#1Jun 6th, 2009
I was looking at the post office union web site and found this.
Will the price of a stamp be cheaper under a private post office?
Will the mail get delivered any quicker with a private post office?
I guess Canadians will find out.
At least the Conservative party is consistent with their goals to privatize the Canadian government.
I guess Canadians will have to learn to sing a new anthem; “Oh, say! can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming;
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight”
You have to admire the Americans, they’re country at least they’ll defend their citizens and keep their country together while our Canadian government wants to privatize the government for sale to the highest bidder.
Oh Canada why aren’t you standing on guard for thee.
http://www.cupw.ca/index.cfm?ci_id=11744&la_id=1
Letter to Rob Merrifield, Minister of State of Transport - Re: Response to he report of the Canada Post Corporation Strategic Revi
May 14, 2009 - 17:00
Strategic Review of Canada Post / Letter
Rob Merrifield
Minister of State of Transport
Place de Ville, Tower C, 29th Floor
330 Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0N5
Dear Mr. Merrifield:
Re: Response to the report of the Canada Post Corporation Strategic Review
I would like to thank you for meeting with representatives of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) on May 7, 2009 and for listening to our views on the report of the Canada Post Corporation Strategic Review (CPCSR).
As you know, there was not enough time at the meeting to adequately cover a number of recommendations. As such, I thought it would be useful to put our initial response to major report recommendations in writing. As well, the union has a number of questions relating to the report.
From our point of view, the report contains both positive and negative recommendations.
Deregulation: CUPW is very pleased with the recommendation to not deregulate public postal services.
Competitive Services: Likewise, the union is happy to see the recommendation that Canada Post continue to provide competitive services and that it should leverage its networks and develop new revenue streams. This is a far cry from the last review of Canada Post Corporation (CPC), and it is good to know that there is general agreement that our public post office is a viable and important endeavor.
Postage Rate Cap: The union also supports the recommendation to increase the rate cap from 2/3rds of inflation to at least the full rate of inflation. As you know, Canada Post currently has one of the lowest basic postage rates in the industrialized world as a result of the cap. However, the current cap does not reflect real cost inputs and has hindered the corporation from making necessary investments in service and infrastructure. While no one welcomes prices increases, we hope the government will see its way clear to making this important change.
Universal Service Obligation: We do not have a problem with the recommendation to have a service charter defining standards for delivery, retail services and so on, so long as those standards are reasonable and so long as there is adequate public consultation on the standards. Of course, we have some concerns about including the reserved area that is covered by the exclusive privilege in a charter which is up for review every five years.
Would it be possible to obtain the study that was produced for the review, “Universal Service Obligation and Other Public Policy Analysis - Study 1”?
International Mail: The union is not pleased with the recommendation to remove outbound international mail from the exclusive privilege. We find it very odd that there is a recommendation on this issue but no analysis relating to international mail in the report.
Rural Mailboxes: It is also apparent that the CPCSR advisory panel did not spend much time looking at the rural mailbox issue, or they would have realized that their recommendation is likely to create as many safety problems as it solves. This is a hugely important issue for many people and we would like to have the opportunity, at some point, to talk with you or your representatives and make a few suggestions for solving this problem.
Employee Share Ownership Plan: We are adamantly opposed to the recommendation that the government allow Canada Post to introduce an employee share ownership program. The report talks about this recommendation as if it is just another employee engagement program. It is not. It is partial privatization. Shares are shares, no matter who owns them. We are actually very surprised to see that the advisory panel violated its mandate not to consider privatization by making this recommendation.
Third Party Review of Collective Agreements: We are opposed to the recommendation to have an independent third party review existing collective agreements.
Modernization: CUPW understands that Canada Post needs to invest in new facilities and equipment. Given that the advisory panel is recommending that the corporation be permitted to borrow up to $1.7 billion to invest in new technology and infrastructure, it should be noted that Canada Post has paid over $1 billion in taxes and dividends to the federal government in the last 10 years and that this money could have been used to invest in new technology and infrastructure.
CUPW would like to stress that postal workers need to see that they benefit from Canada Post’s investment in a modernization program. Modernization will affect almost every one of our members, sometimes in very negative ways. For example, new letter carrier sequencing machines will likely mean more time on the street for letter carriers and more injuries. Canada Post already has one of the highest injury rates in the federal sector and this rate has actually worsened under CPC President Moya Greene. It is absolutely essential that Canada Post implements modernization in a way that eliminates adverse effects and ensures that employees receive their fair share of the benefits of automation.
Rural Postal Services: We fully support the recommendation to include rural postal service in the USO but we have some very serious concerns about the recommendation to replace the current moratorium with new rules and procedures, such as allowing
Canada Post to replace public post offices with private outlets and establishing a new definition of rural. The moratorium, as we know it, is not designed to simply protect rural service. It is designed to protect public postal service in rural and small one-post-office towns.
Municipalities are passionate about their public post offices. They participated in a rebellion against post office closures and conversions (i.e. from public to private ) in the late 1980s and early 1990s, which resulted in the current moratorium on post office closures in rural and small towns. And they have subsequently done everything in their power to maintain and improve public postal service.
What is the government’s initial response to the service charter proposal, which would allow Canada Post to replace public post offices with private outlets?
What is the government’s initial response to establishing a new definition of rural?
Partnerships: The report recommends that Canada Post partner with other firms and/or competitors. It is not entirely clear what the advisory panel is recommending. Do they mean public-private partnerships or the kind of partnerships that Canada Post currently has?
Governance: We are still assessing the recommendations on governance.
The advisory panel recommends that the Minister responsible for social oversight interact directly with Canada Post on regulatory or social matters, but it is not clear how this Minister or the government would interact with the public and other stakeholders.
Would it be possible to request clarification on this matter?
Strategic Review every Five Years: We have no problem with the recommendation that the government conduct a strategic review of Canada Post every five years so long as the government takes steps to ensure that future reviews are more accountable and more transparent than the 2008 strategic review of Canada Post. As you know, the government refused to hold public hearings in connection with the review. The public – the people who own Canada’s post office –were given a little over four months, which included the summer, to send written submissions to the CPCSR. Many people did not know a review was taking place. It would be fair to say that the vast majority of stakeholders who made submissions heard about the review through communications from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. In contrast, a similar review in the United States (US) held four public hearings.
I understand the government intends to take time to review the report and engage in consultations before it comments on CPCSR report recommendations.
Would it be possible to get an understanding of who will be consulted, and in particular, whether the government intends to consult with municipalities?
I would like to thank you again for meeting with us. Please feel free to contact us at any time if you have concerns or questions relating to the union, its members and public postal service.
Yours truly,
Denis Lemelin
National President
cc:
National Executive Committee
Regional Executive Committees
National Union Representatives
Regional Union Representatives
Specialists
CUPW locals
David Christopherson, MP
Mario Laframboise, MP
Joseph Volpe, MP
John Baird, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities
Andre Morency,ADM, Corporate Services Group, Transport Canada
