Postal Workers Back Strike Action
Results announced at the CWU's annual conference in Bournemouth:
Royal Mail Pay:
Yes: 66,064 (77.5%)
No: 19,199
Post Office Ltd (Counters):
Yes: 2740 (73%)
No: 993
Cash In Transit:
Yes: 545 (66%)
No: 283
Postal workers have voted strongly in favour of taking industrial action over pay, in what would be the first national postal strike since 1996. However the union seems to be using the ballot result as a bargaining chip, rather than showing seriousness that they will fight.
According to Deputy General Secretary, Dave Ward: "This yes vote shows absolutely clearly that Royal Mail workers have rejected the company's business plan, the company's leadership and the unacceptable pay offer. Royal Mail leaders say they listen to people; this is the clearest message they have ever had. Royal Mail has to listen and return to serious negotiations."
But he goes on to say: "Because we care about the service there will be no immediate announcement for strike action – we want an agreement – not a strike for the sake of it. So we will give Royal Mail a further opportunity to back-off from their cuts and come back to the negotiating table with a fresh approach."
The dispute is partly about Royal Mail's 2.5% pay offer. A series of walkouts will now be held by about 130,000 CWU members unless new talks can lead to a breakthrough in the dispute. But as Dave Ward points out: "The key issue in this dispute remains the unacceptable cuts in postal services – cuts in postal jobs - and attacks on our members’ terms and conditions. Royal Mail’s plans include 40,000 job losses – later deliveries - reductions in collections – reductions in weekend service. The closure of delivery offices and mail centres – and the destruction of the rural and crown office post office network."
But as I have pointed out before, the underlying issue is whether or not the CWU stands up for the idea of defending Royal Mail as a public service. So-called “liberalisation”, opening up the publicly owned Royal Mail to competition, was introduced in January 2006, as a result of EU legislation, but the free market zealots of New Labour decided to deregulate three years earlier than competitor countries. The response to this from the CWU was revealing. Billy Hayes complained “We all know that postal liberalisation is coming, but the CWU cannot understand why a British regulator [has placed] the nation’s postal service at a competitive disadvantage” (emphasis added)
All along the CWU has accepted that liberalisation and competition could not be opposed, and therefore even if Royal Mail does stay in the public sector, it will be subject to market pressure. So it will be run as a business not as a public service.
The CWU needs to take a political stance against liberalisation, and demand that Royal mail continues to run as a public service. This is a long haul argument, but is one that the RMT has effectively mounted over renationalisation of the railways. The advantage is the not only can we start to turn the tide over the political idea there is no alternative to the market, but it would make the workforce more confident and inspired to fight. It is never a good way to fight, to first concede that your opponent is correct in principle!
The Royal Mail's plans to respond to market forces, "Shaping the Future" were accepted last year by the CWU. But the inevitable consequences of the scheme are now becoming clear.
Given the liberalisation and competition then management will be determined to stand firm. The posties have a real fight on their hands, and the union's leadership needs to show the required determination. If not then the grassroots activists need to prepare to take the lead themselves.
Showing newest posts with label Posties. Show older posts
Showing newest posts with label Posties. Show older posts
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Monday, June 04, 2007
CWU snubs Johnson
.
I know some of you are getting fed up with the Labour Deputy Leadership election, but it is a significant defeat for the leadership of the postal workers union that their support for the right winger, Alan Johnson, has been overturned by rank and file delegates at conference today. This underlines how the Deputy Leadership contest has allowed some debate in the unions about their future relationship with the Brown government. From what I gather support for continuing the link with the Labour Party is very weak within the CWU, and if there is a large scale strike this year - as seems likely - then pressure may grow to follow the FBU's example and disaffiliate.
This report is from the Morning Star:
CWU delegates in Bournemouth overwhelmingly voted to reconsider the union's decision to support Labour deputy leadership candidate Alan Johnson on Monday.
An emergency motion pointed out that Mr Johnson had failed to support the Trade Union Freedom Bill and the union's campaign against post office closures and had publicly supported Royal Mail's unpopular plans for employee share ownership.
Conference agreed to censure the NEC and instruct it to reconsider its decision to support Mr Johnston in line with the decisions taken at last year's conference and inform the membership of the decision prior to the ballot commencing on June 6th.
South London delegate Bob Cullen pointed out that deputy general secretary Dave Ward had said that he would rather "support a lamppost" than Mr Johnson, who was once the leader of the CWU.
"Let's support the lamppost," he urged delegates.
"If he can privatise what was his own industry, what would he do to others? He has no time for us working people. He should not be considered."
London Divisional representative delegate Martin Walsh branded Mr Johnson "the weakest" of all the candidates.
"He does not support the policies of this union, yet we still support him. That is wrong," he said.
"He walked away from this union, we did not drive him away."
London delegate Phil Walker added that Mr Johnson offered "little or nothing" to the union in his leadership manifesto.
"We have to look at the most acceptable candidate. Let's have another look at them," he said.
"Policy issues should be key to our judgment. Let us get what change we can out of this deputy leadership contest."
London Parcels delegate Paul O'Donnell said that Mr Johnson's nomination sent out the wrong message.
"It's like having a fry up for the bailiffs before they repossess your cooker," he said.
Kent Invicata delegate Sean Tait added: "We can't send divided messages to our own membership. We should make sure the people we support, support us."
Before the voting, CWU general secretary Billy Hayes urged delegates to reject the motion, insisting: "What you're saying is that the NEC is not entitled to an opinion. We are deciding the next Deputy Prime Minster."
The NEC will meet on Tuesday to decide who they will now support.
UPDATE: There is a good online report also in Socialist Worker . They make the point that: "It should be noted that not all the executive had supported Johnson at the executive meeting in question, with three supporting Jon Cruddas."
It is also worth saying that The Morning Star are wrong that Bob Cullen is from South London, he is from Oxford.
I know some of you are getting fed up with the Labour Deputy Leadership election, but it is a significant defeat for the leadership of the postal workers union that their support for the right winger, Alan Johnson, has been overturned by rank and file delegates at conference today. This underlines how the Deputy Leadership contest has allowed some debate in the unions about their future relationship with the Brown government. From what I gather support for continuing the link with the Labour Party is very weak within the CWU, and if there is a large scale strike this year - as seems likely - then pressure may grow to follow the FBU's example and disaffiliate.
This report is from the Morning Star:
CWU delegates in Bournemouth overwhelmingly voted to reconsider the union's decision to support Labour deputy leadership candidate Alan Johnson on Monday.
An emergency motion pointed out that Mr Johnson had failed to support the Trade Union Freedom Bill and the union's campaign against post office closures and had publicly supported Royal Mail's unpopular plans for employee share ownership.
Conference agreed to censure the NEC and instruct it to reconsider its decision to support Mr Johnston in line with the decisions taken at last year's conference and inform the membership of the decision prior to the ballot commencing on June 6th.
South London delegate Bob Cullen pointed out that deputy general secretary Dave Ward had said that he would rather "support a lamppost" than Mr Johnson, who was once the leader of the CWU.
"Let's support the lamppost," he urged delegates.
"If he can privatise what was his own industry, what would he do to others? He has no time for us working people. He should not be considered."
London Divisional representative delegate Martin Walsh branded Mr Johnson "the weakest" of all the candidates.
"He does not support the policies of this union, yet we still support him. That is wrong," he said.
"He walked away from this union, we did not drive him away."
London delegate Phil Walker added that Mr Johnson offered "little or nothing" to the union in his leadership manifesto.
"We have to look at the most acceptable candidate. Let's have another look at them," he said.
"Policy issues should be key to our judgment. Let us get what change we can out of this deputy leadership contest."
London Parcels delegate Paul O'Donnell said that Mr Johnson's nomination sent out the wrong message.
"It's like having a fry up for the bailiffs before they repossess your cooker," he said.
Kent Invicata delegate Sean Tait added: "We can't send divided messages to our own membership. We should make sure the people we support, support us."
Before the voting, CWU general secretary Billy Hayes urged delegates to reject the motion, insisting: "What you're saying is that the NEC is not entitled to an opinion. We are deciding the next Deputy Prime Minster."
The NEC will meet on Tuesday to decide who they will now support.
UPDATE: There is a good online report also in Socialist Worker . They make the point that: "It should be noted that not all the executive had supported Johnson at the executive meeting in question, with three supporting Jon Cruddas."
It is also worth saying that The Morning Star are wrong that Bob Cullen is from South London, he is from Oxford.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Crucial battle in Royal Mail
.
The Communication Workers Union (CWU)’s executive is balloting all members for strike action. If it goes ahead this would be the first national postal strike in a decade.
Interesting questions are raised by the build up to this dispute relating to New Labour's economic neo-liberalism, the failure of the unions to oppose this ideologically, and a new direction in the SWP's industrial policy.
Deputy General Secretary Dave Ward has said “Royal Mail has abandoned our agreed approach in favour of a short sighted Business Plan that amounts to a cost cutting frenzy, reductions in pay and a defeatist attitude towards competition. This Business Plan is designed to fail and demonstrates a real lack of vision by the people running the company”.
The agreed approach that Dave Ward is referring to is “Shaping the Future” by which the CWU agreed a shared framework with Royal Mail for dealing with the impact of competition and automation.
According to the CWU’s account: “a centre piece of the agreement was Royal Mail’s commitment to negotiate change, whilst focusing on higher basic pay and permanently raising the value and status of jobs by April 2007.”
Yet now, according to the CWU: “Royal Mail’s business plan will result in 40,000 job losses, attacks on pension arrangements, closures of mail centres and delivery offices and a reduction in pay for postal workers to ‘the market rate’. It will also result in a reduction and decrease in quality of service for the public. Royal Mail claim that postal workers are overpaid by 30%.”
The union is absolutely right to stand up to management, and should be actively campaigning for a YES vote for a strike.
But there is a need for serious questioning of the CWU’s approach, and how they have ended up where they are.
So-called “liberalisation”, opening up the publicly owned Royal Mail to competition, was introduced in January 2006, as a result of EU legislation, but the free market zealots of New Labour decided to deregulate three years earlier than competitor countries. The response to this from the CWU was revealing. Billy Hayes complained “We all know that postal liberalisation is coming, but the CWU cannot understand why a British regulator [has placed] the nation’s postal service at a competitive disadvantage” (emphasis added)
All along the CWU has accepted that liberalisation and competition could not be opposed, and therefore even if Royal Mail does stay in the public sector, it will be subject to market pressure. So it will be run as a business not as a public service.
Despite “Shaping the Future” being hailed as a landmark agreement by the CWU, literally before the deal had even been approved by the membership, the Royal Mail management were imposing changes in work practices outwith the agreement, in pursuit of profitability. So why did the CWU recommend acceptance?
The Executive Committee of the union had instructed the union’s leadership to ballot the members for a national strike, and John Farnham, a Postal Exec member claims that the unions leadership failed to carry out the instructions of the EC. This was a very serious situation, but in fact there was no seriousness about a fight at the top and all but one member of the EC voted to accept “Shaping the Future”, including two members who are involved in the SWP’s Post Worker publication. The SWP’s Jane Loftus failed to attend the EC on the crucial day.
According to one of Post Worker’s supporters on the exec, Norman Candy, the EC were aware that the mood of postal workers was up for a fight, but they conceded the strategic arguments over competition and profitability, in exchange for some debatable tactical gains over pay. As a Socialist Worker leaflet correctly explained, management had retreated slightly on pay, but the other "gains" were simply to allow the CWU to continue to organise as before, and an efficiency agreement that might bring more take home pay, but at the expense of jobs.
It seems remarkable then that the CWU exec approved it, and there is some talk that Billy Hayes had shaken hands on a deal with a government minister even before the EC met, which was why the ballot never happened.
But the real issue here is that the CWU needed to take a political stance against liberalisation, and demand that Royal mail continues to run as a public service. This is a long haul argument, but is one that the RMT has effectively mounted over renationalisation of the railways. The advantage is the not only can we start to turn the tide over the political idea there is no alternative to the market, but it would make the workforce more confident and inspired to defend themselves. It is never a good way to fight, to first concede that your opponent is correct in principle!
The role of the left in the union also needs to be examined. The SWP led publication Post Worker (PDF) took no position on the vital vote over “Shaping the Future”. Instead of a clear recommendation for a NO vote, Post Worker published a “debate”, giving most space to NEC members Norman Candy and John Farnan arguing in favour of acceptance.
In the face of the EC recommending acceptance, and no clear opposition coming from anywhere, not a single Royal Mail office voted against the deal.
The rationale behind the SWP’s “Rank and File” papers is that they bring together militants who are prepared to organise independently from the official union machine if needs be. Of course there is always a tension in that any genuinely independent grassroots group may disagree with the position of the SWP – as it did here. The SWP did oppose “Shaping the Future”. But there were several grassroots activists who wanted Post Worker to come out with a clear NO recommendation, and it seems the SWP stepped back from this because it would have meant breaking from theie supporters on the EC.
Over questions of tactics there is room for compromise and manoeuvre. But Post Worker should not have compromised on a question of strategy and principle and no ground should have been given to the idea of profitability and opening up Royal Mail to competition. If they had to break with some of their non-SWP supporters, then so be it. In actual fact, this seems a decisive break with the historical industrial policy of the SWP – but according to the reports of the SWP’s last conference, the industrial section heard no debate about this, although Socialist Worker did report how a postal worker has set up an anti-war groups at his sorting office!!
So the current dispute is a consequence of management pursuing profitability, which the CWU has already conceded in principle. Last year the issue was a bit abstract, and many posties may not have realised how “Shaping the Future” was going to affect them. This time around the issue is not abstract, it is a concrete and immediate threat to jobs, pay and conditions.
The CWU needs to work for the biggest possible vote for a strike, and the left in the CWU needs to consider how to raise the issue of opposing in principle the operation of the market.
This is a chance for the CWU, and the left in the CWU, to recover ground they lost last year.
The Communication Workers Union (CWU)’s executive is balloting all members for strike action. If it goes ahead this would be the first national postal strike in a decade.Interesting questions are raised by the build up to this dispute relating to New Labour's economic neo-liberalism, the failure of the unions to oppose this ideologically, and a new direction in the SWP's industrial policy.
Deputy General Secretary Dave Ward has said “Royal Mail has abandoned our agreed approach in favour of a short sighted Business Plan that amounts to a cost cutting frenzy, reductions in pay and a defeatist attitude towards competition. This Business Plan is designed to fail and demonstrates a real lack of vision by the people running the company”.
The agreed approach that Dave Ward is referring to is “Shaping the Future” by which the CWU agreed a shared framework with Royal Mail for dealing with the impact of competition and automation.
According to the CWU’s account: “a centre piece of the agreement was Royal Mail’s commitment to negotiate change, whilst focusing on higher basic pay and permanently raising the value and status of jobs by April 2007.”
Yet now, according to the CWU: “Royal Mail’s business plan will result in 40,000 job losses, attacks on pension arrangements, closures of mail centres and delivery offices and a reduction in pay for postal workers to ‘the market rate’. It will also result in a reduction and decrease in quality of service for the public. Royal Mail claim that postal workers are overpaid by 30%.”
The union is absolutely right to stand up to management, and should be actively campaigning for a YES vote for a strike.
But there is a need for serious questioning of the CWU’s approach, and how they have ended up where they are.
So-called “liberalisation”, opening up the publicly owned Royal Mail to competition, was introduced in January 2006, as a result of EU legislation, but the free market zealots of New Labour decided to deregulate three years earlier than competitor countries. The response to this from the CWU was revealing. Billy Hayes complained “We all know that postal liberalisation is coming, but the CWU cannot understand why a British regulator [has placed] the nation’s postal service at a competitive disadvantage” (emphasis added)
All along the CWU has accepted that liberalisation and competition could not be opposed, and therefore even if Royal Mail does stay in the public sector, it will be subject to market pressure. So it will be run as a business not as a public service.
Despite “Shaping the Future” being hailed as a landmark agreement by the CWU, literally before the deal had even been approved by the membership, the Royal Mail management were imposing changes in work practices outwith the agreement, in pursuit of profitability. So why did the CWU recommend acceptance?
The Executive Committee of the union had instructed the union’s leadership to ballot the members for a national strike, and John Farnham, a Postal Exec member claims that the unions leadership failed to carry out the instructions of the EC. This was a very serious situation, but in fact there was no seriousness about a fight at the top and all but one member of the EC voted to accept “Shaping the Future”, including two members who are involved in the SWP’s Post Worker publication. The SWP’s Jane Loftus failed to attend the EC on the crucial day.
According to one of Post Worker’s supporters on the exec, Norman Candy, the EC were aware that the mood of postal workers was up for a fight, but they conceded the strategic arguments over competition and profitability, in exchange for some debatable tactical gains over pay. As a Socialist Worker leaflet correctly explained, management had retreated slightly on pay, but the other "gains" were simply to allow the CWU to continue to organise as before, and an efficiency agreement that might bring more take home pay, but at the expense of jobs.
It seems remarkable then that the CWU exec approved it, and there is some talk that Billy Hayes had shaken hands on a deal with a government minister even before the EC met, which was why the ballot never happened.
But the real issue here is that the CWU needed to take a political stance against liberalisation, and demand that Royal mail continues to run as a public service. This is a long haul argument, but is one that the RMT has effectively mounted over renationalisation of the railways. The advantage is the not only can we start to turn the tide over the political idea there is no alternative to the market, but it would make the workforce more confident and inspired to defend themselves. It is never a good way to fight, to first concede that your opponent is correct in principle!
The role of the left in the union also needs to be examined. The SWP led publication Post Worker (PDF) took no position on the vital vote over “Shaping the Future”. Instead of a clear recommendation for a NO vote, Post Worker published a “debate”, giving most space to NEC members Norman Candy and John Farnan arguing in favour of acceptance.
In the face of the EC recommending acceptance, and no clear opposition coming from anywhere, not a single Royal Mail office voted against the deal.
The rationale behind the SWP’s “Rank and File” papers is that they bring together militants who are prepared to organise independently from the official union machine if needs be. Of course there is always a tension in that any genuinely independent grassroots group may disagree with the position of the SWP – as it did here. The SWP did oppose “Shaping the Future”. But there were several grassroots activists who wanted Post Worker to come out with a clear NO recommendation, and it seems the SWP stepped back from this because it would have meant breaking from theie supporters on the EC.
Over questions of tactics there is room for compromise and manoeuvre. But Post Worker should not have compromised on a question of strategy and principle and no ground should have been given to the idea of profitability and opening up Royal Mail to competition. If they had to break with some of their non-SWP supporters, then so be it. In actual fact, this seems a decisive break with the historical industrial policy of the SWP – but according to the reports of the SWP’s last conference, the industrial section heard no debate about this, although Socialist Worker did report how a postal worker has set up an anti-war groups at his sorting office!!
So the current dispute is a consequence of management pursuing profitability, which the CWU has already conceded in principle. Last year the issue was a bit abstract, and many posties may not have realised how “Shaping the Future” was going to affect them. This time around the issue is not abstract, it is a concrete and immediate threat to jobs, pay and conditions.
The CWU needs to work for the biggest possible vote for a strike, and the left in the CWU needs to consider how to raise the issue of opposing in principle the operation of the market.
This is a chance for the CWU, and the left in the CWU, to recover ground they lost last year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
