Today's Royal Mail dispute details

Contact numbers for the Royal Mail/CWU dispute
Kevin Beazer SW regional secretary 07787 516631
CWU Bristol office 0117 935 0055


Royal Mail doesn't need the tension of full competition
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/unions/comment/0,,2112442,00.html

The upcoming industrial action is essential for preserving our postal service

Gregor Gall
Wednesday June 27, 2007
The Guardian

Since 1979, Royal Mail has undoubtedly fought an unceasing battle to be
both "one of the last great public services" and a "commercial company" as
your leader column suggested (Royal Mail: No delivery, June 22). And, yes,
the strike this Friday does indicate that "postal workers are fighting
change that Royal Mail insists is essential"; but it is no God-given
fight.

Postal workers understand the link between decent working conditions and a
decent public service. Through the Communication Workers' Union (CWU) they
have organised to defend both, and the link between the two. So the battle
is actually over both pay and jobs because this is about the quality of
postal workers' working lives and the service they provide.

In conducting the research for my 2003 book, The Meaning of Militancy?
Postal Workers and Industrial Relations, it became clear to me how much
pride postal workers invested in their jobs. Their ethos was to provide a
vital universal service to all, and for them the issues of a sufficient
number of workers necessary to provide a quality service became two sides
of the same coin.

The current dispute does not, as you suggest, stem from "the spirit and
structure of an organisation that is neither private nor public [but]
caught in limbo". It stems from a neoliberal agenda pursued by Tory and
Labour governments alike.

In 1988 and 1996, postal workers were forced into two national summers of
strikes to defend their terms and conditions of employment. By the new
millennium, they had become the most militant of the remaining highly
unionised workforces. The Tories tried to privatise Royal Mail - a bid
that failed in 1994. New Labour then established the postal regulator,
Postcomm, in 2000 and encouraged deregulation of the postal market in
advance of that required by the European Union. But just as Labour has
redlined various issues in order to negotiate EU opt-outs, it could have
chosen to protect one of the last great public services by doing
similarly.

This would be the best way to "protect Royal Mail's public-service role",
as you desire, rather than continually have the tension between this and
"full competition". The public-service role, a universal service provision
and fair employment cannot be provided by market mechanisms and private
competition.

Take away the competition and insert the public-service ethos, and the
"change that Royal Mail insists is essential" would cease to be essential.
Do this, and this Friday's strike becomes unnecessary. This would be, to
use your words, an "acceptable compromise". Customers and postal workers
could then have confidence in the public service all year round. But none
of this is even remotely possible without a fight. Indeed, as you rightly
point out, Royal Mail shows "no sign of caving in".

Rather than the CWU's action only making things "worse", as you allege,
its resistance could help generate wider opposition, and advance the
public-service ethos. As Gordon Brown inherits a decomposing New Labour
project, now is the best time to start this process.

· Gregor Gall is professor of industrial relations, University of
Hertfordshire
G.Gall@herts.ac.uk