Advertisement

People and Privatization

Human Resources Strategies in Postal Reform
  • Mary S. Elcano
  • Robert A. F. Reisner
  • R. Andrew German
  • Margaret P. Crenshaw
Part of the Topics in Regulatory Economics and Policy Series book series (TREP, volume 41)

Abstract

Much dialogue and analysis has chronicled the economic, business and financial aspects of postal reform. Depending upon the country, reform has included privatization, liberalization and deregulation. The impact of reform on human capital has not received nearly as much attention or analysis. What effect has reform had on the number of employees now working for postal administrations? What is their status-civil servants or private sector? Have compensation and benefits remained the same? Has productivity increased or decreased? How have labor and management relations evolved?

Keywords

Human Capital Labor Relation Mitigation Strategy Conjoint Analysis Postal Worker 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Australia Post. 1999. A Guide to Using Worklife Initiatives. Google Scholar
  2. Australia Post website. URL http://www.auspost.com
  3. Australiasian Business Intelligence. Nov. 18, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. Bundesverband Deutscher Postdienstleiser eV, email to authors, April 26, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. 2000. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY79). Press release, April 25.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, Robert H., Edward H. Chu, William W. Ferguson, and Spyros S. Xenakis. 1997. “A Cross Sectional Comparison and Analysis of Productivity for 21 National Postal Administrations.” In Managing Change in the Postal and Delivery Industries,edited by Michael A. Crew and Paul R. Kleindorfer. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, Robert H., William W. Ferguson, John D. Waller and Spyros S. Xenakis. 2000. “Universal Service without a Monopoly.” In Current Directions in Postal Reform,edited by Michael A. Crew and Paul R. Kleindorfer. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Deutsche Post website URL http://www.dpwn.com
  9. Deutsche Post World Net, Interim (Annual) Report 2000. Deutsche Post AG, Headquarters, Corporate Communications. 53105 Bonn. Germany.Google Scholar
  10. Elcano, Mary S., R. Andrew German, and John T. Pickett. 2000. “Hiding in Plain Sight: The Quiet Liberalization of the United States Postal System.” In Current Directions in Postal Reform, edited by Michael A. Crew and Paul R. Kleindorfer. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. FORTUNE.com, atGoogle Scholar
  12. www.for..///indexw.jthml?_DARGS=%Flist%2Ffrg_cust_rank_g500.jhtm.Google Scholar
  13. Hebdon, Bob and Peter Warrian. 1999. Review of “Coercive Bargaining: Public Sector Restructuring Under the Ontario Social Contract, 1993–1996.” In Industrial & Labor Relations Review 52 (no. 5, January): 196–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Horst, Brand. May 1998. Review of “World Labour Report: Industrial Relations, Democracy, and Social Stability, 1997–98.” In Monthly Labor Review. Vol. 121. n.5. (4446).Google Scholar
  15. Kikeri, Sunita. January 1999. “Labor Redundancies and Privatization, What Should Governments Do?” Public Policy for the Private Sector, Note No. 174. The World Bank Group.Google Scholar
  16. Klein, Michael and Neil Roger. November 1994. “Back to the Future: The Potential in Infrastructure Privatization.” Public Policy for the Private Sector,Note. 30. The World Bank Group.Google Scholar
  17. La Poste Group Annual Report. 1999.Google Scholar
  18. La Poste website. URL http://www.laposte.fr.
  19. Lerman, Robert I. and Stefanie R. Schmidt. August 1999. “An Overview of Economic, Social, and Demographic Trends Affecting the U.S. Labor Market, Final Report” The Urban Institute, Washington, DC, for the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy.Google Scholar
  20. Marshall, Rice. “Conjoint Analysis.” URL http://www.yorku.ca/faculty/academic/mri??/index/docs/conjoint.htm.
  21. Megginson, William L., Robert C. Nash, and Matthias van Randenborgh. 1994. “The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: An International Empirical Analysis.” Journal of Finance 49(2): 403–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Merriden, Trevor. 1999. Review of “Europe’s Privatized Stars.” Management View 88 (6): 16–23.Google Scholar
  23. Montreal Gazette. 1997. “Labour Movement Starts to Flex its Muscles.” Dec. 20. National Research Council. 1999. Executive Summary. The Changing Nature of Work: Implications for Occupational Analysis. National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  24. Nellis, John. 1994. “Is Privatization Necessary?” Public Policy for the Private Sector, Note No. 7. The World Bank Group.Google Scholar
  25. New Zealand Post website http://www.nzpost.net.nz.
  26. Nightingale, Demetra Smith, and Nancy Pindus. October 15, 1997. “Privatization of Public Social Services: A Background Paper.” The Urban Institute, for the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  27. Ottawa Citizen. 1991. “Postal Showdown.” Aug. 28.Google Scholar
  28. Price Waterhouse. February 1996 Update. A Strategic Review of Progressive Postal Administrations: Competition, Commercialization, and Deregulation. For United States Postal Service.Google Scholar
  29. PricewaterhouseCoopers and James I. Campbell, Jr. 2000. “A Review of Postal Laws in Leading Postal Reform Jurisdictions.” Presented at Conferencia Latino Americana de Companias Express: 2–31.Google Scholar
  30. Rama, Martin. 1999. “Public Sector Downsizing: An Introduction.” The World Bank Economic Review 13. (1): 1–22.Google Scholar
  31. Responses to Authors’ Survey on Postal Reform and Human Capital, Australian Postal Corporation, March 2001 and April 2001; Canada Post Corporation, March 2001 and April 2001; Consignia, April 2001; Deutsche Post World Net AG, March 2001; La Poste Group, March 2001; New Zealand Post Enterprises Group, March 2001.Google Scholar
  32. Smith, Vivienne. 1997. Reining in the Dinosaur: The Story behind the Remarkable Turnaround of New Zealand Post. Wellington: GP Print.Google Scholar
  33. Standeford, Dugie. 2001. “Pitching Public Service.” Government Executive Magazine. GovExec.com. March 1.Google Scholar
  34. The Christchurch Press Company Ltd. 1996. “Suspended Posties Picket Mail Center.” Sept. 21.Google Scholar
  35. The London Independent. 2000. “Secret Strike Puts Britain’s Mail in Chaos.” June 4. TNT website: http://www.tntpost.com/www.english. Google Scholar
  36. “TPG at a Glance.” 2000 TPG Annual Report.Google Scholar
  37. UPU. “The UPU and Its Members: Status and Structures of Postal Administrations.” Australia, France, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand. www.upu.int. Google Scholar
  38. Verma, Anil, and Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld. 1996. “Workplace Innovations and Systems Change in the Government Sector.” In Public Sector Employment in a Time of Transition, edited by Dale Gelman, Morley Gunderson, and Douglas Hyatt. Madison, WI: Industrial Relations Research Association.Google Scholar
  39. Xylo. 2000–2001. Work/Life Trends. From PricewaterhouseCoopers Survey, 2000 and Ask the Children 2000 Study URL http://www.xylo.com/trends.htm
  40. Zumwinkel, Klaus. 2001. “Deutsche Post World Net in Transition.” Presented at U.S. National Postal Forum, Orlando, FL, March 26.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary S. Elcano
    • 1
  • Robert A. F. Reisner
    • 2
  • R. Andrew German
    • 2
  • Margaret P. Crenshaw
    • 2
  1. 1.Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLPUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Postal ServiceUSA

Personalised recommendations