Sponsored by
Alan McGauley: Postal dispute delivers a stark message to the unions... and us
AFTER many years of relative harmony, there has recently been a resurgence of strikes and industrial action, mainly by workers in the public sector.
However, we are not returning to the sort of action we saw in the 1970s and 1980s. This time there are different challenges facing the trade unions and their members.
The key issue now is not higher pay, but an attempt to protect terms and conditions and prevent redundancies and job losses. As a lifelong trade unionist, I have been involved in a number of successful and unsuccessful strikes in the past 25 years. However, the plight of the post office union fills me
with concern.
This once powerful trade union is a facing multiple threats – threats that are greater than they have ever faced. Changing technology, increased competition, the wider economy, are all huge challenges, as is a pensions crisis estimated to be in the region of 10bn.
We are increasingly a paperless society. We pay bills by direct debit, we use internet banking and other electronic payments. Businesses are invoicing clients electronically and being paid by electronic bank transfer. It is
very rare these days to post
an invoice, write a cheque or hear that old chestnut "the cheque's in the post." All this significantly reduces the size of the postbag.
However, this also highlights those who are on the wrong side of the technological divide. They are the same people who lost out in the post office closure programme. They will be the same people who lose out if there is an end to a universal postal service at the same price for all areas of the country. They are
the poor – cut off from the internet by the cost of connections and computers. Many of these will be elderly, disabled and isolated.
This is why this dispute is not a rerun of the past and we are seeing some revival in
support for those taking industrial action.
Despite the prevailing move to the right in British politics, the significant level of support for the Leeds bin strikers against the Liberal Democrat/Tory council has taken many local politicians by surprise.
Similarly, the post office workers' attempts to prevent job cuts and a deterioration in service has generated sympathy outside the natural supporters of the labour movement.
The post office delivering mail to your home from the other end of the country, holds a similar place in the hearts of middle England as the NHS.
The circling vultures of the private mail and courier companies do not conjure up the same image to the general public. They do not fit into our heritage or conjure up cartoon characters that remind us of our childhood.
But how does the union win, or even draw, the dispute?
The various wildcat strikes across the country in recent weeks have already played havoc with the post – some estimates suggest that up to 20 million letters and parcels may be sitting around in warehouses waiting to be delivered. The Communication Workers Union is now proposing to follow an official route but also one that is very traditional – they are balloting their 100,000 members on a national strike.
The central problem for the CWU is that strike action will lead many customers, particularly businesses already battered by the recession, to seek alternatives. Sympathy alone will not prevent custom being lost.
So how can a trade union defend the interests of its members without escalating the decline of its own service? That is the question that Billy Hayes and the executive of the CWU need to answer. It is also one the whole trade union movement needs to address because defeat for the CWU will mean big problems for the rest of the TUC. There is a wider issue here than a single dispute in a single trade union. While there are some signs that the recession is slowing, job losses will continue. There will be further cuts in public expenditure which will traditionally show themselves in redundancies.
This is not just a disaster for those individuals concerned and their families – it is a potential disaster for the whole of our society. Yes, the public sector may become leaner and
meaner, but efficiencies
made there will result in additional costs elsewhere. The increase in benefits, in ill health, in rising crime, in reduced contributions, will mean those costs will have to picked up somewhere else. Inevitably that will mean increased taxation, direct and indirect, for those of us lucky enough to remain in work.
So, what kind of society do we want to live in? One where profit is more important than public service? Where we prefer to throw people on the scrap heap than keep them in work?
Where those in work have to pay more to support those who are out of work?
This is not just a debate for the trade unions, but for society
as a whole.
Email to a friend
Print this page- Leeds lose Ward to Palace: Is there anyone they can afford now?
- Sheffield Wednesday leaving it late to hijack Leeds United over Ward
- As Snodgrass dithers over Leeds, Warnock throws a lifeline
- Ball is in Leeds United’s court over contract - Snodgrass
- Police turning blind eye to Asian voter fraud, says MP
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Yorkshire
Saturday 26 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 8 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 17 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 13 mph
Wind direction: East
