Skip to main content

Ofcom must be held to account

Royal Mail workers are right, Ofcom must be taken to court for its failure to protect the universal service obligation

THE Morning Star, in common with the Communication Workers Union (CWU) and huge swathes of public opinion, opposed the partial privatisation of Royal Mail.

None of us can remain neutral in the struggle to defend the service against the combined efforts of its competitors, Ofcom and incompetent ideologue Vince Cable.

The CWU call for a judicial review of Ofcom for failing to fulfil its primary statutory duty of protecting the universal service obligation (USO) is of vital importance.

One side-effect of the massive mobilisation against privatisation was that Royal Mail management and the government pledged to back USO.

Postal services are an integral part of Britain's social fabric.

Various nests of neoliberal zealots clustered in free-market think tanks rail against the provision of same-price mail delivery anywhere in the country as an unacceptable distortion of the postal market.

A market distortion it certainly is and all the better for that.

USO affirms the principle of social solidarity and builds on a centuries-old tradition to treat all citizens equally in terms of postal services rather than rationing their ability to keep in touch with family, friends and businesses throughout the state on financial grounds.

Ofcom is engaged in a unilateral assault against Royal Mail, accusing it of dragging its feet on modernisation and economic efficiency.

It is doing the dirty work of companies such as Whistl, which used to be the Dutch national carrier before privatisation, that are intent on cherry-picking postal services that pose least difficulty and offer maximum profits.

Whistl has set up just three delivery centres in London, Manchester and Liverpool and concentrates its efforts on "final mile" deliveries, which gives it a privileged position.

Unlike Royal Mail, it doesn't deliver to out-of-the-way addresses. Nor does it have to maintain the huge network of mail centres and vehicle fleets.

Despite having captured just 2 per cent of Royal Mail's share of the letters service so far, these conditions give Whistl a huge advantage, enabling it to make claims of commercial efficiency and profitability.

Such claims are echoed by Ofcom, which insists that Royal Mail must emulate the radical savings made by Whistl.

The greatest saving that Whistl has over Royal Mail is in the pay and conditions of staff.

When its TNT predecessor took part in delivery trials in west and south-west London, its delivery staff were on zero-hours contracts and were paid less than the London living wage.

Even now, Whistl chief executive Nick Wells boasts that they are all on "flexible" contracts, telling the Commons business, innovation and skills committee last week that Royal Mail should "improve their efficiency and modernise their labour relations policy."

No trade unionist will need a second guess to understand what Wells meant by that.

Royal Mail chief executive Moya Greene is convinced that, if Whistl and other privileged competitors are allowed to continue to whittle away at the national carrier's share, USO will become untenable.

Orange Book fanatic Cable derides this view, accusing Royal Mail of "scaremongering" and "whinging" and preaching: "They've got to compete."

Unfair competition is unacceptable whatever Ofcom and Cable might say.

Over two-thirds of people in Britain long for the day when Royal Mail is fully returned to common ownership, but until then we have a stake in preventing it from being hollowed out and destroyed.

Everyone should back the CWU call for a judicial review of Ofcom.

OWNED BY OUR READERS

We're a reader-owned co-operative, which means you can become part of the paper too by buying shares in the People’s Press Printing Society.

 

 

Become a supporter

Fighting fund

You've Raised:£ 13,288
We need:£ 4,712
3 Days remaining
Donate today