Not just one day

Let's assume that all the work we are doing for a good "YES" vote in the pensions ballot pays off.

On the 30 November 2011 more workers will be on strike than have been in this country for 85 years.

However, as our General Secretary, Dave Prentis, has repeatedly made clear to UNISON's National Executive Council (NEC) - we cannot expect the Government to withdraw their attack upon our pensions after just one day of strike action.

It is certainly true that we cannot expect movement from the Government ahead of any strike action, and the impact of 30 November will depend entirely upon its success. However, if we are realistic, we must realise the need to prepare for further action after 30 November.

There will be a debate about whether "SMART" industrial action, rather than further all-out national action, will deliver results for us. It won't. It can't. We will reach that conclusion (though we need to continue an open and inclusive debate so that, when we do, everyone owns that decision).

There may be a debate about action short of strike action. That debate won't get far.

There may be a view that we should have "Regional" days of action. We shouldn't. Four or five multi-Regional strike days won't have a greater impact than a single UK-wide strike day.

However, after 30 November, we won't be talking about single days any more.

Once three million workers on strike have changed the conciousness of the entire country, we will (t the least) be planning for a swift escalation of discontinuous all-out national action.

Dave Prentis has made clear that we cannot expect to take just one single day of strike action and then to win. In the conduct of the dispute which will write his history he is absolutely right.

Unite in unison to defend pensions

Our sister union UNITE has produced an excellent leaflet which explains to private sector workers why it is in their interests to support the fight by public sector workers to protect our pensions.

This is a good example of the positive role which can be played by a union with a majority private sector membership in support of its own public sector minority – and the many other public sector trade unionists.

The pensions dispute is all about trade union unity. It needs never to be about attempts to grow one union at the expense of another, and I am sure that comrades in UNITE’s United Left will heed the message from UNISON comrades that we none of us need any “poaching” of members from one union to another. The working class cannot be strengthened by workers moving between trade unions!

The Coalition government is a good example of the willingness of our opponents to unite against us. The trade unions need to demonstrate the same unity if we are to win against them. Workers won’t tolerate any attempt by paid officials to put the interests of one union ahead of another at a time like this!

Strike on N30. March on N30!

Having already played a leading role in the strike action on 30 June, which began to win the pensions argument against the Tory led Government, the National Union of Teachers were quick off the mark to support the call for action on 30 November, made by our General Secretary, Dave Prentis, at the TUC (http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/13857).

I was therefore pleased to learn today that the NUT will support a strike day demonstration through Central London on 30 November. This will make it inevitable that such a demonstration will have TUC backing, which is a good thing since a London demonstration will be a vital ingredient in maximising the impact of the first day of action in the pensions strike campaign of 2011/12.

With all due respect to comrades in other Regions (many of whom are rightly proud of higher union density and stronger union branches than we have in the south east), major demonstrations in Glasgow, Manchester, Cardiff and Birmingham will lead regional news bulletins - but an impressive mobilisation in Central London on 30 November (of which we are more than capable) will help to capture national headlines (and magnify the media impact of local and regional mobilisations elsewhere).

We can't send every activist on a march on a strike day - some must keep picket lines going where this will be useful, and others must support lunchtime protests at hospitals by unions (like the Royal College of Nursing) who are not - yet - ready for a strike ballot.

However, if we are balloting 1.1 Million of our members with a view to winning this dispute (as I believe we are) then we have to show that, when it comes to campaigning and industrial action, UNISON can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Our members in London (local government at least) will certainly expect (and attend) a Central London demonstration on 30 November. This need not be counterposed to support for local ralles - particularly where this will draw in unions unable to ballot for action on the day.

However, there can be no doubt that there must be a significant London demonstration on 30 November, as there most certainly shall.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Have confidence to take action

One consequence of UNISON organising the largest co-ordinated strike ballots in the history of the country is that tens if not hundreds of thousands of members are receiving ballot papers for the first time in their lives.

And they are therefore reading, for the first time, the statutory form of words which such ballot papers must bear, which warn that strike action is a breach of contract.

This has, of course always been true. There is no legal "right to strike" and - until the introduction of the legal concept of "unfair dismissal" in the 1970s, strikers could (legally) be dismissed on the whim of the employer (as workers generally could, albeit with a right to notice pay if they weren't in breach of contract by striking).

Once unfair dismissal law arrived, employers wishing to sack strikers could only protect themselves from claims of unfair dismissal from the sacked strikers if they dismissed all of them and did not re-engage any for at least 90 days.

As the anti-union laws of the Thatcher - and Major - years tightened their grip, this protection was restricted only to workers taking lawful official action, in respect of which the union had complied with all the new legal requirements in relation to balloting and notification.

New Labour introduced further protection for official strikers, removing the "sack them all" option for employers initially for eight and latterly twelve weeks from the commencement of action. Even after these periods the employer would only be safe from unfair dismissal claims if they could show that, before dismissing every striker, they had taken reasonable steps to resolve the dispute.

The recent introduction of the eight - and now twelve - week "protected period" has created a new dilemma about how to communicate with members in dispute when these periods expire, a subject addressed recently in more than one official UNISON dispute and to which I will return in future posts.

However, the answer to the question "can I be sacked for striking on 30 November is an unequivocal "no".

The anti-union laws require individual postal ballots in order to depress both turnouts and voters, confronted alone and in the privacy of their home with the question "do you want to breach your contract?"

We need to give members a sense of our collective strength to empower them to vote "YES" and to give them the confidence to take action on 30 November and beyond.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Getting the vote out - and arming the members with the arguments

We are presenting our arguments against the Tory cash grab on our pension funds well (http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=2488) - the long term consequences of pushing more workers on to means tested benefits in retirement do indeed drive a coach and horses through the Government's case.



The key task of the moment is to ensure that these arguments are in our members' minds as they cast their votes. For those of us in the LGPS, the joint union "myths exposed" leaflet (www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/19834.pdf) is a brilliant tool - and using it alongside the generic "vote YES" materials adds value to the work of getting the vote out, as we begin to arm our members with the arguments they will need to participate in the widespread discussion of the merits of our case which we can anticipate in the run up to 30 November itself.



I have distributed hundreds of these leaflets in the past couple of days and have never known a better response from our members. Non-members are joining in order to strike.



Regular readers (Sid and Doris Blogger) may have noticed an absence of world-weary cynicism in recent posts. I'm afraid I have been overwhelmed by enthusiasm.



Our most active and committed members are voting "YES" right now, the lesson of the turnout in the NUT ballot (which was continuous throughout the ballot period) is that we must keep up the pressure over the next fortnight.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Selective action and silver bullets

As ever Gregor Gall is thought-provoking in his contribution to the necessary debate on tactics for the defence of public service pensions - in which he argues that the current experience of the dispute over attacks on pay and conditions in Southampton Council demonstrates that "selective action" is no "silver bullet" (http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/10/southampton-smart-strike-union?cat=commentisfree&type=article).

We should welcome this contribution to a vital debate, even while perhaps questioning the use of the "bullet" metaphor in relation to a dispute with a Council Leader not averse to wrestling armed men to the ground (http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/08/submarine-shooting-sentry-murder-hms-astute?cat=uk&type=article).

We need a considered and informed debate about tactics for this dispute - and that means we must be free from the preconceptions of those (such as the now largely apolitical CPBML)(http://www.workers.org.uk/) who believe that mass action has had its day and smart action is the only way. Equally though we mustn't fall into the trap of discounting selective action completely, as some on the left may do.

Gregor makes, in my opinion, a couple of errors - both of them about a strike I was part of 22 years ago. The 1989 NALGO pay strike was won not only with escalating all-out action, but also with targeted selective action by key workers on strike pay at the rate of "full take home pay." This shows that UK trade unions have sometimes been prepared to pay high levels of strike pay - and that selective action can, in principle and in certain circumstances, be an effective tool.

UNISON has paid strike pay at that rate in several disputes since vesting day in 1993, but the experiences of the London Weighting dispute of 2002/3 and the 2002 national local government pay dispute both illustrated the greater limits placed on the utility of the tactic of selective action in an era of lower union density and greater privatisation.

Even before 1993 NALGO had learned, in the London Borough of Newham, how expensive it could be to go down the "full take home pay" road in a local dispute. NALGO branches had more money and autonomy than UNISON branches - and I led strike action on "full take-home pay" twenty years ago. Today barely a handful of our branches have the resources to sustain this approach and fewer would be wise to do so.

I think I broadly agree with Gregor's thesis that selective action won't be what wins the pensions fight, in spite of his misreading of 1989. I think our most experienced officials share that view.

However many activists, particularly in health where there has not been national action for a generation, have not been through the experiences which have persuaded that the tool of selective action is now so blunt. Our leadership must therefore continue to sponsor the debate in which Gregor Gall has made a welcome intervention.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Lazy Tory journalists misfire first shot in the war on unions

Obviously readers of the Torygraph have low expectations of their journalists, given that today's "exclusive expose" around trade union facility time in the public sector is based upon the simple expedient of Freedom of Information requests (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8815280/Taxpayers-pick-up-68m-bill-for-thousands-of-union-reps.html).

Another reason why the journalists involved in reading and summarising replies (which cost taxpayers money to provide) will probably not win any awards is that they are simply repeating a piece of work which the Tax Dodgers Alliance rather grandly refer to as "research" on the same subject (http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/campaign/2011/10/victory-campaign-stop-taxpayer-funding-unions.html).

Indeed the Torygraph itself published a similar story a little over a year ago (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7981717/Taxpayers-spend-millions-paying-for-trade-union-activities.html) so it's hard to see why today's story is "news".

I suppose the issue of attacking trade union time off is now exciting Eric Pickles in a way that perhaps it wasn't a year ago (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/275380/End-to-taxpayers-footing-union-bill). That's because the unions are sticking up for our members to defend our pensions from the Government of which Pickles is part (and in relation to local government, his department has just published their plans for the theft of £900 Million a year).

The Torygraph jumped the gun last year but have now found their moment. It's nice that, at the same time as they provide ammunition for Ministers to attack our unions, they also get to demonstrate the "green" credentials of today's compassionate Conservatism by recycling a year old story as if it were news. It's just a shame they have so little understanding of employee relations that they make such a hash of it.

If public servants were as lazy as Torygraph journalists, or had such low standards, maybe the latter-day Poujadistes of little England would have some cause for concern.

As it is, whilst the shoddy journalism of one Tory rag may count for little, we can expect a gathering crescendo of anti-union vitriol (bankrolled by people with pensions far more generous than ours) as we gear up for action on 30 November.

Dave Prentis has - as Nick reports online at http://lawatwork.blogspot.com/2011/10/question-on-tu-facilities-statement-by.html - rebutted the attack on trade union time-off. We mustn't let lazy right wing journalists distract us from mobilising to get the vote for action.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

The cost of Option Two to members of the LGPS

Further to the last post these are the Government’s proposed contribution increases under Option Two (before tax) to save £300 Million annually by 2014/15;

These are the changes to the accrual rate under Option Two;

It is proposed that the balance of £600m would be achieved by a change in the Scheme’s accrual rate from the current 1/60th to 1/67th with effect from 1 April 2014.

For future service from 2014 onwards each year of service would be worth 1.49% of final salary on retirement as opposed to 1.67% as at present.

This reduces the value of future service for pensions purposes by 10.8% (that means that for a given amount of service and a given final salary, your pension – in respect of future service – will be 10.8% lower than it would otherwise have been.)

An employee at the top of Scale 6 in Inner London would, by 2014, be paying 15.4% more to earn 10.8% less pension than at present in respect of future service (representing about one quarter (25%) less “value for money”).

Obviously the best way to present all of this information in an accessible way would be for there to be an online LGPS pension calculator on the UNISON website, ideally before the ballot papers go out on Tuesday...

The cost of Option One to members of the LGPS

Whilst the pensions dispute is indeed about a lot more than "contribution increases" (which are in reality a tax on public servants saving for retirement), yesterday's publication of the Government's two options for the immediate future of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) does enable us to see the scale of that aspect of the attack upon our pensions.

These are the contribution increases under Option One (before tax) to save £450 Million annually by 2014/15;

These are the changes to the accrual rate under Option One;

The balance of £450m in this case would be achieved a by a stepped change in the scheme’s accrual rate from the current rate of 1/60ths to 1/64ths with effect from April 2013 and to 1/65ths with effect from April 2014.

This means that for future service from 2014 onwards each year of service would be worth 1.54% of final salary on retirement as opposed to 1.67% as at present.

This reduces the value of future service for pensions purposes by 7.8% (that means that for a given amount of service and a given final salary, your pension – in respect of future service – will be 7.8% lower than it would otherwise have been.)

An employee at the top of Scale 6 in Inner London would, by 2014, be paying 27.7% more to earn 7.8% less pension than at present in respect of future service (representing about one third (33%) less “value for money”).

In the next post, I will look at Option Two in the same way.

The pensions dispute is about more than "contribution increases" and that's why we need a pension calculator

I hope that, now that the Government have published their proposals for the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) UNISON will now publish a pension calculator to show the impact of the proposals on our members. This impact goes beyond the increase in contributions, which is dealt with in our NHS pension reckoner.

If we focus only on "contribution increases" (more properly described as an extra tax on public sector workers who choose to save for their retirement!) then we will give lower paid members the wrong message - that the Government's changes won't hit them.

The lowest paid fifth (19.28%) of LGPS members in England, Wales and Northern Ireland don't face a contribution increase from the current proposals and the next quarter (25.2%) who earn up to £19,400 (full-time equivalent) will see an increase from 5.9% to 6% in April 2013.

As our leaflet to our Scottish local government members (none of whom face a contribution increase straight away) makes clear - this dispute is about much more than the immediate reduction in pay caused by the Government's cash grab on our pension schemes.

Those who aren't going to be asked for more money from their pay packets immediately, whether because they work for a Scottish Council or because their full-time equivalent pay is below £15,000, still face a significant reduction in their pension because of Government policy which UNISON opposes.

• The CPI Cash Grab
  

The first element of the reduction in pensions, which applies regardless of current or future income (and to the whole UK) is the switch from uprating by the Retail Price Index (RPI) to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). On average, you might expect CPI inflation to be roughly 0.5% to 0.75% a year below RPI inflation (Source: BBC), so the difference is small in the first year, but large over a period of time.

Take, as an example, a scheme member retiring in the summer of 2001, ten years ago, on a small (but higher than average at that time) pension of £4,000 pa and look at what happens to their pension depending upon whether it is uprated on 1 April by RPI or CPI (in the previous October) over the next decade (source: Hampshire CC);

Date (April)	RPI (Oct) %	Pension £	CPI (Oct) %	Pension £	Difference £	Cumulative £
2002	1.6	4064	1.2	4048	-16	-16
2003	2.1	4149.34	1.4	4104.67	-44.67	-60.67
2004	2.6	4257.23	1.4	4162.14	-95.09	-155.76
2005	3.3	4397.72	1.2	4212.08	-185.64	-341.4
2006	2.5	4507.66	2.3	4308.96	-198.7	-540.1
2007	3.7	4674.44	2.4	4412.38	-262.06	-802.16
2008	4.2	4870.77	2.1	4505.04	-365.73	-1167.89
2009	4.2	5075.34	4.5	4707.76	-367.58	-1535.47
2010	-0.8	5075.34	1.5	4778.38	-296.96	-1832.43
2011	4.5	5303.73	3.2	4931.29	-372.44	-2204.87

The difference in the uprating on 1 April 2002 would only have been £16 a year, or 0.4% of the pension. However, by 1 April 2011 our notional pensioner would be £372.44 a year (or 7%) poorer, and over the decade s/he would have lost a total of £2,200 (or 4.75% of the pension they would otherwise have received over the period).

Since the gap grows with time, and since we hope to live for more than ten years after retirement, the eventual loss, which depends upon exactly what happens with the two indices as well as how long a pensioner lives is estimated to amount to a lifetime effect of 15-20% of the value of the pension.

Since we are opposed to the shift from RPI to CPI and are challenging it in court, we can sensibly include this aspect of the Government's assault on our pensions in a pension calculator and should do so, just as PCS have.

• The accrual rate rip-off
  

The second issue which will reduce the pensions of all, regardless of earnings, will be changes to accrual rates.

We can also now illustrate the impact upon future pensions of the two different proposed changes to accrual rates announced yesterday by the Government. Those who are shielded from an immediate "contribution increase" (pension tax) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland because they are low paid are in fact only being protected from one half (option one) or one third (option two) of the Tory cash grab on the LGPS, because the detrimental change to accrual rates, which aims to cost local government workers £450 Million (option one) or £600 Million (option two) will impact upon all scheme members regardless of earnings.

The impact of the change to accrual rates will be greater the younger you are, assuming that pensions earned by past service are protected. The impact is certainly not negligible! Take, for example, a 53 year old who will retire at the age of 66 in 2024 ten years after a change from the current 1/60th accrual to the much less favourable 1/67th accrual, on a final salary of £25,000.

Those ten years of service would have contributed £4,166.67 towards their annual pension based upon 1/60ths but will contribute only £3,731.34 based upon 1/67ths, leaving our future pensioner worse off by £435.33 a year (or £36.38 a month). Assuming that our pensioner lives for eighteen years after retirement, and that pensions increase by an average of about 2.5% a year over that period, the lifetime loss would be a little under £10,000.

This change in accrual rate in option two would reduce the amount of pension earned by every year of service by more than 10%, and therefore reduce the value of any given pension by 10% in respect of future service, on top of the reduction in the value of pensions already caused by the change in the uprating dealt with above.

Those at the bottom of the income distribution in local government may not be asked to pay more out of their monthly pay to stay in the pension scheme, but they face a reduction in the value of their entire pension of between 15% and 20% because of the change in uprating and - in option two - a reduction of more than a further 10% in respect of future service. This reduction can realistically be calculated on the basis of reasonable assumptions and presented to members in a pension calculator.

• The pension age theft
  

The third and final aspect of proposed changes which can be anticipated and calculated, and which will hit all scheme members regardless of income, are the proposed changes to the pension age. A realistic assessment of the likely future actuarial reduction for, what will become, "early" retirement at 65 can be taken into account in a pension calculator.

For all these reasons, I hope that we will soon see comprehensive pension calculators on the UNISON website. The maths is a bit time consuming - but it's not rocket science (or you wouldn't be reading about it here!)

The pensions dispute is not just about the impact on individuals - our pension schemes are powerful expressions of our belief in collectivism and in caring for each other, and perhaps the most important of all the threats to the LGPS is the collective, possibly existential, threat to the pensions fair deal.

However, when individual members face up to the individual decision to vote in an individual postal ballot (and deal with the prior decision to find and return the ballot paper) it will do no harm if we can direct those members to an online calculator which shows them what the Government wants to steal from them.

How would you like to be mugged?

The mantra of choice in public service provision has now gone so far that the Coalition Government are offering local government workers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland a choice of two different ways in which we can be ripped off to the tune of £900 Million!

The statutory consultation document which was published yesterday includes Options One and Two.

On this menu of robbery we can either have £450 Million taken off us now in increased contributions, with reductions in the accrual rate which will reduce the value of the pensions we will be paying more for by a similar amount, or we can get away with the theft of a mere £300 Million from our pay packets to fund pensions from which, by a greater change in accrual rates, £600 Million would be stolen.

UNISON were rightly quick off the mark to condemn these proposals - now we need to produce the pensions calculator which will enable members to see what each of Options One and Two would mean for them.

With ballot papers due to hit doormats in the coming week, the timing could not be better. Rather than choose between Option One and Option Two - I shall vote "YES" for action on 30 November and beyond.

Islington Council supports “Local Government workers defending their pension scheme”

Well done to Islington Labour Councillors for moving and supporting the following motion, which has just now been passed by a full council meeting.


I hope other Councils will follow suit. I also look forward to seeing other UNISON branches along regional and national Labour Link committees using this as a model motion to ask other Local Councils and Labour Groups to pass.


Support for the Local Government Pension Scheme


Council notes that the LGPS is a sustainable, good quality pension scheme that benefits from being funded and locally managed. It is valuable to employers and employees alike.


Council is concerned by proposals announced by the Chancellor in the last CSR to impose an extra 3.2% contribution tax on scheme members, increasing scheme average member contributions from 6.6% to 9.8% and notes that none of the additional revenue will go towards improving the financial security of the scheme and that in addition, research indicates that 40-50 per cent of affected members may opt out of the scheme as a result of this policy, thereby undermining the viability of the largest pension scheme in the UK. Current Government proposals are not a genuine attempt to make the schemes more sustainable, they are a cash grab by the Treasury, imposing an additional tax on workers.


Council notes that public service workers have suffered an ongoing pay freeze, widespread redundancies and cuts and closures of many vital services on which our communities rely.

Council further notes that the LGA wrote to the Chancellor on 16 February 2011 to express concerns that mass opt-outs would be both undesirable and damaging to the scheme – Council shares these concerns.


Council is disappointed that the Government has failed to negotiate fully and openly with the Trade Unions and regrets that the Government’s intransigence has increased the possibility of industrial action. Council notes that the trade unions and community groups have agreed to organise local and national protests in support of public services, jobs and pensions. Council agrees to support the work of the Trade Unions in raising awareness of this issue and local government employees in defending their pension scheme.


Council resolves to ask the Leader to write to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury within the next month to express Council’s concerns and urge the Government to rethink their proposals.

Osborne at the Barbers?

I have yet to write up my report of yesterday's meeting of UNISON's National Executive Council (NEC) - although as ever these days an official note from the meeting is already online (http://www.unison.org.uk/news/news_view.asp?did=7264).



In a thorough and comprehensive report on pensions one thing we weren't told, perhaps because it wasn't known, was that TUC General Secretary, Brendan Barber, had been in Manchester having talks with Government Ministers (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/union-bosss-private-talks-with-ministers-to-avert-mass-strikes-2366148.html).



It is, of course, in the job description for the role of General Secretary of the TUC to seek out unnecessarily shabby compromises, just as it is integral to the function of the post to seek to demobilise unions heading for action and to derail unity when that unity is around a fight with the Government.



The problem isn't how the Government announced their proposals (without consultation) but what their proposals are. The solution isn't a different way of "slicing" the £2.8bn Treasury raid on our pensions - it is it's elimination. It doesn't resolve a vicious attack to have it "phased in."



Thankfully, the TUC General Secretary is not in charge. Our General Secretary said yesterday that if we see any flaking away of support we just have to be strong.



Regions are being asked to feed in views about future tactics - beyond 30 November - and our bargaining position(s) and therefore, whilst the number one priority is getting a massive YES vote, branches should also feed views via Regional Service Group Committees.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

A report of something that didn't happen at the UNISON NEC meeting today

I will be doing a proper report of today's UNISON NEC meeting, and in particular in relation to the pensions dispute. Briefly, however, I will note something that was absent from today's meeting.

There were no new questionable disciplinary investigations.

Indeed the (confidential) disciplinary report was the shortest it has ever been.

Whilst past injustices remain (and should not be forgotten) it would appear that there are now, "no enemies in this hall".

For the coming months our enemy is the Government and we are united in confronting them.

Far far lower than vermin

Among the regulations up for graps in the Tory "red tape challenge" are the regulations which limit the working hours of children (http://www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/employment-law/compliance-and-enforcement/).



The reactionary audacity of this Government knows no bounds - it's not just the Welfare State they want to eliminate - now they want shot of the nineteenth century Factory Acts (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_Acts)!





Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Camden branch kick off their campaign for a "YES" vote

I was pleased to have been invited yesterday to speak at Camden UNISON's Branch Meeting (where their new website - http://camdenunison.org.uk/ - was on show).



The well-attended meeting voted unanimously to work for a "YES" vote in the pensions ballot - and to call for clear objectives for, and accountability from, our leaders.



Branch meetings are, in many cases, the best way to reach and enthuse the most committed and engaged of our members - which will be vital to securing the high turnout which we want in the ballot.



Good luck to all those organising meetings over the coming days and weeks.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Much lower than vermin

As well as bringing forward proposals to double the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims and to introduce fees for employment tribunal claims, the Tories (with the eager support of their "Coalition Liberal" stooges) have renewed a focus on employment law as part of their "red tape challenge". (http://www.redtapechallenge.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/themehome/employment-related-law/).



Bizarrely, among the Regulations singled out for consultation are the Unfair Dismissal and Statement of Reasons for Dismissal (Variation of Qualifying Period) Order 1999, Since these regulations reduced the qualifying period of continuous employment to bring a claim of unfair dismissal from 24 to 12 months (a step that the Government have already announced that they intend to reverse) it is difficult to believe in the genuiness of this "consultation."



Nevertheless I think that union activists need to engage in this "challenge" in order to rebut the arguments of those who believe that bad management practice, with minimal rights for working people, is the way forward.



Always remember that the word "Tory" was originally an insult.



And that it still is.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

UNISON defending public services (in-house!)

Having just corrected the post below to clarify that the UNISON speaker at a Labour Party Conference fringe on "mutuals" made it very clear that the only circumstances in which UNISON might support co-ops would be to 'mutualise' personal assistants or privatised workers unlikely to be brought back in house eg home carers, I thought I would repeat the correction in a new post as the wording of the previous post could be misleading.

Mutuals may be better than outright privatisation - but are no substitute for proper in-house provision of public services.

This is of course consistent with UNISON’s policy of support for in-house service provision in the public sector, as expressed in our guide to procurement, as well as the justifiable caution about public service mutuals expressed by our Conference and reflected in our guidance on mutuals.

Mutual benefit?

I understand that the current Leader of the local authority for which I have worked for almost 25 years has been promoting the wonders of public service mutuals as a model for the delivery of services whilst at Party Conference, assisted in part by our own trade union.

Before we go much further down this road we need to heed the wise words of Paul O'Brien, Chief Executive of the Association for Public Service Excellence (http://opinion.publicfinance.co.uk/2011/08/mutuals-wheres-the-proof/) when he says;

"We need a proper evidence-based debate on the role that co-operatives and mutuals can play in public service delivery."

As the most enthusiastic advocates of "mutualisation" themselves acknowledge that the UK lacks the legislative and institutional support framework to enable the development of public service mutuals (http://www.uk.coop/press-release/uk-not-equipped-public-services-mutuals-says-new-review) any "evidence-based debate" must lead to the conclusion that hasty, top-down, attempts to drive transfer to "public service mutuals" would be a foolish abrogation of responsibility by elected local Councillors.

The funny thing is, as a local authority employee, I already work for the best sort of mutual - it serves, and is accountable to, all who live in its geographical area of responsibility, all residents - not just those who "join" something - get a say in who runs the organisation at regular intervals (which we call elections) and all its assets are the property of the community as a whole.

The task of Labour politicians is to defend public services - not to pretend that there is an alternative to this hard task.

Update on Thursday morning

I understand that the UNISON speaker who spoke alongside Lambeth's Leader (our national head of local government, Heather Wakefield) made it very clear that the only circumstances in which she/we might support co-ops wouldbe to 'mutualise' personal assistants or privatised workers unlikely to be brought back in house eg home carers.

Since I realise some could read the post above as suggesting some support from UNISON for Lambeth's "Co-operative Council" (which isn't the position) I thought I should correct that impression.

Labour must back the unions

Our General Secretary, Dave Prentis was clear and to the point in Liverpool today as he got a standing ovation at Labour Party Conference (http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=2454).

The Labour Party leadership need to show their support for the coming pensions action on 30 November. They need, as the Labour Representation Committee has argued (http://l-r-c.org.uk/news/story/towards-30-november-build-the-resistance/), to demonstrate to our members (whether part of the "squeezed middle" or, for that matter the "squashed bottom") that they stand on our side.

This is the decisive moment at which the Leader of the Opposition has to decide whether to lead opposition and - as I was saying the other day (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.com/2011/09/wanted-alternative.html) the answer to this question goes beyond the single issue of pensions.

The Coalition Government have taken sides - the Labour Opposition also has to take sides. For or against the welfare state? For or against dignity in old age for retired public servants? For or against workers prepared to make sacrifices to defend our interests?

The pensions struggle is shaping up to be the decisive battle of this Parliament. One lesson of the 80s is that the support of the Labour leadership (even in opposition) can still be significant and helpful (or perhaps the lesson, learned by the NUM, is that the absence of clear and unequivocal support from the Labour leadership can be very damaging).

Dave Prentis is therefore right to demand this support (we are, after all, having a "national ballot"!)

An important difference between now and the 80s is that we now have the leadership of the big unions united in support of action, to be taken across unions and sectors, with the support of the TUC.

We now have to deliver similar unity from the membership of the various unions - having been offered leadership we may have to show some "followership".

The most important single thing any UNISON activist can do just now is work to maximise turnout in the coming strike ballot.

For those involved in the Labour Party (whether as delegates or individual members) we also need to keep pressure on Labour politicians to back us, as early and with as much publicity as we can get!

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Balls

The Shadow Chancellor might have got my second preference vote in last year's leadership election had my children not pointed out that, unless he changed his surname he would never be taken seriously.



I don't expect any pangs of regret if, as reported today he tells Party Conference that "we will never have credibility unless we have the discipline and the strength to take tough decisions." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15054705).



You don't need a code book to understand what it means when leaders of an ostensibly Centre-Left party speak like that. The "tough decisions" he's talking about aren't the ones which would require "the discipline and the strength" to confront the wealthy and powerful.



The decisions are those which will be "tough" for the people for whom the Labour Party was created and upon whose votes it depends. Labour leaders invariably resolve the contradiction between representing the interests of working people and aspiring to manage an economy founded on principles inimical to those interests in favour of the system rather than the people - because they can't see the possibility of real change.



Trade unionists need to shed the social democratic blinkers worn by the Party leadership if we are to do our best in the coming confrontation with the Coalition.



UNISON's motion to Labour Party Conference - calling for support for our action on pensions - is far more important than whether the Shadow Chancellor is seen to have "credibility."



The job of an opposition is to oppose - and right now it's the trade unions, not the Party, who are doing that job.



If our economic system, with it's inbuilt tendency towards periodic economic crises, cannot deliver decent living standards, pensions and public services, maybe it is the system which should give way, rather than - as at present - our pay, pensions and services?



And if trade unionists arrive at that conclusion we need stronger links with those in the Party who think likewise (http://www.l-r-c.org.uk/).

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Employers' responses to the coming pensions strike

As union activists are gearing up to persuade our members to vote for and take strike action on November 30, our employers are responding also.

In local government this has taken the form of unilateral proposals from the employers to implement the Government's proposed £900 Million "pensions tax" on the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) (http://www.local.gov.uk/web/10161/media-releases/-/journal_content/56/10161/2875454/NEWS-TEMPLATE).

The local government employers, as custodians of a funded scheme which invests billions of pounds on behalf of 4.33 Million active, retired and deferred members, have tried to mitigate the worst excesses of the Government's proposals with a plan to increase our retirement age to 66 in 2014 to save money and to offer members a choice between contribution increases of up to 2.5% (from which only the lowest paid would be exempt) or a commensurate reduction in pension benefits (through a reduced "accrual rate") for those who cannot afford this significant drop in take home pay.

UNISON has been absolutely right - as have other unions - in refusing to endorse this attack upon the living standards of our members (now and in retirement) as it is only marginally less awful than that proposed by the Government.

At least the local government employers, having a visible stake in the management of a funded pension scheme, have sought to make their own proposals (however awful). The focus of the NHS employers has been on offering advice to employers on how to cope with industrial action (http://www.nhsemployers.org/Aboutus/Publications/Documents/Industrial_relations_guidance_080911.pdf).

This advice counsels employers to consider "if the unions may be acting unlawfully, whether the employer should take legal action to restrain the action" and although it goes on to hedge this advice about with qualifications which make clear that the authors do not advocate swift recourse to such provocative action anyone who has read (for example) the tribunal decision in the case of Yunus Bakhsh will know that there are NHS employers who might respond enthusiastically to any perceived encouragement to attack trade union activism.

The advice goes on to suggest that "employers will usually start from the position that partial performance of contracts of employment will not be accepted or paid." This position on the part of employers has - regrettably - support from the case of Wiluszynski v Tower Hamlets (which clarified employers' rights to refuse to pay staff carrying out only a proportion of their duties) - though whether health employers would send staff home without pay for refusing to carry out all their contractual duties is a practical rather than a legalistic question. SMART action may still - sometimes - be smart.

Nevertheless, the recent experience of our Barnet local government branch certainly indicates that we need to be prepared to escalate to strike action if the employer frustrates attempts at more limited action by relying on Wiluszynski.

As much as we see different responses, from our employers, to our threat of action, we need both unity and determination - and a preparedness to take the action which will have an impact - if we are to defend the pensions which were won for us by the struggles of former generations of trade unionists.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Vote "YES" - it's official

Official "vote YES" materials for the pensions dispute are now on the UNISON website - a leaflet (http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/20352.pdf) and a poster (http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/20354.pdf).



Branches will get bulk deliveries next week but every activist can start circulating these electronically now.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

NHS Pension - what you stand to lose

Members of the NHS Pension Scheme can now find out how much the Government's plans will cost you with UNISON's online calculator (http://www.unison.org.uk/pensions/reckoner.asp).



This is a powerful tool to persuade members to be prepared to take action on 30 November - and beyond.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Not in front of the members?

I recently read a report concerning a local authority, facing appalling reductions in funding, which was contemplating attacks on the conditions of service of its staff.

The Council made clear to it's trade unions that it was willing to negotiate, but only if they pledged to respect the confidentiality of those negotiations (by not reporting back to their members during the course of the negotiations and consulting them only when talks had reached a conclusion).

The union in this case, under the supervision of Regional officials, agreed to these terms. I think this was a foolish error, not so much because it was wrong in principle (though it was) but because it will weaken the union for no possible benefit.

In principle, those of us asked to negotiate (or more often these days, to participate in consultation "with a view to reaching agreement") owe a duty of transparency and accountability to the members on behalf of whom we negotiate. We need to consult and engage with members in order to set our bargaining agenda, which should be subject to scrutiny and democratic decision through our union structures. We need to continue that engagement throughout negotiations/consultation so that the priorities which we express are those of our members. We need to be honest and transparent with our members so that we, in turn, have a sense of our collective combativity to inform our stance in discussions with the employer. It may not be possible in every case to live by all of these ideals, but we should certainly try.

For those who prefer pragmatism to principle as a guide to action (and I see no reason not to like both) it must be clear that "secret talks" with the employer fly in the face of an organising approach to building the strength of a union to defend its members. The best point at which to mobilise and recruit is the point at which the union sets out its demands, whether for a pay claim or for the defence of pension rights, sick pay or any other condition of service. We know from historical experience that we recruit most strongly at those points when we are campaigning hard around demands which resonate with our members and potential members.

In the case of an attack on conditions of service at the level of an individual authority, this point of maximum advantage comes at the very beginning - and experience dictates that the more that we can do from that point to build union density and organisation, as well as the combativity of the workforce, the better (or less worse) the eventual outcome for conditions of service.

If, however, we were to respond to such an attack by trooping silently into secret talks, we could not give members the honest and accurate updates from discussions with the employer which would be a prerequisite for an organising campaign to defend conditions of service. This would in turn weaken our position as negotiators in our splendid isolation.

The end result of such secret talks would be a "final offer" which would leave the union in a double bind. Either the employers' final position could not be recommended, in which case we would have to mobilise members we had demobilised behind leaders who had just proven themselves failures in negotiations, or we would go out to our members recommending concessions as "the best that could have been achieved by negotiation" without having taken our members honestly and transparently through the process leading up to that conclusion. Neither case is a recipe for improving recruitment, organisation or member participation.

The real tragedy isn't so much that "secret talks" will invariably lead to less satisfactory outcomes, both for conditions of service and union organisation, than participatory and transparent discussions - it's that they are so easy to avoid.

Any employer contemplating changes which they know may lead to mass terminations to achieve contract change knows that they will have to comply with section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Taken together with relevant case law, the employer knows that they will have to consult, in the open "with a view to reaching agreement" with the unions - and that they will also have to consult individuals. A recognised trade union refusing to sign up to "confidential" talks would still have to be consulted with "with a view to reaching agreement" in any case.

None of this means that there is no place for "off the record" talks when the occasion demands, nor for the advance receipt of embargoed information, nor even for occasional formal discussions under "Chatham House Rules" - however these are exceptions to general rules about the democratic conduct of trade union business, requiring robust justification on a case by case basis.

Whoever signs up to "confidential" negotiations over attacks on conditions of service thereby signs away the effectiveness and independence of the union. That this may be the preferred approach for a branch under the direction of Regional officials is disquieting, to put it mildly.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Unacceptable injustice

For UNISON activists immersed in the daily grind of redundancy consultation and privatisation threats, and now tasked with mobilising for the beginning, on 30 November, of a decisive showdown with a hostile Government, it's hard to find time even to think about much else.

However, what is going on at Dale Farm, where families occupying their own land face forced eviction and homelessness (http://dalefarm.wordpress.com/) cannot be ignored.

Basildon Council claim that they are simply enforcing planning law to protect the green belt - yet it was they who first covered this patch of green with concrete (http://dalefarm.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/dale-farm-concreted-over-by-basildon-council/) and the site was a scrap yard before Travellers made it their home.

This eviction is a discriminatory act borne of prejudice.

I understand that the local authority has prohibited its own staff, including union activists, from speaking out about this matter - but the trade unions must not be silent in the face of such injustice.

It was good to see Rodney Bickerstaffe, our former General Secretary, put his name to a letter to the Guardian last week in opposition to this outrage (http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/14/resume-talks-dale-farm-evictions?cat=uk&type=article) - but the official Labour movement has been all but silent, though the Travellers have the support of many Labour MPs.

UNISON has no specific Conference policy which addresses the plight of Traveller communities, whose members are generally unlikely to be amongst the ranks of the organised working class.

Justice is, however, indivisible. Discrimination and prejudice invariably weakens our class, and at our best the trade union movement recognises both the duty and necessity to oppose injustice and oppression.

We do this though in a way which - because it is intended to be democratic - is sometimes frustratingly slow. A former General Secretary can speak out - and rightly has done - but a current official has to act within the policies agreed by the elected representatives of our members.

Whatever may take place at Dale Farm - and all socialists will wish those resisting the eviction well - we need now to ensure that, through the democratic structures of our movement, we adopt clear policies to defend the right of Travelling communities.

Our sister union, PCS, has stated that "PCS is supporting the campaign to stop the forcible eviction of residents from Dale Farm. We believe the removal would be a violation of human rights and an act of ethnic cleansing." (http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/pcs-against-racism-and-fascism/). UNISON needs to adopt a similarly clear position.

There are hundreds at Dale Farm, and there are hundreds of thousands of Travellers. We must find a way to offer the solidarity of millions of trade unionists.    

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Hang on, don't I recognise you?

Congratulations to UNISON's Plymouth local government branch, and to all the officials nationally and in the South West Region who have secured the (re)recognition of UNISON by Plymouth Council (http://www.unison.org.uk/news/news_view.asp?did=7215).



Trade union recognition is the cornerstone of sensible employee relations - and the basis of a raft of legal rights for workers and their representatives.



With a Government more reactionary than any in the last century intent upon rolling back the social gains of generations we cannot rule out that other employers may follow Plymouth's earlier error in the hope of neutralising organised opposition.



But they need to know that the response they will face from our movement will make the foolish tactic of derecognition more trouble than it's worth.



For our side, we need to seize the opportunity of the coming pensions fight to raise our membership density in every employer so that employers know that derecognition will be a futile fight against the majority of their workers.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Rally today against low pay

Today sees another step forward in the fight to secure a London Living Wage (LLW) for workers in the capital, and in particular in higher education institutions in Central London, co-ordinated by the useful and effective Bloomsbury Fightback (http://bloomsburyfightback.wordpress.com/).



To call for a September 2011 date for LLW implementation, there will be a rally at Senate House (Russell Sq carpark) at 11.30 on Wednesday 14 September 2011. 



Labour MPs John McDonnell and Frank Dobson will both be speaking. Organisers are hoping to get a big turnout to convince the University that NOW is the time to end poverty wages.



This is very much the sort of action which deserves full official backing from UNISON as it rightly focuses on the social responsibility of public institutions for ensuring decent living standards.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Back to the future in union-bashing Barnet

My thoughts are with comrades in UNISON's Barnet branch taking action today (http://www.barnetunison.me.uk/).



The branch has stepped up its long running official dispute with the privatisation-mad Tory Council, who have responded with a "lock-out"!



Workers called upon to take a half-day strike from 1pm today are to be confronted by managers and required to sign a document promising not to strike, or face being sent home for the whole day.



Barnet Council have obviously been reaching into the history books in support of their desire to restore nineteenth-century governance arrangements for the provision of public services - the signing of a notorious anti-union "document" was a key tactic employed against the Grand National Consolidated Trade Union (GNCTU) in the 1830s (http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/trade-us/document.htm).



Angry UNISON members need to face down the bully boy tactics of Tories intent on ripping up our Welfare state and destroying local government - and I hope many London UNISON branches will join Barnet at the lobby of Hendon Town Hall at 5.30 this afternoon.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Wanted - an alternative.

Not being amongst the much reduced UNISON delegation to this year's "TUC lite" I won't get to hear "BB" give his keynote address first hand - but I understand he'll echo the General Council's July statement by calling on us to build a "Movement for the Alternative" and asking for a modest levy to help fund this work (http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/12/brendan-barber-tuc?cat=politics&type=article).

What accounts for the poverty of the aspirations of the top of our movement, as they move backwards rather than forwards from March's brilliant demonstration, and wonder about raising a "fighting fund" one tenth the size of the fund already earmarked for campaigning by UNISON alone?

The unfortunate answer is that our movement has two wings, but only one of them is making any attempt to fly. The unions, the "industrial wing", have been promoting coherent alternative economic policies consistently since 2008 (think of UNISON's alternative budget for example).

However, what passes for the "political wing" of our movement - Her Majesty's Official Opposition - has been keeping its distance both from the policies needed to turn the economy around and - as on 30 June - the action required to protect the interests of millions of working people under attack by the Government of the millionaires.

The baleful influence of the dead weight of the Labour leadership (due to its failure to break from "New Labour") helps explain why the affiliated unions have been slower than some non-affiliated unions to take necessary action.

The Government has declared war on our movement and we need the whole movement to fight back.

That's the real significance of co-ordinating industrial action over pensions as, thankfully, it does now seem we will (http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/11/unions-strikes-pension-reforms-conference?cat=politics&type=article).

We cannot lawfully co-ordinate national strike action against job cuts (and even if we could, the uneven way in which cuts fall would pose great practical difficulties).

Even for those of in the third year of a pay freeze (and more than ten per cent worse off in real terms as a result) it does not yet seem that we can mobilise members around pay claims (which feel like "asking for more" rather than defending what we have).

The pensions dispute is our chance to inflict a defeat upon the Tory Coalition. If the Labour leadership support this struggle they can position themselves at the head of a movement which will be in a position to articulate, campaign for and win an alternative for our people.

Every Labour MP - every Party member - needs to support our unions when we are forced into battle to defend our pensions, because the outcome of this struggle will shape politics, and our economy, for some time to come.

Saturday's meeting of the National Committee of the Labour Representation Committee was right to give a high priority to lobbying Labour to back the unions on pensions.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

No one guilty?

No one (at least no police officer) is, apparently, in any way culpable for the death of Smiley Culture.



In other news, a statement from the Vatican, Papal Catholicism has been reaffirmed.



It appears that what bears do in the woods, the police are allowed to visit upon those in their custody.



Tomorrow's Morning Star says what needs to said;



"London's police have long been free to kill with impunity, from Harry Stanley to Roger Sylvester, Jean Charles de Menezes, Azelle Rodney and Mark Duggan. The Met's version of the events surrounding Smiley Culture's death is so bizarre as to be barely credible. We are asked to believe that he stabbed himself in the chest while making a cup of tea in the midst of a police raid on his home. On top of that we're asked to accept an astonishing situation in which the officers involved can choose not to be interviewed by the Independent Police Complaints Commission as they are not suspects."



(http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/content/view/full/109081?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)



As a public service trade unionist I have often represented public servants, accused of making a mistake, who have been held to account. Not every case leads to a just outcome, and sometimes there are outrageous witch hunts.



However, the total absence of any accountability of Metropolitan Police officers for questionable deaths in which the police are involved goes beyond fairness to hard pressed public servants. Indeed it undermines public confidence and therefore the whole basis of policing by consent.



UNISON, as the largest trade union, needs to take a stand for justice for working people. Our defence of the interests of civilian police staff cannot silence us in the face of this grotesque injustice.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Name and shame the guilty? Siobhain and Tom, I'm talking about you...

There are looters and then there are looters.

There are those who reach through shattered glass to nick a pair of trainers (can I admit to being so old as not to appreciate the attraction of footwear which aren't even proper shoes?)

Then there are those who profit from the privatisation of public services, extracting a surplus out of taxpayers' money and passing it on to shareholders. And those who help them.

I am not inclined to excuse either, but when considering a moral comparison I think the eighteenth century can be called upon to help.

"Tis bad enough in man or woman,
To steal a goose from off the common,
But, surely, he's without excuse,
Who steals the common from the goose."

That rhyme belongs to an earlier era of privatisation, when common land was enclosed in the interests of private profit - and against the interests of the mass of the population (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure). (Also see http://www.marxist.com/ArtAndLiterature-old/british_poets1.html).

Today's equivalent is the privatisation of public services - one pernicious variant of which is outsourcing. And this modern day enclosure of the commons of our public services has its Parliamentary champions - the All Party Group on Outsourcing and Shared Services (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/register/outsourcing-and-shared-services.htm).

The Chair of this gaggle of subsidised (by the outsourcing industry) privatisation-geese is some Tory you've never heard of - but it's Vice- Chairs are purportedly Labour MPs. One is Siobhain McDonagh (http://siobhainmcdonagh.org.uk/joomla_folder/) who apparently represents Mitcham and Morden.

Having (once) risen to the giddy hights of (very) junior ministerial office, Siobhain is now focused on helping shareholders to maximise value at the expense of taxpayers. Her only previous claim to anything other than the obscurity which is her destiny is for undermining the last Government by attacking the then Prime Minister in 2008.

The other Vice-Chair is an even more obscure Labour. MP with what seems to be a name made up for satirical purposes, young Tom Blenkinsop (http://www.tomblenkinsop.com/). Tom, perhaps sensing that he will never amount to much in the labour movement, has also hitched his wagon to the interests of shareholders rather than voters (such as those in Teeside who elected him).

At least Siobhain has the excuse of having fallen for Blairism when it wn fashion. Tom's excuse is a mystery.

The challenge for UNISON (and in particular for our terminally ineffective and hideously embarrassing " Labour Link") is what we do about MPs from a Party we fund jumping so enthusiastically into bed with people who want to attack our members and savage our public services.

There is an answer (http://www.l-r-c.org.uk/) but it's not one to which our leadership is (yet?) receptive. Supporters of the Morning Star need to reflect deeply upon how they relate to the leadership of our Union. Having supporters in leading positions is of little value if those supporters serve only to divide or hold back our struggle.

A hat tip to UNISON Anonymous for blogging before I did (http://unisonactive.blogspot.com/2011/09/privateers-back-all-party-group-so.html#more). (But, comrades, why do you pull your punches? I have seen you deploy real venom when criticising those you perceive as "ultra-left" but somehow you can't quite manage that when confronted with the open goal of Blairites sponging off our movement in order to get into a position to do us real harm. Shape up now my anonymous friends! We "trots" need you "tankies" to remember which side you're on in a fight with Tories - and sooner rather than later!)

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Privatisation will damage all our pensions

Full marks to Barnet UNISON for having commissioned a paper on the impact on their pension scheme of mass opt-outs. Even if lobbying from the Local Government Employers, and alternative cost-saving proposals, mean that we avoid increases in pension contributions in the LGPS on the scale threatened elsewhere in public services, outsourcing could still lead to massive reductions in the active (paying) membership of local authority pension funds.



Barnet’s paper shows how large scale privatisation of our jobs could push our pension schemes to a tipping point at which they begin to have cashflow problems, and have to adopt more cautious investment strategies (worsening existing deficits). The answer to this would be to require private companies bidding for our work to have admitted body status and to allow all their staff to be members of the LGPS.



This, however, would not permit privateers to profiteer by slashing labour costs, which is (essentially) the entire purpose of privatisation, whether in its “Tory blue in tooth and claw” form of Barnet’s EasyCouncil or its soft and fluffy New Labour version of Lambeth’s “Co-operative Council.”



Unless we secure a guarantee that private sector workers can stay in the LGPS – and that private contractors taking on LGPS members must match our pension provision pound for pound – we ought to be pursuing national strike action against the attacks on our pensions. This is the test which history has set for UNISON’s current national leadership and it will determine how they are remembered.



Why has the Barnet branch had to commission a paper which should have been prepared by and on behalf of the national trade union?

Congress - Unity is Strength...

The final agenda for this year’s slimline TUC is available online and, as ever, it is a veritable cornucopia of worthy sentiment. Delegates should emerge from Congress House on Wednesday 14 September supportive of trade union rights, opposed to cuts in public services and unemployment and generally thinking much as they did when they ventured into the building on Monday 12 September (although I notice that the Professional Footballers’ Association want our movement to back a single “Great Britain” football team in the 2012 Olympics – better read commentators will be able to identify whether this puts them on the same side as Lenin or Luxemburg in relation to the national question…)



Of the half dozen motions submitted on the question of pensions, which dominated last year’s Congress, UNISON’s motion does at least call upon the General Council to “support and co-ordinate close collaboration between affiliates in defence of schemes.” It is however left to PCS to place before Congress an instruction to the General Council “to give full support to industrial action against pensions cuts, including action planned for this autumn, and maximise its co-ordination.”



The General Council are rightly proud of the massive demonstration held on 26 March, and therefore go on some length about it in their Annual Report. For those who hoped that 26 March would be the commencement rather than the culmination of the efforts of the TUC, the report makes less than encouraging reading. The General Council have issued a statement, on 27 July, which is an elegant description of the diversity of campaigning activity underway up and down the country, and a plea for funds from affiliates to do more to co-ordinate this.



However, the General Council statement of 27 July doesn’t mention coordinated industrial action as any part of our campaign of opposition to the Government, even though the Coalition’s determination to attack public service pensions provides an unprecedented opportunity for just such united action. The Report of the General Council does find room to mention that “on 30 June, four TUC unions – ATL, NUT, PCS and UCU – took industrial action in response to the Government’s proposed changes to public service pensions. The action gained widespread media coverage and reports suggested that up to 750,000 teachers and civil servants supported the action. The Government’s claims that changes were driven by the issue of ‘affordability’ were clearly exposed during the media coverage on the day.” Strangely the General Council claim no credit for having helped to co-ordinate this action, perhaps because they didn’t.



At any event, any reader of pages 83 to 85 of the General Council report will realise that the authors consider the negotiations which the General Council have been coordinating are worthy of far more attention, although whereas a single day of action by four smaller trade unions clearly achieved some progress it is difficult to see what progress has been made in these negotiations.



The General Council acknowledged in their statement on 27 July that our movement can take the leadership of the fight against the Government’s cuts, but it seems that when we have the opportunity to use our power as trade unionists to resist the Government on ground on which it might be defeated, our leaders are less than willing.



Unity is needed every bit as much on the picket line as on the Olympic football field...

Solidarity with Plymouth

It's good to see comrades in Plymouth UNISON bearing up in the unprecedented circumstances of their derecognition by the Tory Council.



It appears that the Council have failed to meet a deadline to respond to UNISON (perhaps the Council Leader is too busy playing bowls to respond to European concerns about his Council's extremist policies?)



I suppose it is at least consistent with local maritime traditions for Plymouth Council to head off into uncharted waters by withdrawing recognition from the largest local government trade union, but its not a very useful way for grown ups to try to run a local authority. Presumably the brains behind derecognition had thought through the consequences of imposing a detriment upon people alleging unlawful discrimination - but maybe common sense will prevail?



Those of us elsewhere in the country can express our support on Facebook and by tweeting @plymouthcc telling them to restore recognition to UNISON.

Barnet Independence Day - 13 September

Barnet Council in North London has been trying to pioneer wholesale privatisation of Council services for several years now. Intelligent and committed rearguard action fought by the UNISON branch has, over recent months, taken the form of a rolling programme of selective industrial action which is now set to reach an important point on Tuesday 13 September – Barnet Independence Day.



Hundreds of Barnet UNISON members who have been taking action are set to strike together on this day in an important escalation of UNISON’s trade dispute with Barnet, which is over the identity of the employer of our members in future. Barnet UNISON members are fighting to remain in the employment of the very employer with whom they are in dispute – because they have a sound sense of their own interests and a laudable commitment to public service.

They make the sound point that it is important that many public services are independent of vested interests and are not best driven by the profit motive. Barnet Council on the other hand want to flog off anything that isn’t nailed down, and leaseback anything that is. They now prefer to call their plans “One Barnet” since earlier references to EasyCouncil have provoked well-earned derision. However, the driving force remains privatisation – so much so that options appraisal can be dispensed with as the Council moves straight to procurement.



There is of course nothing new about letting the private sector profit out of the need to provide public services - from the mid 1850s until the inception of the London County Council in 1889, London Government was in the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works, a joint board of indirectly elected representatives, with no accountability to the people of London generally, which was notorious for corruption in its dealings with the private sector.



The postwar development of a Welfare State, insurance against further reaching social change at a time when capitalism seemed to face a global alternative, has simply made for richer pickings for today’s public service “industry” to feast upon. Though since “we are all in this together” everyone has to make sacrifices – the Chief Executive of the Capita Group (Paul Pindar) had to make do with a measly £262,500 cash bonus on top of his £375,000 salary last year – with another £262,500 paid as a deferred bonus.



Mr Pindar’s company isn’t expected on Barnet Independence Day, but all those who care about the future of our public services can support the Barnet workers at a lobby at Hendon Town Hall from 5.30pm

Gazing up at another summit, selectively

Subconsciously it is clear that the leaders of our movement know that, in taking on the Tory-led Government's attack on our pensions, we have a mountain to climb. That must be what accounts for the rash of "summits" taking place just now.



Yesterday was the turn of the health sector unions to gather at UNISON HQ. Here - according to the Grauniad  plans were made to consider "smart" strike action.



This will obviously be a blow to all those who support action which is not "smart"...



More seriously, the exclusive and one-sided focus upon "targeted" or selective strike action reflects both a lack of confidence and the continuing debilitating effect of Labourism as an ideology upon our union movement.



Gail Carmail of UNITE is quoted by the Grauniad as saying "Gone are the days when you ballot members, take them out on a day's strike and have a nice rally."



Obviously this historical shift in the nature of industrial action in twenty first century Britain took place since the successful strike action on 30 June, which I recall the General Secretaries of both UNISON and UNITE lauding when it happened.



Alternatively, no such shift has taken place, and all-out action has its place in a sustained campaign of mass action quite as much as targeted selective action. The long ago lesson of Newham NALGO in the early 90s is that an employer facing selective action can always try to "up the ante" and the union needs to know that the whole membership can be mobilised in support of the selective campaign.



UNISON discovered the limits of selective action in the 2002 National Pay dispute and in the London Weighting dispute but these lessons are never even alluded to in public when pronouncements are made about our tactics.



Even if the pensions dispute is successfully broken up into its sectoral components (a recipe for less satisfactory outcomes in each and every sector) an exclusive reliance upon targeted selective action is not nearly as "smart" as its proponents, and their theoretical journal, like to think.



The least smart thing we are doing though is precisely the deliberate fracturing of our own unity by a focus on doing things "sector by sector". This doesn't just offend against the principle of solidarity by running the risk of a short-sighted "I'm all right Jack (or possibly Mark and Christine)" mentality, it also misses the point of the nature of this confrontation with the Government.



The law restricts the limited legal protection of our trade unions to action taken in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, so we have action around a trade dispute about our pensions.



However, this action takes place in the context of a war being waged upon our welfare state, a deliberate ideological offensive to roll back generations of social gains won by working people.



This political attack from the Government requires a political response from our side - and unified public-sector wide strike action would be a key part of such a response.



The reason why Ed Miliband, and those union leaders fundamentally on his wavelength, oppose such action is that it trespasses over the line between the "political" and "industrial" wings of our movement which is a central tenet of Labourism, the peculiar British form of social democracy which evolved in the last century.



As John Foster explained this in yesterday's Morning Star "one of the key objectives of the capitalist state in the 1920s was to get the Parliamentary Labour Party to agree that any sort of external trade union pressure on Parliament was "unconstitutional" - while that by banks and big business was totally normal and acceptable." Regrettably this objective was achieved to such an extent that, in my trade union, a motion put forward to our Conference calling for politically motivated industrial action against an unjust law would be ruled out of order (because all the main parties have endorsed legislation which removes all protection from trade unions taking such action).



Therefore, although our movement faces a wholesale political assault from the Government, our responses, hidebound by decades of tradition, will be to treat one particular element of this assault as if it were a discrete industrial dispute, or worse still a series of separate industrial disputes.



Unity is strength you see comrades, but it just isn't thought to be "smart" these days, at least, not up there at the summit.

Plymouth - reject an unjust attack

At least one of Plymouth City Council's Tory fools has decided to enter the record books for all the wrong reasons (http://www.lgcplus.com/city-council-derecognises-union/5033907.article).



The looney tunes fringe reactionaries seeking to dominate one of our south western cities have announced a decision to derecognise UNISON.



D'oh!



You can't manage an organisation of the size and complexity of a modern local authority without a cordial, professional relationship with the elected representatives of your workforce.



That certainly includes recognition of the largest local government trade union. Recognition is the cornerstone of the voluntary approach to industrial relations developed over generations - and if it were to be abandoned that would be a recepie for endless, expensive litigation..



Let's hope this purported derecognition is the action of an individual extremist and that the Council leadership can successfully distance themselves from this "Thatcher on speed" approach to employee relations.



We don't need unenlightened amateurs damaging local government in such difficult and challenging times.



UNISON members must also consider how ill-advised it can be to oust the leadership of a trade union branch on political grounds...


Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Sign up against the great pensions robbery

Older readers may remember that Robert Maxwell was a crook who stole from his employees' pension funds - but he had nothing on George Osborne who, within weeks of becoming Chancellor had raided the future pensions of millions of workers, in the public and private sectors, of billions of pounds we were counting on to see us through our old age. He did this by changing the future basis of uprating our pension benefits from the Retail Price Index (RPI) to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).



This dramatic move had been in the manifesto of neither party to the Coalition of millionaires - indeed it directly contradicted promises made by all three main parties before last year's General Election.



This was simply a massive transfer of future income away from future pensioners to the benefit of Government and employers (or class war to give it it's technical name...)



Estimates of the cumulative loss for those of us not yet retired range upwards from 15% (or almost one pound in every six which we had been promised for the rest of our lives).



This is one element of the Government's attack upon pensions which not only applies across the whole public sector but also unites public and private sector workers. It is a move they show no sign of even considering stepping back from.


This is an opportunity to try to use the e-petition site in the interests of working people rather than for reactionary knee jerk populism - the petition is at http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1535.



All trade unionists, and indeed everyone who believes promises should be kept, should sign!

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange