the evidence that the consumer is happy with Royal Mail. Postcomm complaint handling numbers compare like this - 99% of complaints are regarding Royal Mail, 1% for the other operators.
Why?
The evidence and experience demonstrates rather than dogma that the privatised former nationalised industries give a better service to the customer, return to profitability and went on to expand into new.
Like so many Labour decisions, they bottle it for their own vested interests. This is another one.
Perhaps you could persuade Sir Fred Goodwin to come out of retirement.
Do you think that an old lady could afford to use City Link to deliver a letter to the other side of the country, or that such a company would be interested in her one letter a week?.
Fred Goodwin, perhaps? After all what a wonderful joib he did at RBS
You use City Link a lot do you? Bully for you - but the old lady who lives in a village couldn't afford to post a letter to a friend at the other end of the country and pay City Links price - even if City Link was interested in her paltry one letter a week.
People like you make me sick - the real I'm Alright Jack, private is best mentality.
You seem not to have noticed the numerous PRIVATE companies who are running cap in hand to beg money from the government. £5.9 billion for Royal Mails pension fund or £350 billion and rising for incompetent banks?
EU Directives for the regulation of Royal Mail
Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 (came into force in February 1998)
Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 amending Directive 97/67/EC
Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 20 February 2008 amending the initial Postal Directive 97/67/EC as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC
Prior to the implementation of the 1997 European Union Directive, the UK postal service sector was governed by the Post Office Acts of 1953 and 1969 and the Telecommunications Act 1981. This legislation set out the responsibilities of the British Government towards postal services and gave the Post Office its powers and duties.
The Postal Services Act 2000 (PSA) implemented the 1997 European Union Directive in the UK. Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3050 amended the PSA to take account of the changes required by the 2002 European Union Directive.
More European Union anyone
In this way Royal Mail services will still remain cheaper than any of its competitors and it be able to deliver the efficient universal service - including twice daily deliveries (the first before 0800) - that was once the norm.
A government owned bank with tough restrictions on how and to whom it lends would be of great benefit to people who are unsure where to put their money.
Unfortunately we have someone in the house of lords (something I thought Labour were going to get rid of?) telling us that having a company run for profit is the best way for it to survive.
Very disappointing.
People don't like change and uncertainty, and issues of quality and foreign access to markets does concern them, but where good standards and fairness take root I see no reason to get upset or winding other people up. Most fears are unfounded and panic just creates problems where none exist.
I have confidence that where good standards are demanded and there's good rapport with foreign countries that people will deliver the goods and get along. The Post Office is nothing special and the world is a bigger place than Britain, and if people develop quality and shared values, I figure, that's an improvement.
Are you saying that a publically owned business cant become a real world leader in it's said field. The free capitalist market has been shot to pieces by the greed of a few. Rip it up and start again.
It's ridiculous. On one side there's smokestack cloth cap march to you drop brigade pounding the gound over some idea of state owned socialist perfection. On the other, you've got the steel jawed golden parachute heroes of legalised asset stripping. What a load of ego.
They like shiny.
They like shiny."
Charles What has your mysogeny to do with the matter under discussion?
In fact - what has it got to do with anything?
Take a chill pill.
A first look at Mandelson's scheme suggests it's flawed. I want to see more of a focus on creating a fighting fit company and stopping the cherry picking. The regulator needs to keep its own identity to provide focus and underpin the postal market. Also, I'd like some more attention paid to universal service, good value, and shared infrastructure.
The backbench whiners just look like they're fighting mythological battles instead of helping drive the best solution. If anything, this proves that taking Royal Mail out of the hands of the beer and sandwiches brigade is a good move. As it stands they're just looking dumb and giving the competition a free ride.
There are no morals or rules.
Nor is it a choice between planning and markets. Markets ARE planned centrally, mostly from CEOs and tame company boards.
I think that planning should go both ways, and that there should be decentralised input from the bottom; more democratisation of our workplaces and communities. This often means opposition to the will of the market, but top down targeting and the like do not have to be involved.
The best solution is for the taxpayer to pay for quality, in my view.
It was a promise at both the last election and at Warwick that the Royal Mail would remain in public hands - no mention was made of privatisation or "part" privatisation (and how long before the 30% jumps to 40 or 50%?), now Brown weakened though he may be allows his prima donna Business secretary to try something he was trying to do more than a decade ago when he had to resign the first time.
I hope the CWU do disaffiliate from Labour - I wish a few more woudl, too. Why should the unions keep paying Labour just to get another kick in the teeth?
And if NuLabour can find hundreds of billions of pounds to prop up the banks after the stupidity and greed of people like "Sir" Fred, it is disgusting they can't or won't find £5.9 million for the Royal Mail pension fund.
And for the likes of Charles (and Mandelson) with their private is best fetish, private business is increasingly going cap in hand to the government to beg money - who says they are better
One final point: If Mandelson thinks RM needs outside "better"£ management, why are we still paying £3 million a year for Adam Crozier?
£3 million for Crozier is market rate, but as accountability, performance, and fair opportunity rises up the agenda those mega salaries should disappear for people who can't justify it. That's better for everyone from the hot shots to the shop floor.
Welcome to paradise.
The fact is not many countries that have private deliveries are interested in that old Lady, one suggestion by Blair was you pick up your own mail from the post office, I suspect Brown has the same idea.
Or you will go to a pick up point like your post office, shop, Tesco, Asda, if you lucky enough to have one.
The fact is our Post office and Royal mail should be given free will to run the company and allow them to put or or bring down costs, not to be run by a jumped up politician trying to F*ck it up.
Germany has just been told by the EU that post delivery people throughout the EU must be paid a min wage, this is to stop the undercutting on the grounds of low wages which a lot of companies have done in Germany. They have no min wage in Germany.