Confusion of the red-baiters

I am rather worried (in a charitable way) at the confusion afflicting the little-know “Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)” (who are not for one moment to be confused with the proper Communist Party) but who are sometimes to be found handing out a magazine at trade union events, or leaving copies lying around at Congress House.

In January, their journal “Workers” lauded (anonymously) the fact that “The unprecedented national stoppage of 30 November was the best possible riposte to the Coalition’s economic statement of 29 November. Two million workers striking, marching, providing emergency cover or showing solidarity with striking colleagues was a great uplift to the people of Britain. Over 30,000 people attended the central London rally. Across Britain thousands of picket lines and hundreds of marches and rallies proclaimed that organised workers still can and will act together.”

Yet, by April, the same freesheet had concluded that the Evening Standard of 1 December had been right that barely a million” had taken strike action, and went on to opine (equally anonymously) as follows;

“Barely a million – this was genuinely written as if to dismiss the biggest strike in a generation, when well over a million public sector workers took strike action to protect their pensions on 30 November. This was easily the biggest show of union strength since the “winter of discontent” and possibly since 1926.
But while the numbers are indeed impressive, and the attempt to belittle this demonstration of collective organisation ridiculous, another story is told if the number is converted into a percentage of all those entitled to take action.
Had the Evening Standard said only 35 per cent took strike action it would look quite different. A third take strike action doesn’t sound half as good as a million. So why is this important? Because 30 November was a paradox. On the one hand it was collective organisation in action, but on the other it showed that this action was not absolute, resolute or sustainable. The strike and its aftermath illustrate where unions are today.”

Whereas the conclusion of January had been that “We’ve already been forced to give our wages to the banks and now their government asks us to starve and freeze in old age. We need to wise up,” the conclusion of April was that “it is time to forget the fads and the political play fighting. Get back to the workplace. Build and develop solidarity at the most local level to the members.” This latter conclusion was based upon an uncritical acceptance of the figures used by our opponents, and an entirely downbeat assessment of the events of 30 November, completely at variance with the (rather exuberant) tone of the contemporaneous assessment of the day three months before.

Why should anyone care about the apparent degeneration of a political group noted mostly for its ferocious hostility to those whom it sees as “ultra left fantasists”? In part because they do occasionally say something sensible and give the appearance of being thoughtful about the trade union movement – but in larger part because I have the feeling that their pronouncements are a window into the opinions of some of those who (in our lay-led trade unions) don’t generally put their names to their thoughts.

The thing is, comrades, if your workplace is the Regional or national office of a trade union how can going “back to the workplace” serve to “build and develop solidarity at the most local level to the members?” And when you say that “Workers will organise themselves whatever we call the organisation.” – are you really sure that you mean this?

I’ll check back on the dear old CPBM-L next time I have some spare time. I really wouldn’t suggest anyone bothers with them whilst you have real trade union work to do (and those of us who are genuinely serious about building member-led trade unions certainly have plenty of that to be going on with).

Civil Service pensions offer - the best that can be achieved by negotiation?

Although UNISON is the dominant player in negotiations on the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) and is a key player in negotiations on health service pensions, we do also have a small number of members in the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme - and these members are being balloted on the Government's "final offer" (http://www.unison.org.uk/pensions/pages_view.asp?did=14198) on the familiar basis that this is "the best that can be achieved by negotiation." (http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=2656).

I can't remember seeing reported where an elected body within our Union had made decisions in relation to this ballot but - as that's doubtless the consequence of my inattentiveness and poor memory - I have asked the relevant questions and shall share the answers in due course.

I'm also intrigued as to how we have come to the judgment that the offer on civil service pensions is indeed "the best that can be achieved by negotiation."

Negotiations on the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme have taken place between the Cabinet Office and the National Trade Union Committee for the Civil Service which was formed when the former Council of Civil Service Unions was dissolved (http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/pcs_comment/index.cfm/id/AF7C15FC-61DD-4D0D-BE46703B8427D180).

When the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General reported to the House of Commons on the position of trade unions in relation to the civil service pension scheme on 20 December he said; "FDA, Prospect, GMB Prison Governors Association and the Immigration Services Union have agreed to take to their Executives as the best that can be achieved through negotiations. There is a specific outstanding issue relating to mechanisms for prison officers to retire earlier than state pension age where we are continuing to have discussions with the Prison Officers Association." (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm111220/wmstext/111220m0001.htm) He didn't mention UNISON.

The note placed in the House of Commons Library about the Civil Service scheme (http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03224) when it comes to report the response of the trade unions to the final offer, notes (at paragraph 4.3) that Prospect have agreed to recommend the final offer "as the best that can be achieved by negotiation" and that the managers' union, the First Division Association (FDA) have also concluded that this is "the best that can be achieved by negotiation", but that members of UNITE and PCS (which alone represents the large majority of unionised members of the scheme) have voted to reject. It doesn't mention UNISON.

Were we even present at any negotiations in order to conclude that their outcome was "the best that can be achieved"?

Why has UNISON arrived at the same conclusion as the Prospect/FDA minority and not the PCS/UNITE majority?

These aren't simply rhetorical questions, and their answers won't only relate to the pensions dispute.

There is only one other large, predominantly public service trade union with which we recently agreed a joint statement (http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/campaign-resources/pcs-and-unison-joint-statement.cfm).

As our General Secretary said of UNISON's alliance with PCS; "This is no paper policy, this alliance has teeth." (http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/news_centre/index.cfm/id/CAE1742C-7735-4BFD-ADEDBEF5EE73B3FE).

If UNISON doesn't build on the possibility of joint campaigning with our brothers and sisters in PCS they clearly have other options (http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/pcs_comment/pcs_comment_archive.cfm/id/9FBFFD72-7284-4FAF-81A810DE7FEBE412).

All of which leads me - in a convoluted way - to the conclusion that all those with an input to the prioritisation process for UNISON National Delegate Conference should prioritise Motion 11 on "Closer Working with the Public and Commercial Services Union" from the Kent Local Government Branch.

And, of course, I'll let you know how UNISON arrived at a conclusion about the civil service pension negotiations which is diametrically opposed to the conclusion of our allies in PCS - just as soon as someone tells me...


Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Further strike action over health service pensions

I am, as ever, indebted to a Ms Reissmann of "north of Watford" for reporting promptly that UNISON's Health Service Group Executive, meeting Wednesday, "were told. there is no NHS union which has any plans for further strike action (over pensions)."



Strangely, on the same day, I understand that Unite's Health Sector National Committee met and agreed to national strike action on 10th May as "the next step in the fight to defend our

pensions".



Also, as I understand it, our own members in the Scottish Health Service are engaged in a programme of strike action over pensions (http://union-news.co.uk/2012/03/unisons-strike-two-against-scottish-government-pensions-hike/).



Since the "final offer" on health service pensions is that our members should expect to pay more, to receive less, and to work longer, I can understand the position of UNISON's Scottish Health Committee, and of UNITE's National Industrial Sector Committee.



Someone told me that it would take more than one day of strike action to defeat the Government's attack on our pensions. I think they were right.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Mutual Disrespect

As one of those in our movement frequently troubled by the question; "The TUC - just what is it for?" I have to admit that the Touchstone Blog sometimes provides a positive answer.

A fine example is the recent post about the fate of public service mutuals (http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2012/04/mutuals-0-markets-1/). Let's be clear, the Government's spiel about mutuals is no more than dust kicked up around privatisation.

Only a fool would believe that the Tory Coalition Government gave a damn about co-operation (though there do seem to be some fools about!)

This is different in the case of some Labour Councils who may sincerely believe that "mutualisation" is a positive alternative to privatisation, which may even provide some protection from future privatisation.

From experience, I can say that "progressive" enthusiasm for mutualisation of public services is generally (and sometimes wilfully) ignorant. The genuine practical difficulties are consistently underestimated on a grand scale. The future risk of privatisation is also generally - and I fear wilfully - underestimated.

When the history of this decade comes to be written, I fear that it will be told that enthusiasts (http://www.co-operative.coop/corporate/Public-Service-Mutuals-/) for "public service mutuals" were no more than "useful idiots" (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot) for a Tory Coalition Government hell-bent on privatisation who were happy to borrow progressive clothes in order to achieve deeply reactionary ends.

It is important to understand what is at stake in the defining struggle of our generation. The social gains won by our grandparents - who compelled states established to reproduce the conditions of existence of a society founded on exploitation nevertheless to concede their responsibility for human welfare - stand to be lost on the altar of profit.

In this context, the froth of "mutuals" and "social enterprises" is - at (very) best an irrelevance and (more often) is a Trojan Horse for privatisation. We face the hardest years of our lives now to defend our public services. We won't do it by being "co-operative" I'm afraid.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

High pay, low pay, more pay

It happens that I work for the local authority that was the first to break the £100,000 barrier for Chief Executive pay (many years ago). With the requirement that all local authorities publish their pay strategy, and certain supplementary information, we all now know (or should know) what our Chief Executives earn - and also how many others are bringing in six figure sums (http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/localismseniorpay).

The requirement that local authorities publish such information is driven by a pernicious agenda of the "Tax Dodgers Alliance" who want to use the generous salaries of a tiny proportion of the local government workforce as a stick with which to beat the public sector and as false justification for spending cuts (which will, in any case, fall overwhelmingly on the lower paid). Trade unionists should be cautious about how we use this information for fear of adding fuel to a fire meant to burn our members' jobs and the services we work to provide.

Nevertheless, the coincidence of timing of the publication of this data with the miserable refusal of the local government employers - for the third year running - to make any pay offer can hardly pass without comment. Whilst the pay freeze may be across the board, its doubtless easier to make ends meet on a six figure salary (even if it's frozen).

The trade union side approach to the employers having once more ignored our reasoned claim for a decent, across the board pay rise, with a particular emphasis on the lower paid, represents something of a departure. Rather than a directly campaigning approach, we appear to be playing the (hitherto little used) "pitiable" card, as branches are being asked to request just the £250 for those earning below £21,000 (as suggested by the Chancellor but withheld by the local authority employers).(http://www.unison.org.uk/localgov/paycampaign.asp)

Appealing to the better nature of our cash strapped bosses in the hope of their pity seems something of a long shot - and we are dangerously close to undermining consistent national (or in London sub-Regional) pay spines. However, it's obviously worth asking an authority to cost the making of such a payment, if only to then compare it with what they're spending on salaries at the top of the income distribution.

Better pay rises (and greater pay equality in the long run) will both come only from building union organisation - and that will need a campaigning approach to pay claims as to many other issues. Which seems to me a good reason to support left candidates in the forthcoming elections to Service Group Executives (of which more later...)

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

LGPS - No news still not good news

Today's LGPS (Local Government Pension Scheme) "Protect Our Pensions" Bulletin 16 from the UNISON Centre reveals the following;

"Members and activists will be wondering where the negotiations over the LGPS have got to.... The joint negotiating team and the Governance and Administration sub groups have continued to meet on a regular basis, the most recent meeting of the negotiating 'Project ' team being this afternoon - Monday 2 April.

The negotiations are moving in a positive direction, in line with the agreed principles agreed before Christmas. However, it is obviously crucial that we ensure that every possible element of a possible new scheme is fully considered and that we explore all options in order to get the best possible deal for members. This has required a significant amount of work by actuaries and others and it is therefore not yet possible to produce final proposals.

We hope that we will be in a position to give you full details before the end of April so that the all-member ballot can commence around the start of May."

This (slightly) informative bulletin is only the tiniest bit confusing, since the last bulletin, released three weeks ago, told us that "The joint LGA - Trade Union Project Team which is negotiating over the LGPS from 2014 submitted outline proposals on 13 February to DCLG and the Treasury. Unfortunately, the government has not yet come back to us with a response to them and so there is nothing to report on the negotiations in today's newsletter. We are extremely disappointed at this and have made very strong representations to government over the unnecessary delay in our timetable. Our timetable is carefully detailed in the documents underpinning the negotiations at www.lgps.org.uk."

Since, as I understand it (and I'm relying on well informed readers who may wish to remain anonymous to correct me if necessary) the Government have still to respond to the outline proposals, I'm not sure that it's simply the workload of actuaries (and others) which means that " it is therefore not yet possible to produce final proposals."

The silence of this week's bulletin on the question of what the Government is up to is genuinely perplexing. Of equal concern is the non-sequiter contained in the sentence; "The negotiations are moving in a positive direction, in line with the agreed principles agreed before Christmas."

Since the "principles agreed before Christmas" included linking normal retirement age to the (now even more rapidly advancing) state pension age; a shift to career averages (contrary to Local Government Service Group Conference Policy) and acceptance that pensions in payment will be uprated in line with the CPI rather than the RPI I fail to see how this can possibly be a "positive direction."

All things considered I really cannot get too worked up about "the unnecessary delay in our timetable" whether this is due (as we were told three weeks ago) to Government delays or (as we were told today) to the enormous workload of actuaries (and others). As a rule, when the employers or the Government are about to do something like this to us, it's better and more comfortable if they do it more slowly.

As far as I can see, the only real imperative to getting a ballot of members underway before June's Service Group Conferences is to avoid the danger that Conference delegates might still be influenced by the dangerous rhetoric of the leftist speaker who said last year "to those who say 'name the day', I say a day won't be enough" (http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=2341). A lot of UNISON members still think he was right.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Mick Shaw RIP "an unsung working class hero"

Sad news today from the Fire Brigades Union (FBU) of the untimely death of former FBU President and long serving Executive member for London, Mick Shaw (http://www.fbu.org.uk/?p=5423).



I met Mick a few times through union and political activity and found him consistent, principled, clear-headed and likeable. He is a loss to our movement precisely because he gave so much and set such a fine example.



I couldn't put it better than John McDonnell who says, on the website of the Labour Representation Committee (LRC);



"Mick was one of the finest socialists and most selfless, dedicated trade unionists I have ever met. Firmly on the Left, for many of us he was an unsung working class hero." (http://l-r-c.org.uk/press/mick-shaw-a-true-socialist/)



(At that link you can see Mick speaking to the LRC AGM in 2009.)

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

No justice for workers

David Renton, in today's Morning Star, uses the occasion of the Coalition's latest attacks on workers' rights to expose the weakness of the employment tribunals as a means of obtaining justice for workers (http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/content/view/full/117306).



As well as itemising the pitiful median levels of compensation awarded to workers found to have been treated unlawfully by employers, he makes the point that the extreme rarity of orders for reinstatement has had a knock on effect on the chances of success at in-house appeals against dismissal.



This certainly reflects my experience as a lay trade union representative in local government. As recently as twenty years ago, appeals against dismissal, heard by Panels of Councillors, were successful about half the time. Now reinstatement (by a panel of senior managers) is a rarity.



The legal rights which the Coalition are pledged to undermine were built in the first place on the foundations of workplace trade union organisation. Employers, and Governments, conceded some limited rights to be treated fairly at work because our movement was strong.



The waning of justice at work has coincided with declining union density and organisation (except of course that it's not a coincidence).



It's that workplace organisation which we need to rebuild if we are going to resist the "hire and fire" workplace culture which the Government of Millionaires are seeking to foist on the millions.



We will, however, need to consider how we deal with the challenge of up front charges for lodging tribunal complaints. If a union backs a claim, believing it likely to succeed, workers will expect help to jump this new financial hurdle - and if we want to rebuild membership and organisation we need to deliver the goods when it comes to representation.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

UNISON's best April Fool?

A letter circulating in at least one Region, addressed to UNISON Health Branches, in connection with the forthcoming ballot on the Government's miserable "final offer" on the NHS Pension Scheme includes the following text;

"The SGE on 21 March, having overwhelmingly rejected a call that the union campaign against the proposals, decided to recommend to members that the offer is the best that can be achieved by negotiation.

This is SGE policy and it has been confirmed that it is NOT permissible for union resources to be used to campaign for rejection."

I am in awe of this elegant parody of the sort of correspondence which would be issued if our union were determined to deliver acceptance of a pension scheme which ensures that our members work longer and pay more to get less.

I am sure that the real letter, encouraging our branches to ensure that our members have access to all information and to more than one point of view so that we maximise the informed participation by members in this vital ballot, will be issued shortly.

In the mean time, though (and at least until noon today) full marks to those responsible for the April Fool's joke :)

(Because, of Course, our National Delegate Conference, in 2008, affirmed "the right of UNISON members, branches and other appropriate representative bodies to make and campaign within Rule for recommendations in member ballots.")

By George!

George Galloway was probably entitled to his charateristic hyperbole last night (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2122523/George-Galloway-Secures-shock-victory-Bradford-West-election.html). But whilst this may not have been "the most sensational result in British by-election history" (and may not have involved "the grace of God"), the victor said something serious when he said that "The people of Bradford have spoken this evening for people in inner cities everywhere in the United Kingdom."



For those who are more worried about worklessness than fiscal credibility, those on the sharp end of economic stagnation and social disintegration, for whom falling real wages are causing real hardship rather than inconvenience, the Labour Party leadership have too little to say.



It was a depressing night for Labour Party activists on the ground (http://labourlist.org/2012/03/bradford-west-by-election-liveblog/) - but what's really depressing is how the Party appears both unable and unwilling to engage with important sections of the electorate who ought to be natural supporters.



If the trade unions are to fulfill the important role of anchoring our Party to our class, then our leaders need to do more to demand that the Party leadership speaks for and to the marginalised, disenfranchised and excluded.



In this context, tomorrow's Morning Star Conference; "For a People's Britain not a Bankers' Britain" (http://shop.morningstaronline.co.uk/content/morning-star-conference-march-31-2012-peoples-britain-not-bankers-britain) is a timely opportunity for those General Secretaries who are attending to do just that.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

LGPS - Silence is not golden

Some five weeks ago the trade union and employers side negotiators discussing the future of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) struck a possible deal - but we still don't know what it was.

Because the LGPS is a statutory scheme - and in spite of the fact that it is funded by contributions from employers and employees which are invested quite independently of Central Government - this possible deal needs approval from Ministers (in Communities and Local Government and the Treasury).

Whilst that is unavoidable, the complete silence from our negotiators is not. A brief period of silence at certain stages of negotiation can sometimes be justified, but our negotiators appear to have sworn an open-ended vow of silence for as long as it takes the Government to consider their secret deal with the employers.

Therefore neither the scheme members, whose security in retirement is at issue, nor for that matter the local authorities, for whose squeezed budgets this has significant implications, can know what it is that our negotiators think we should accept until Government Ministers (who neither contribute to nor manage or administer our pension funds) have had their say.

Whilst UNISON negotiators refuse to brief even the cross Service Group Scrutiny Group about any details, it may be that not everyone has been so scrupulous. Certainly Lord Hutton appears to know enough to express some views (http://m.professionalpensions.com/professional-pensions/news/2163984/public-sector-schemes-change).

Speaking at an Eversheds legal Conference last week he reportedly said there was a "high degree of certainty" there would need to be further changes to the Local Government Pension Scheme – due to be launched in 2014 – in the years to come.

He said the fundamental design of the scheme such as the "cap and collar" to limit employer contributions would remain in place but other tweaks to benefit design would occur.

"It's very, very unlikely that there won't be some movement around scheme benefits over the next 25 years", he said. "There is going to be a high degree of certainty of scheme changes over the next 25 years – I don't envisage that every dot and comma of the LGPS deal is going to remain unchanged."

I'd like to express an opinion about this, but having seen neither a dot nor a comma of the proposals on which Lord Hutton is able to comment, I can't.

Of course, since the very officials whose task, should they secure the lay mandate for which they will certainly be looking should the Government rubber stamp their deal, will be to produce publicity materials intended to "sell" the deal to members, are also the only people in the Union who know the details, they could be at something of an advantage in trying to win the argument.

The challenge which confronts our lay Service Group Executives (SGEs) is whether they will assert their authority by insisting upon sufficient time for they themselves, and for activists at Regional and Branch level to consider any proposed deal before any consideration is given to the recommendation to be put to members in a ballot.

We should certainly have at least as long to discuss and debate recommendations to our members in a ballot as the Government have spent considering the proposed deal! This would mean that each Branch would have the opportunity of (at least) one monthly Branch Committee to consider opinions which they could report to Regional Service Groups ahead of national SGE meetings.

This reasonable approach is the very minimum we should expect if we want any ballot truly to reflect the informed and considered opinions of our members.

Since at present I hear more from a renegade Blairite peer than I do from within my own trade union concerning the future of my pension, I hope I can be excused a modicum of pessimism of the intellect about the arrangements for such a ballot.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

London strike success

Full marks to the teachers (http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/15423) and lecturers (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=419492&c=1) who closed (or partially closed) 1,400 London schools, 47 colleges and 16 universities today.



Today's important strike demonstrated that the dispute over public service pensions is far from over and that - whilst those who only ever believed in "damage limitation" take the coward's route of refusing to make a recommendation in the hope that members, receiving the demoralising message from their leaders, will seem to let those same leaders off the hook of their own responsibility for an impending, and entirely voluntary, defeat - it is perfectly possible to continue a fight for a fair settlement.



UNISON members should reflect on this positive example from sister unions of members in London taking a positive lead in a fight with the Tory Government. Imagine the profile that the largest public service union might have in our capital city if it were radical and progressive.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Solidarity with pension strikers

I'm on my way to offer my services making teas and coffees for striking members of the NUT and UCU (I've checked the advice from UNISON Regional Office and it seems that I can safely and lawfully do this!)



Given the deafening silence from Eric Pickles concerning the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) we can't rule out further strike action by LGPS members. Since, in almost every workplace where there are members of the Teachers' Pension Scheme those members work alongside LGPS members, there is a compelling case for coordination between our respective trade unions.



It's a shame that today's co-ordination goes no further than assistance with refreshments.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

LGPS - no news is no news

Contrary to earlier speculation on this blog, informed - as we can now see - by a diminutive avian advisor with questionable sources, there is still no news from Mr Pickles about local government pensions.



Or, to quote authoritative information;



"Just to let you know we have still had no response from the government on LGPS proposals. In the absence of a response the meeting of the scrutiny group on Thursday has been cancelled."



If Mr Pickles doesn't hurry up, our local government Conference in June might be able to make its own recommendation to our members in the Service Group as to how to vote in any ballot...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Happy Birthday 26 March?

A year ago today half a million of us filled the streets of London (http://m.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/mar/26/march-for-the-alternative-government?cat=society&type=article). We demonstrated the opposition of the broad mass of the people of this country to the vandalism of public services being orchestrated by the Tory Government and their Lib Dem window dressing.



I would like to be able to post to this blog about the ways in which the TUC General Council used the largest ever trade union demonstration in the UK as a springboard for militant and effective campaigning. Such a post would have, however, to be held over to this coming Sunday (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools'_Day).



Union activists need to build our strength and organisation locally. It would be foolish to expect a national lead I'm afraid.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Shall we be Pickled tomorrow?

A little bird (well, not so very little) has let on that those of us waiting to know if the Government will rubber stamp a draft "deal" done between negotiators dealing with the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) may hear some news from Eric Pickles tomorrow.

If we do, it may be that we will then hear some justification as to why we must move to ballot our members immediately (and - crucially in the case of the vast majority of affected members who are in the Local Government Service Group - ahead of our Service Group Conference in June).

Such a justification may relate to the need for Regulations to go through Parliament sufficiently in advance to enable implementation of a new scheme from April 2014.

It may therefore be worth recollecting that the current Regulations dealing with the administration of the LGPS were made and laid before Parliament in February 2008 in order to come into force on 1 April 2008 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/239/introduction/made).

It's true that the Regulations dealing with benefits, membership and contributions (which we must now learn to call "big ticket items") were made and laid before Parliament in April 2007 in order to come into force on 1 April 2008 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/1166/introduction/made).

It's also true that if - in spite of the clear policy of our Local Government Conference 2010 in support of a final salary LGPS - we are looking to move to a career average revalued earnings (CARE) scheme, then the transition from the 2008 to the 2014 may be more complex than the transition to the 2008 scheme.

Career average pensions are not quantum physics though. A Maths A-level ought to be more than enough to grasp the workings out. There is no genuine and honest reason why the Government or the employers need a response from the trade unions on the 2014 scheme offer before (say) 1 October (and I'm sure that 1 April 2013 would still be a workable timetable if the will was there).

There is no genuine and honest reason why we should have to ballot members before our Local Government Conference has an opportunity to express a view as to the recommendation to be made to members in a ballot - as it was able to do in relation to Single Status.

If, however, the Service Group Executive is to be dragooned into making a recommendation this week, it ought to remember the policy of Service Group Conference - and that it lacks the constitutional authority to recommend acceptance of a career average pension without a change in Conference policy.

No doubt if officers do try to cajole the Service Group Executive into a hasty decision they will also have a detailed Equality Impact Assessment for the proposed 2014 scheme (after all, they have known for weeks what deal they have done on behalf of those of us who are actually members of the LGPS). Were that not to be the case, the hypocrisy of recommending a hasty ballot would surely be too much for even the hardiest souls at the UNISON Centre.

Normally, being pickled takes some time. Perhaps this week we shall witness accelerated pickling of our pensions?

I hope not.

Watch this space...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Timing is everything

Now we know the timetable for the ballot of UNISON members in Health in relation to the Government's derisory "final offer" on pensions (http://www.unison.org.uk/asppresspack/pressrelease_view.asp?id=2643) we can see that timing truly is everything.

It's apparently vital that, in asking our members to take a decision about a pension scheme which will come into force in three years time, we insist they must decide now. I have to say that, as a member of the ruling body of our Union I do not believe this to be true and have heard no justification for this timetable. However, I know that the majority of my fellow NEC members have a proven track record of unquestioning faith in our "world class negotiators" so there must be some cunning plan behind our seeming to accept the timetable of our adversaries.

I understand that it's apparently so important that our members are rushed into an early decision that it is unavoidable that the ballot must open during the Easter Holidays. Since we all know that women bear the lionesses' share of the burden of childcare and may therefore be disproportionately likely to be absent from the workplace - and from related workplace discussion - when the ballot opens, I can only conclude that it's a good job that our Union isn't bothered about such matters.

Similarly, since we are asking our members in health to vote on a pension scheme about which we haven't seen an Equality Impact Assessment, I can only conclude that we never meant that we really cared about equality impact assessments as a necessary prerequisite before decisions were made. That was just a position we adopted to protect ourselves from litigation I suppose. More fool me for believing we were sincere.

The many local government branches who were told that they could not make recommendations to their own members about Single Status deals without legal opinions informed by detailed equality impact assessments will doubtless be as confused as I am by the fact that - if the deal to be struck is a horrendous capitulation to a reactionary Government in a way which is contrary to the interests of all our members - we no longer need to insist upon such an equality impact assessment.

This suggests that we never really cared about equality but only about potential legal liabilities. Surely that cannot be right?

For the Health SGE to have adopted a timetable for a member ballot on this question which begins shortly before Health Service Group Conference and ends just after suggests that they have allowed themselves to be manipulated in order transparently to display contempt for lay democracy in our trade union.

That obviously cannot be the case. It must be some misunderstanding.

However, when the various SGEs dealing with our members in the LGPS allow officers to embark upon "surveymonkey" surveys which undermine our position in negotiations and for which they have no authority all UNISON members have to wonder what is going on.

It's a good job their "surveymonkey" doesn't think to "see no evil", "hear no evil", "speak no evil"...

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

A report from UNISON's Health SGE about pensions

This is what you might call a "guest post" giving Karen Reissmann's report of yesterday's meeting of UNISON's Health Service Group Executive (SGE);

Report of special health executive 21st March on Pensions.

We discussed the offer in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
(For Scotland see later)

We were given choice of
 recommend accept in ballot
 say this is best we can achieve in negotiations
 no recommendation
 recommend reject in ballot
 reject the proposals and go straight to industrial action.

We voted in order

No-one voted for accept.

"Best we can achieve" was agreed (21 for, 10 against, 3 abst, I voted against)

Discussion.

Presentation from officers emphasised all the gains and used terms like "This is not perfect but ..." They were preoccupied with possible consequences of rejecting ie the government keep telling them if we do not agree it they will remove the Fair deal offer. But Fair Deal was never just for us. At the rate they want to privatise they need to offer pension to privatised staff or else it will collapse. The whole offer is based on 1% drop out.

Rejections by other unions were not noted for their size eg 96% Unite, 85% BMA, etc but by their turnout. They sounded more like the Tories than trade unionists.

Other health unions like RCN and BMA were criticised for not leading. They said they felt they were "kicking their reject ballots into the long grass to make it go away" (sounds familiar)

At one point it was suggested that Unite were never serious as they have not used 96% rejection to call more strike action (Despite Unite exec passing motion including "This union commits itself to maximising its support to the public sector members to participate in further action, including co-ordinated national strike action alongside other public sector unions in April..")

They kept referring to pensions being a "personal issue" that each member has to decide on its merits. Adrian O'Malley rightly replied personally most health workers would lose out. Also that we had not just fought on "I'm all right" but for decent pensions for all. Many on strike on 30th were not even in pensions scheme but know victory for us is more than pensions but a huge hole in the whole austerity package being driven through by Tory and Lib dem millionaires. It is no surprise that they are now on attack over national pay, on going pay freeze, jobs, cuts and NHS bill.

Many speakers commented that the deal is STILL PAY MORE, GET LESS AND WORK LONGER with a few gains made due to the strike. They refused to allow the words "these proposals still mean work longer, pay more, get less on any of the material going out.

Often people speaking in favour of this is the best we can do underplayed November 30th. But as Martin Benn said "We were told it was a success. We were there - it was a success and we need to lead our union to complete that success. Dave Prentis promised a fight not a skirmish."

What will happen now.

Ballot will be from 11th April to 27th April.

We complained that the first week is Easter holidays and the last week UNISON health conference when we are all away from our branches. The ballot finishes the day we get our first increased pension contribution in our wages. It is only 16 days. A cynic might think they were deliberately trying to demoralise us further with a low turnout! We tried to argue for an extension but they would not budge.

The question will be "do you accept the offer or reject. If you reject this will mean taking further and sustained industrial action."

We could win this dispute but to do that we need to return to being the union we were from June to November and put up a fight. It is clear the health executive and the officials are not prepared to lead that fight any more. However members can see what this government want from us and know this attack on pensions is only the start. They do want to undo all the gains made since 1945, undo the whole welfare state and its public sector workers.

Scotland.

Scotland are negotiating separately and have balloted with success for further action. They have already had strikes in Ayrshire on 13th and 14th March. They plan more action in Lanarkshire, Lothian and Glasgow on 27th March when legislation is going to the Scottish committee. They expect Labour MSPs to oppose the bill which means it goes to full parliament. They have talks scheduled for 28th march. If no progress they plan further strikes.

Wales health committee met this week and unanimously opposed the offer.

I am very grateful to Karen for her permission to republish this important report.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Error of judgement on pensions

Yesterday's decision by the Court of Appeal that the Government acted lawfully when they unilaterally changed the basis of uprating of occupational pensions in payment gives a seal of approval to a massive transfer of income from retired workers to employers and the state (http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/116851).
Our movement was slow to respond with sufficient vigour to this gross theft when it was first announced in June 2010 (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.co.uk/2010/06/unisons-retired-members-under-attack.html?m=0) - and the initial official response was weak (http://jonrogers1963.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/osborne-has-cut-our-pensions-shall-we.html?m=0) but when it came to persuading our members to take action on 30 November our pensions calculators showed very clearly the scale of loss to be expected as a result of using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rather than the Retail Price Index (RPI) to increase occupational pensions annually after retirement. It was clear that this disgraceful act of robbery - breaching the principle that accrued pension rights should be protected, as well as specific pre-election assurances from the Coalition parties (on the 27 April 2010, Philip Hammond said on behalf of the Conservatives "Indexation of pensions in payment is an established part of pensions legislation. The Conservative Party has no plans to change the current index-linking of public sector pensions in payment. We agree with the view that the right to indexation of pensions already accrued is part of the accrued pension rights and those rights will be protected.") - was part of what we were fighting against when we took strike action.
However, when Heads of Agreement were proposed in December (or - in relation to the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) - when we came to Agreement with the Local Government Association (LGA) about principles) this was on the basis that uprating would be in line with CPI.
In effect, having told our members that their action on 30 November was, in part, in opposition to the change to uprating, our negotiators promptly abandoned this as a bargaining objective and put the uprating of all our nest eggs in the litigation basket. This turns out to have been an error of judgement.
All of which goes to show that it's no use relying on the legal system to provide justice for working people.
If we want to secure pensions justice then next Wednesday's strike action in Greater London (http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/116850) shows what will be required.
UNITE's decision to call on their members to support pensions protests next Wednesday (http://union-news.co.uk/2012/03/unite-health-service-members-to-join-demos-during-m28-strike/) indicates perhaps how this morning's meeting of UNISON's Greater London Regional Committee should also respond.
All who can should support next Wednesday's London strike demonstration - assembling at 11am in Malet Street (http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/15321).

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange

Where will M28 lead?

A quick look at the list of UK Motorways (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motorways_in_the_United_Kingdom) does not disclose the existence of the M28 (although who knows what the future may bring given Cameron's eighteenth century enthusiasm for private sector roadbuilding!)

What does now appear clear is that M28 - in terms of strike action over public sector pensions on Wednesday of next week - will take place all but exclusively within the M25, and also exclusively among members of the Teachers Pension Scheme in the NUT (http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/15321) and UCU (http://www.ucu.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=6028).

Today's decision by the Executive of PCS not to take national action alone next Wednesday, but to try to build for wider action next month (http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/news_centre/index.cfm/id/7E5803E8-61A6-4D53-A3005D555BF3A0E6) can certainly not be criticised by a member of the Executive of a trade union which has retreated so much further - and so much faster - from further co-ordinated industrial action on this vital question.

Aside from a glimmer of hope in the Scottish Health Service (http://www.unison-scotland.org.uk/pensions/nhsstrikes.html), UNISON's leadership have - at least for now - decisively withdrawn from the position at the head of our movement which had been held in the three months following last September's TUC mini-Congress.

Those of us in Greater London must do all we can now to support, and show solidarity with, the teachers and lecturers planning to strike on Wednesday 28 March.

With the imposition of the "pensions tax" contribution increases on many teachers, civil servants and health workers now imminent - and local government workers kept in ignorance of proposals, not yet approved by Ministers, which were supposed to provide the basis for agreement of the "big ticket" items by the end of this month - it is no exaggeration to say that we stand on the brink of a calamity.

If, after the largest and most effective strike in a generation, we withdraw from further action in return for (at least in three out of four pension schemes) no more than a repackaging of the "offer" which we rightly rejected when it was made on 2 November, then we are offering this Government a sort of "accelerated 80s".

Whereas the 80s saw the Government and employers choose and win a series of battles with the trade union movement - with ASLEF over flexible rostering, with the ISTC, most notably with the NUM over pit closures, but then with the NUT and, of course, the print unions - it seems that the second decade of this century may deliver to Thatcher's children victories equivalent to those which took her Government a decade in a single Parliamentary term - and with barely "a shot fired in anger."

This outcome is not inevitable. We can still make our own history, albeit not in circumstances of our own choosing. Teachers and lecturers in Greater London find themselves to be the workers who have drawn a line and said that the retreat must stop here.

Every activist in the NUT and UCU in London who is now carrying out the thankless task of trying to persuade members to make the sacrifice of further strike action deserves the thanks and respect of every other trade unionist. The leadership of our movement is not now to be found on the General Council of the TUC (and has certainly never been found at Congress House) - it is in the NUT and UCU branches in London.

It's a good job the M28 isn't a Motorway because we need to take this chance to push our movement into a complete U-turn from the path of capitulation which we having been speeding down for the past three months. UNISON branches in London local government - and Higher Education - who have members working alongside next week's strikers must apply ourselves imaginatively to the question of how we can help.

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange