Slashdot Mirror
UK Gov't Outlines Plans To Privatize Royal Mail
Ellie K writes "After 500 years, Britain announced plans to fully privatize Royal Mail today. Shares of stock (common equity) will be offered to the public 'in coming weeks', according to Reuters. 10% of shares will be given to current Royal Mail employees, Deal size is estimated at $US 3 to 4.7 billion. Goldman Sachs and UBS were chosen as lead advisers." That doesn't mean you'll be able to buy a piece tomorrow, though; as the BBC's report notes, "The plans have provoked strong opposition from unions. The Communication Workers Union (CWU) is currently balloting members on strike action. Ballot papers are due to go out on 20 September to 125,000 Royal Mail workers. The earliest possible strike date would be 10 October. Plans to privatise the 250-year-old postal service have been on successive governments' agendas since the early 1990s."
The RM has already been broken up and sold off in stages, each made worse:
- PO Telephones became British Telecom became British Telecom Plc. in the '80s.
- Post Offices are barely even owned by one company any more, with each outlet acting as an independent contractor.
- Much of the post is processed by private firms which get the profitable work, while RM is stuck with the last mile, and all the unprofitable routes.
- All the above has meant typical public-private partnership inefficiency, such that the price of sending letters has gone up recently way above the rate of inflation - with special increases in the last two years to reflect fattening of the cow for sale.
Just another ideological move by a country slipping down into oblivion. Will make a few people rich, though. I expect China will be interested in a piece of the pie - it's been buying up a few British infrastructure companies recently. They know how to manipulate "capitalism" all the way to the bank.
I wonder how much of that money generated by the government, which it doesn't need, as it's obviously not spending more than it gets from taxes, will be distributed to each citizen.
I'm sure a simple division of the three billion dollars among the population would work, but maybe they come up with a distribution strategy that gives more to those who have less.
Things will likely go the same as with every other UK public service that has been privitized: The service will get worse, costs for consumers and end-users will go up, fewer workers will be paid less, but some 'top executives' will be brought in to 'clean things up' and make a mint.
This plan is corruption at its most horrible. Activate the usual propaganda merchants to persuade everybody the government has a good plan for how to improve a public monopoly service, sell off the public asset to private entities, let politicians earn massive fees (bribes!!), increase prices charged to the public, cut costs thus boosting profits but decreasing the quality of service to the public, publish tons of fake statistics proving how much better it all is now, etc. We've seen all this nonsense before. The train services in Britain are outrageously expensive (compared to cars, planes, and buses), often late, usually dirty, with an aggressive security force with police powers of arrest. Thirty years ago, the public monopoly train service in Britain, called British Rail, offered a much cheaper, and more reliable train service to the public. Prices of many ordinary train tickets bought at the counter or automated ticket machines for journeys at peak times were less than 20% in real terms of the current equivalent ticket prices charged by the private companies who now greedily charge whatever they like. There is no free market. For most journeys, you simply cannot choose which train company to use. Similarly at whatever level of granularity they choose to convert it into private companies, the home-delivery portion of a postal service is a natural monopoly, especially in the more isolated, rural locations. During the last five or so years the public postal service in Britain has been the victim of a disgraceful government push to deliberately degrade the quality of the service, e.g. by encouraging a 50% increase in postal loss rates, so that when private companies take over, they can easily demonstrate an improvement. Etc etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_Postal
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
I can't decide if this is a stupid troll or some clever analogy to selling Royal mail. You know, something along the lines of "asking a bank to help hurting yourself by doing something really stupid"
bickerdyke
Follow the money: from whence comes cash the proponents of this collect? If only I'd been in on a stake in "Railtrack", the company which got to own the tracks the broken-up British Rail trains would run on with no requirement to actually maintain them.
In 2006, the US Congress passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act", which mandated $5.5 billion per year to be paid into an account to pre-fund retiree health-care, 75 years into the future.
Since none of USPS's competitors (Fedex, UPS etc) are required to do this, USPS has essentially been setup to fail & then be privatized.
tl;dr the mail is an essential service and natural monopoly which shouldn't ever be privatised.
One of the things I've never understood about these privatization deals is that people think it will save taxpayers tons of money. The simple truth is that some public goods should be provided by non-profit or state-owned companies simply to maintain the level of service.
An example from the US is the Postal Service vs. FedEx, UPS, etc. The private delivery services have squeezed every single nickel out of the process of delivering packages, and one of the ways they do this is cherry-picking the easy services to perform. They also charge a lot of money for this service unless you're a big company with a better contracted rate. Anyone can get a package from New York to Atlanta overnight . It's very different when an organization has a mandate to provide affordable delivery of letters from anywhere to anywhere in the US for the cost of a stamp. I can mail a letter from Key West, Florida to Prudhoe Bay, Alaska for 46 cents - that doesn't even cover the fuel required. FedEx and UPS don't directly deliver to areas of the country where it's not cost-effective to do so. The Postal Service has a Constitutional mandate to do this, so it has to be inefficient by nature. Since I'm not a business, I usually use the USPS to ship stuff just because the walk-up rates are way cheaper than FedEx, and now they even offer cheaper rates if you pre-pay the postage online. The USPS is under pressure to keep these rates low, has a huge workforce to pay, and has a congressional mandate to prepay their retiree medical and pension costs
There's plenty of other examples. Electric and gas utilities have to provide service at a cheap enough rate so almost anyone can afford it. Amtrak in the US has to run very unprofitable long-distance rail service and subsidize it by using the money it makes from its Northeast and California rail services.
The other thing to consider is employment. Especially now, given the fact that suitable jobs for the majority of the population are going away with no replacement work on the horizon, we need to find something for people to do. A privatized postal service will lay off everyone but the bare minimum number of people to keep the lights on, and outsource all the business processes to cheaper countries in the name of cost savings. This is where my "lefty socialist" tendencies kick in - Do we really want a world where 5% of the population are fabulously wealthy, 15% are working in jobs like IT, engineering, and others, and 80% have nothing to do and no prospects? Remember, the seismic shifts in employment last time generated better jobs. Subsistence farming went to organized agriculture, then mechanization of that caused a shift to factory work, then outsourcing of that caused a shift to service and paper-pushing jobs, now outsourcing and obsolescence of that leads to.....hmm....there's nothing for Joe Average to do anymore and a well-protected aristocracy with no incentive to help. That's a recipe for French Revolution 2.0.
I know economic theory isn't on my side, but I think monopolies are more efficient at delivering some types of services than others -- not from a dollar perspective but from a service delivery perspective. It may be more expensive, but think back to how reliable AT&T phone service was back before they were broken up. It was expensive, but it almost never went down. Obviously this doesn't apply to all goods and services, but those that have to be universal and cheap are not good candidates for privatization IMO.
As i understand it, the EU issued an edict that all postal services must be privatized, and this is just Parliament doing what the EU told it.
So aside from the long list of epic failures, privatisation works very well in the one or two companies that aren't a disaster.
By that reckoning the Soviet Union worked very well because they were awesome at rocketry and chess.