Jackson forces home Post Office bosses charter

Scan page 11

At the annual conference of the UPW last week, by far the most important issue fácing postmen and PHGs was local productivity, under the name of "improved working methods"

The debate took place on Tuesday morning when Tom Jackson moved support of the Jackson claimed it was "an experiment" (3 months) from 1 June, and was far and away the best deal in the Post Office. It would, he claimed, stand alongside any other deal in outside industry.

This deal was concluded some months ago between the UPW London LDC3 and the London Postal Region, with every encouragement given by Jackson and the UPW HQ.

In the past, LDC 3 has been in the forefront against local productivity, reinforcing that policy with annual conference agreement year after year.

The so-called improved working methods" contain everything which previous conferences have rejected-local productivity and work measurement studies.

Rather than eliminate what Jackson calls "overtime kings"it will put greater pressure on rank and file members to work overtime in order to meet management targets.

Do "an Edwardes"

The axeman Keith Joseph's threat to breach the GPO letter monopoly and the Post Office's determination to do "an Edwardes" were the main reasons that Jackson advanced the deal for acceptance.

Joseph It must be remembered that Jackson once stated at a previous conference that he would "sooner have a smaller well paid workforce than a large low paid workforce."

The first amendment, a composite of nine, called for the rejection of the report and was moved by East 3 District Council (Essex) and seconded by London NWDO No. 1 Branch (a member of LDC 3).

Support came from Croydon, Manchester, Burnley, Jackson OC EACH HER TO DOR OLD LEN JOLIDAYS! Stroud, Orkney, Warrington, Oxford PHG, London SEDO No. 2 (also a member of LDC 3) Uttoxeter, St Austell and Liverpool.

In a debate that lasted for over two hours, twelve spoke in favour of rejection and 14 in favour of local productivity.

The main argument for rejection, quite rightly, centred around the point that productivity leads to lost jobs and loss of future job opportunity.

Others showed that it was against UPW policy and would have an effect on future pay Jackson in replying to the debate said that those who rejected local productivity had "paraded petty points" and were "doing a grave disservice to members, to a great public. service and to the public they served."

Under the deal, he claimed, the overtime kings will suffer while those who do average overtime will benefit by increased pay (through loss of jobs) and more leisure time.

The amendment was defeated by 6,510 to 5,064 on a card vote.

The report was later accepted.

The defeat of the amendment represents a major setback for UPW members and the trade union movement as a whole.

The Post Office is delighted with the decision because it can exercise the maximum pressure on local branches to lose jobs without compensation, or to join the scheme and still lose jobs.

It will certainly cause divisions among the branches of the UPW, which in turn may make it easier for the Post Office and Jackson to hammer futher cutbacks later.

Jackson, in his opening speech to conference on Monday had cried crocodile tears over Tory policy and unemployment reaching 2 million.

But at the same time he spoke of UPW members entering a productivity agreement designed to lose jobs.

Such hypocrisy runs right through the higher echelons of the trade union and Labour movement.

If the Tories want to break the letter monopoly and cream off the profitable sections in the major cities they will do soproductivity or not-unless we are prepared to fight by all out strike action.

The Post Office is to be split, in fact it is already split into two sections.

The Postal side will have to go it alone while the highly profitable telecommunications side will be divorced from the Post Office next year, putting it in an ideal situation for stock market sharks to buy shares to cash in on the rich pickings.

In preparation for the official split the UPW rushed out a special report dealing with •Telecommunications Restructuring" just one week prior to conference.

The debate on this crucial issue took place on Friday morning with delegates only receiving amendments the day before.

The main argument put forward for acceptance of this shabby deal was that it was in the best interests of Telecoms members ánd it contained a 327 pay increase from April 1. The pay date is July 1.

Two amendments calling for rejection of the report were withdrawn.

Janice Stone moved the composite , which sought to defer the report "to be the subject of a special telecoms conference to be held not later than November 1980."

The main reason she cited was the rushed nature of the report-which hadn't given branches the time to consider its contents. The question of the 32% was a carrot which was not acceptable.

The agreement contained 17 commitments and by far the most controversial was the third, which states "to reduction of complement wherever improved efficiency allows this to be achieved without incurring redundancies."

Rebuffed

The UPW EC was rebuffed however in the final vo ›te which went in favour of reft irring the issue to a special confe: 'ence.