The UNISON NEC meeting on Wednesday received a helpful update about the (not so helpful!) developments in relation to the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS), from which I shall plagiarise…
LGPS - Extension of full protection
Following Local Government Minister John Healey’s announcement that he would consider extending full protection to 2020 once the 2008 triennial valuation reports had been received and analysed, Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) civil servants have now carried out the analysis to establish the likely impact and cost. Our negotiators are awaiting the written report summarising that analysis, but were verbally advised at the Policy Review Group that the cost would be 0.1% of pay bill – as previously predicted by the Government Actuaries Department (GAD). Further negotiations will then follow on means of meeting that cost and extending protection to 2020. Therefore the limited extension of the limited protection for the “Rule of 85” which was hinted at at the time of the special Conference in March 2007 is still dangling in front of us like a rather old carrot…
LGPS - Ill health retirement
Considerable activity has taken place over the ill health retirement Amendment Regulations which came into force on 7 May. These confirmed the three tiers of ill heath retirement benefits, previewed in the Benefit Regulations. However, the qualification criteria and limited third tier benefits – not previously discussed with the trade unions - have given rise to considerable concern. UNISON and the Trade Union Side are working hard to get them improved. Lord Campbell Savours sponsored a debate in the House of Lords and representations have also been made to the House of Commons Administration Committee over the ‘workability’ of the new Regulations.
First tier benefit will apply for life. It was outlined in the Benefit Regulations 2007 and will apply to those with no reasonable prospect of obtaining gainful employment before retirement age. Service is increased by 100% of potential service to normal retirement age. Second tier benefit is for those who cannot obtain gainful employment within a ‘reasonable time of leaving’, but who are likely to obtain gainful employment before normal retirement age. Third tier benefit – for those deemed able to obtain gainful employment within a ‘reasonable period’ of leaving service - was unexpectedly restricted to three years in the Amendment Regulations, irrespective of whether the member is able to obtain gainful employment. There will be a review after 18 months and there is no automatic requirement to move a member to a higher level if s/he becomes unable to undertake gainful employment.
LGPS - Cost sharing
The NEC was advised that the Trade Union Side has continued to assert that no cost-sharing formula should be applied to the LGPS within the Policy Review Group. There is increasing pressure from CLG, the LGA and the employers to limit employer costs. At the same time, separate discussion is taking place amongst the LGPS unions over what an acceptable sustainability strategy for the scheme might look like. It is felt strongly that it should be one which reflects the need for efficient administration and investment procedures, transparent governance and equality principles. I asked whether a sustainability strategy might lead to union acceptance of cost sharing and was mostly reassured that that is certainly not the trade union side objective.
LGPS - Governance issues
Separate work is underway within UNISON and the Trade Union Side to press for strong union member representation on LGPS fund trusteeship bodies. We are arguing for full voting rights, 50% of seats by 2009, full equality proofing and training and facility time for reps. Our campaign is underpinned by European Directive 41/2003 which requires proper control and investment of pension funds.
Updates are available at the pension site online.
Showing posts with label LGPS Dispute. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LGPS Dispute. Show all posts
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Friday, February 29, 2008
Right wing attack on Local Government Pensions
The saloon-bar Tories of the so-called Taxpayers’ Alliance (linked to shadowy Tory backers the Midlands Industrial Council) sometimes produce data of which we can make use – but today they are seeking some cheap publicity by having a go at the cost of our Local Government Pension Scheme.
They wonder why taxpayers should be funding a pension scheme more generous than those available to many private sector employees.
Well, first, public sector workers are taxpayers too – unlike all those major corporations who dodge their taxes! As a taxpayer I never voted for this outfit to speak for me.
Secondly, our pensions – and remember many of us will from 1 April be paying more for less as far as our pension benefits are concerned – are part of an overall package of remuneration – public service workers won’t be getting bonuses like they get in the oh-so-well run financial services sector.
Thirdly, if the “Taxpayers Alliance” really cared for the welfare of taxpaying families maybe they would support stronger trade unions in the private sector to fight for better pension provision across the board?
No, I thought not. (Funnily enough the “other TA” don’t seem bothered about real waste…)
Update at lunchtime Friday – online here is a very good analysis of the report from our taxpaying friends. Further update at the weekend - with further thanks to the labour and capital blog – here are links to reasoned comments from the LGA and GMB. There is (as yet?) no comment from UNISON here – perhaps it’s not worth a response??
They wonder why taxpayers should be funding a pension scheme more generous than those available to many private sector employees.
Well, first, public sector workers are taxpayers too – unlike all those major corporations who dodge their taxes! As a taxpayer I never voted for this outfit to speak for me.
Secondly, our pensions – and remember many of us will from 1 April be paying more for less as far as our pension benefits are concerned – are part of an overall package of remuneration – public service workers won’t be getting bonuses like they get in the oh-so-well run financial services sector.
Thirdly, if the “Taxpayers Alliance” really cared for the welfare of taxpaying families maybe they would support stronger trade unions in the private sector to fight for better pension provision across the board?
No, I thought not. (Funnily enough the “other TA” don’t seem bothered about real waste…)
Update at lunchtime Friday – online here is a very good analysis of the report from our taxpaying friends. Further update at the weekend - with further thanks to the labour and capital blog – here are links to reasoned comments from the LGA and GMB. There is (as yet?) no comment from UNISON here – perhaps it’s not worth a response??
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
LGPS Valentine's Day message...
Like most of you, dear readers, the laying of Statutory Instruments before Parliament was not foremost in my mind on Valentine’s Day.
Indeed, commentators on this very blog took issue with my sadly cynical and unromantic attitude to UNISON’s activities on the day in question.
Little did I then know that the Government had expressed its love for local government workers with The Local Government Pension Scheme (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2008. Regulation 9 provides some limited good news for those paying a “protected” 5% pension contribution (a small number of former manual workers) as their increased pension contributions will be phased in over three years.
For those waiting until they make the film before reading this short but snappy work of non-fiction, Schedule 2 seems to be quite important.
In a nutshell, protection of the “Rule of 85” in respect of all pensionable service for those who will be 60 on or before 31 March 2016 is preserved by paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Schedule, repeating earlier provisions (which had been increased from 2013 if you remember).
Paragraph 7 repeats what was Paragraph 6 of The Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2006 (inserted by the snappily titled Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment)(No 2) Regulations 2006) and simply says that;
“7.—(1) This paragraph applies to a member who retires, having reached the age of 60, on or after 1st April 2016 and before 1st April 2020, and who would (but for the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2) have satisfied the 85 year rule before the latter date.
(2) That part of his retirement pension and grant which is calculated by reference to any period of membership after 31st March 2008 shall be reduced in accordance with guidance issued by the Government Actuary.”
Happily we employ pensions experts to explain all of this, because to my simple mind this looks like a provision to apply an actuarial reduction to benefits payable in respect of all post 31 March 08 service for those retiring under 65, but over 60, between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2020, who are currently given “tapered protection” (described on the LGPS website as follows; “If you will be aged 60 between 1st April 2016 and 31st March 2020 and meet the 85 year rule (or meet an earlier Normal Retirement Date which some members who joined the Scheme before 1st April 1998 have under previous regulations) by 31st March 2020, the benefits you build up between 1st April 2008 and 31st March 2020 will be reduced, but the reduction will not be the full amount.”)
The last we heard was that the Government were still considering whether to extend full protection of the Rule of 85 to existing scheme members who will be 60 before 1 April 2020 – so why are they laying new Regulations before Parliament in February which don’t make any change on this outstanding question.
This leaves me utterly confused about whether we have made any progress at all on one of the four “outstanding issues” identified by the Service Group Executive at the Special Local Government Conference on pensions last March – which was precisely the extension of protection of the Rule of 85. We made a great deal about the consultation on extending this protection (which was, as an objective, less than we were originally aiming for) – where has the consultation gone?
I await the next update…
Indeed, commentators on this very blog took issue with my sadly cynical and unromantic attitude to UNISON’s activities on the day in question.
Little did I then know that the Government had expressed its love for local government workers with The Local Government Pension Scheme (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2008. Regulation 9 provides some limited good news for those paying a “protected” 5% pension contribution (a small number of former manual workers) as their increased pension contributions will be phased in over three years.
For those waiting until they make the film before reading this short but snappy work of non-fiction, Schedule 2 seems to be quite important.
In a nutshell, protection of the “Rule of 85” in respect of all pensionable service for those who will be 60 on or before 31 March 2016 is preserved by paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Schedule, repeating earlier provisions (which had been increased from 2013 if you remember).
Paragraph 7 repeats what was Paragraph 6 of The Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2006 (inserted by the snappily titled Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment)(No 2) Regulations 2006) and simply says that;
“7.—(1) This paragraph applies to a member who retires, having reached the age of 60, on or after 1st April 2016 and before 1st April 2020, and who would (but for the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2) have satisfied the 85 year rule before the latter date.
(2) That part of his retirement pension and grant which is calculated by reference to any period of membership after 31st March 2008 shall be reduced in accordance with guidance issued by the Government Actuary.”
Happily we employ pensions experts to explain all of this, because to my simple mind this looks like a provision to apply an actuarial reduction to benefits payable in respect of all post 31 March 08 service for those retiring under 65, but over 60, between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2020, who are currently given “tapered protection” (described on the LGPS website as follows; “If you will be aged 60 between 1st April 2016 and 31st March 2020 and meet the 85 year rule (or meet an earlier Normal Retirement Date which some members who joined the Scheme before 1st April 1998 have under previous regulations) by 31st March 2020, the benefits you build up between 1st April 2008 and 31st March 2020 will be reduced, but the reduction will not be the full amount.”)
The last we heard was that the Government were still considering whether to extend full protection of the Rule of 85 to existing scheme members who will be 60 before 1 April 2020 – so why are they laying new Regulations before Parliament in February which don’t make any change on this outstanding question.
This leaves me utterly confused about whether we have made any progress at all on one of the four “outstanding issues” identified by the Service Group Executive at the Special Local Government Conference on pensions last March – which was precisely the extension of protection of the Rule of 85. We made a great deal about the consultation on extending this protection (which was, as an objective, less than we were originally aiming for) – where has the consultation gone?
I await the next update…
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Latest on the LGPS
At yesterday’s meeting of the UNISON NEC we received a report of developments in relation to the Local Government Pension Scheme.
The NEC was advised that consultation on extending transitional protection of the “Rule of 85” to remove the “tapering” for those current scheme members who will be 60 by 2020 had now closed and the outcome was awaited. A number of branches and employer had supported UNISON’s position whilst a large number of employers had not.
In spite of an agreement between the trade unions and the employers not to have formal “cost sharing” arrangements, the Government have written this into the new LGPS Regulations and discussions have therefore begun. The Government want a cap upon employers’ contributions so that if life expectancy increases there would have to be further increases in employees’ pension contributions in future. We were told that the unions are resisting this.
Discussions are also continuing about the “third tier” of ill health retirement in the new scheme.
The NEC was advised that consultation on extending transitional protection of the “Rule of 85” to remove the “tapering” for those current scheme members who will be 60 by 2020 had now closed and the outcome was awaited. A number of branches and employer had supported UNISON’s position whilst a large number of employers had not.
In spite of an agreement between the trade unions and the employers not to have formal “cost sharing” arrangements, the Government have written this into the new LGPS Regulations and discussions have therefore begun. The Government want a cap upon employers’ contributions so that if life expectancy increases there would have to be further increases in employees’ pension contributions in future. We were told that the unions are resisting this.
Discussions are also continuing about the “third tier” of ill health retirement in the new scheme.
Monday, July 23, 2007
Members endorse new look pension scheme
In an unsurprising result the new-look Local Government Pension Scheme has been massively supported in the membership ballot. Now there is a UNISON policy to support the new-look LGPS because now our members have spoken. Democracy means the maximum freedom to express opinions before decisions are made – now that the decision has been made we move on and carry out the decision.
We now need to ensure that there is maximum response to the consultation on extending protection for LGPS scheme members who will be 60 on or before 1 April 2020 – see LGPS Bulletin 64 for details.
Responses to CLG formal consultation on extending the protection to 2020 should be sent to: Nicola Rochester, Zone2/F7 Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6DE. Email to nicola.rochester@communities.gsi.gov.uk
Former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott made a commitment that up to 50% of the savings arising from the removal of the 85 Rule on service after 2008 - and the provision to allow members to exchange more of their pension for a higher lump sum at retirement - could be ploughed back into the new scheme.
UNISON has calculated that, even with the improvements and the existing protections for the Rule of 85, less than 50% of the savings have been used. This means that the minimal cost of improving the protection simply removes the imbalance between the saving to the employer/taxpayer and the increase in the cost to the member.
Because of course we will (on average) be paying more for our pension from next April, as we enter the second year of the Gordon Brown pay freeze…!
Apologies (btw) for lack of posts but not only do I have an appeal hearing to prepare but I had to take time out to read the new Harry Potter book. Clearly Voldemort represents the forces of capitalist globalisation, whilst Harry embodies the fighting spirit of the working class. The Deathly Hallows symbolise the potential power of unity amongst the public service trade unions in the fight over pay…
We now need to ensure that there is maximum response to the consultation on extending protection for LGPS scheme members who will be 60 on or before 1 April 2020 – see LGPS Bulletin 64 for details.
Responses to CLG formal consultation on extending the protection to 2020 should be sent to: Nicola Rochester, Zone2/F7 Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street, London, SW1E 6DE. Email to nicola.rochester@communities.gsi.gov.uk
Former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott made a commitment that up to 50% of the savings arising from the removal of the 85 Rule on service after 2008 - and the provision to allow members to exchange more of their pension for a higher lump sum at retirement - could be ploughed back into the new scheme.
UNISON has calculated that, even with the improvements and the existing protections for the Rule of 85, less than 50% of the savings have been used. This means that the minimal cost of improving the protection simply removes the imbalance between the saving to the employer/taxpayer and the increase in the cost to the member.
Because of course we will (on average) be paying more for our pension from next April, as we enter the second year of the Gordon Brown pay freeze…!
Apologies (btw) for lack of posts but not only do I have an appeal hearing to prepare but I had to take time out to read the new Harry Potter book. Clearly Voldemort represents the forces of capitalist globalisation, whilst Harry embodies the fighting spirit of the working class. The Deathly Hallows symbolise the potential power of unity amongst the public service trade unions in the fight over pay…
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
LGPS - yes or no?
UNISON is urging members to vote “yes” to approve the new look Local Government Pension Scheme. This recommendation comes from the Service Group Liaison Committee. This is what the Local Government Conference thinks of that Committee.
“We believe that coordination of action in relation to the LGPS across Service Groups and between different trade unions has recently been inadequate. In particular, we express our lack of confidence in the Service Group Liaison Committee as presently constituted as an effective forum to coordinate the defence of the interests of our members.”
I shall vote “no” because I don’t think we have achieved the objectives we set for ourselves when we took strike action last March. As Dave Prentis put it;
“Members of every other public-sector pension scheme have had their pension contract honoured - why should local government workers be treated any differently? Teachers' contracts honoured but not teaching assistants; police but not police staff; civil servants but not dustmen; and social workers that work in hospitals but not those social workers who work for councils.”
I expect that members will accept the recommendation of the Service Group Liaison Committee by a large majority, but branches must be free to make their own recommendations to members. I have heard it suggested that we may not do so, but know of no basis in Rule for such a daft exercise in control freakery…
“We believe that coordination of action in relation to the LGPS across Service Groups and between different trade unions has recently been inadequate. In particular, we express our lack of confidence in the Service Group Liaison Committee as presently constituted as an effective forum to coordinate the defence of the interests of our members.”
I shall vote “no” because I don’t think we have achieved the objectives we set for ourselves when we took strike action last March. As Dave Prentis put it;
“Members of every other public-sector pension scheme have had their pension contract honoured - why should local government workers be treated any differently? Teachers' contracts honoured but not teaching assistants; police but not police staff; civil servants but not dustmen; and social workers that work in hospitals but not those social workers who work for councils.”
I expect that members will accept the recommendation of the Service Group Liaison Committee by a large majority, but branches must be free to make their own recommendations to members. I have heard it suggested that we may not do so, but know of no basis in Rule for such a daft exercise in control freakery…
Friday, June 15, 2007
UNISON claims pensions compromise as victory
The official position is as follows;
“Today, Phil Woolas has made a statement to the House of Commons announcing a twelve week statutory consultation on proposals to amend the October 2006 LGPS Regulations to provide full rather than tapered protection to 2020. He follows this by stating that the cost of extending the protection will have to be offset by savings in the scheme. UNISON has long maintained that the extended protection is affordable. We will continue our campaign through the statutory consultation to address this point.
This announcement is a major breakthrough and a long held objective of both UNISON’s and the wider LGPS Trade Union Side, the constant lobbying and pressure has paid off.
UNISON’s Consultation Ballot Begins
The Service Group Liaison Committee / Strike Committee meeting held on14 June 2007 agreed to initiate a consultation ballot on the new LGPS immediately. In light of the Woolas statement the consultation will be on the basis of recommending the package to members.
The ballot covers nearly a million UNISON members, and will be sent to individual’s home addresses. Ballot materials are being prepared and will be issued to members in early July direct with a closing date for the ballot being 23 July 2007.
We want to ensure a maximum turn out in the ballot and branches will need to alert members that the ballot is coming. We are preparing posters for branches to use during the ballot period.
Branches must use this opportunity to recruit non members and let them know the success of our union campaign and how we achieved the new LGPS package, remind them to join the union and be part of something that improves their working and retired lives!”
Another view would be that we went on strike against reductions in pension benefits and not simply to ensure that only some of us would experience reductions in our pension benefits.
Other public service pension schemes agreed changes on the basis of protecting the rights of existing scheme members. UNISON didn’t ask the other Unions to hold off on signing up to the offer from Alan Johnson in October 2005 to see if it could be extended to local government so we can’t blame anyone but ourselves for the fact that local government workers got a worse deal.
As I have said on this blog with boring regularity, I get that we don’t always win industrial disputes in the sense of getting everything we want. That’s fair enough. You do your best and you take the best you can get. That is the every day life of a trade union activist.
I hope I have never, at branch level, tried to dress up a compromise as an unalloyed victory, yet I am afraid that that is exactly what UNISON officials now appear to be doing.
We didn’t lose the pensions dispute. We won real concessions through taking strike action. Had we taken more strike action we would have won more concessions.
Neither however did we win. I don’t think it is an acceptable or sensible basis to try to build the Union by pretending that compromises are victories. Our members and potential members are not stupid and will not appreciate a less than honest approach.
I shall vote to reject this proposal because I agree with what our General Secretary, Dave Prentis, said in March last year;
"Strike action is the only option left to local government workers to demonstrate the burning resentment and anger they feel over the government and employers taking away their pension rights – when those same rights have been given to every other public-sector pension scheme. Why should they put up with this discrimination?”
How can we claim now as a victory a settlement which falls so far short of what we fought for last year?
“Today, Phil Woolas has made a statement to the House of Commons announcing a twelve week statutory consultation on proposals to amend the October 2006 LGPS Regulations to provide full rather than tapered protection to 2020. He follows this by stating that the cost of extending the protection will have to be offset by savings in the scheme. UNISON has long maintained that the extended protection is affordable. We will continue our campaign through the statutory consultation to address this point.
This announcement is a major breakthrough and a long held objective of both UNISON’s and the wider LGPS Trade Union Side, the constant lobbying and pressure has paid off.
UNISON’s Consultation Ballot Begins
The Service Group Liaison Committee / Strike Committee meeting held on14 June 2007 agreed to initiate a consultation ballot on the new LGPS immediately. In light of the Woolas statement the consultation will be on the basis of recommending the package to members.
The ballot covers nearly a million UNISON members, and will be sent to individual’s home addresses. Ballot materials are being prepared and will be issued to members in early July direct with a closing date for the ballot being 23 July 2007.
We want to ensure a maximum turn out in the ballot and branches will need to alert members that the ballot is coming. We are preparing posters for branches to use during the ballot period.
Branches must use this opportunity to recruit non members and let them know the success of our union campaign and how we achieved the new LGPS package, remind them to join the union and be part of something that improves their working and retired lives!”
Another view would be that we went on strike against reductions in pension benefits and not simply to ensure that only some of us would experience reductions in our pension benefits.
Other public service pension schemes agreed changes on the basis of protecting the rights of existing scheme members. UNISON didn’t ask the other Unions to hold off on signing up to the offer from Alan Johnson in October 2005 to see if it could be extended to local government so we can’t blame anyone but ourselves for the fact that local government workers got a worse deal.
As I have said on this blog with boring regularity, I get that we don’t always win industrial disputes in the sense of getting everything we want. That’s fair enough. You do your best and you take the best you can get. That is the every day life of a trade union activist.
I hope I have never, at branch level, tried to dress up a compromise as an unalloyed victory, yet I am afraid that that is exactly what UNISON officials now appear to be doing.
We didn’t lose the pensions dispute. We won real concessions through taking strike action. Had we taken more strike action we would have won more concessions.
Neither however did we win. I don’t think it is an acceptable or sensible basis to try to build the Union by pretending that compromises are victories. Our members and potential members are not stupid and will not appreciate a less than honest approach.
I shall vote to reject this proposal because I agree with what our General Secretary, Dave Prentis, said in March last year;
"Strike action is the only option left to local government workers to demonstrate the burning resentment and anger they feel over the government and employers taking away their pension rights – when those same rights have been given to every other public-sector pension scheme. Why should they put up with this discrimination?”
How can we claim now as a victory a settlement which falls so far short of what we fought for last year?
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
LGPS - it gets worse...
Since I have been too busy to blog much recently I shall take the liberty of stealing the following report from the UNISON Local Government Service Group Executive meeting yesterday from comrades John McDermott and Vikki Perrin from Yorkshire and Humberside – the news on the Local Government Pension Scheme is not good…
"Officers gave an update on the ‘negotiations’.
Most of it was bad news.
There is no immediate move from the Government to extend protection of the 85Year Rule to 2020.
The contribution bands have changes and instead of being like a tax allowance in that you pay lower contributions on the first £12k of earnings. There are now more bands 5.5-7.5% and members will pay the set percentage on all earnings.
The transitional regulations promising 5% workers a phased increase over 3 years have not been produced.
No movement on part time workers paying contributions on full time equivalent earnings. Heather Wakefield stated that UNISON still thought this was discriminatory but had legal advice it could not be challenged through the courts until after April 08.
Ill Health Retirement, second tier, will only apply to workers who are 45 years and older from April 08.
Members will only be able to get pension based on best 3 years in last 10 if they have agreed to stay on reduced earnings or have accessed a flexible retirement option. Otherwise it is the best year in the last 3.
Term time workers will have pension contributions based on term time pay not full time equivalent.
The Head of Local Government stated she felt that UNISON had been lied too by Government Minister Phil Woolas and that it had implications for the relationship with the Labour Party.
There are a few meetings with other trade unions over the next few weeks.
There was intense lobbying of Government ministers over the protection issue, it was hoped that there maybe movement over the next few days but there was a large amount of scepticism.
Several delegates stated we should not be surprised about Government lies, we had heard them before.
Vikki Perrin, John McDermott and Glen Kelly argued to recommend rejection of the current regulations and move to a consultation ballot.
Some delegates stated that we should not reject the regulations as there are some good points.
A vote was taken.
7 Delegates voted to reject and move to a ballot.
17 Delegates voted to recommend acceptance if additional protection was offered and ballot.
Nobody voted for a proposal from the General Secretary that we should ballot as the best that could be achieved by negotiation.
Pay
There was no report given but after the meeting we spoke to a member of the NJC Committee who said there was a meeting with the employers 21st May, where some progress is expected. There is then a meeting of the NJC 22nd May where an update can be given.
There is also a meeting of all the Public Sector Trades Unions at the TUC in the next few weeks to look at a joint coordinated approach.
Members will recall that at the special pensions conference branches were persuaded to vote against a ballot for action on pensions on a number of promises,
More protection of the 85 Year Rule
No discrimination against part time workers
Justice for 5% workers.
There was no stance taken by the union on the employers cut in contributions.
The reality, at the moment, is that the Government and Employers lied to UNISON officials who then passed on the lies to conference.
UNISON officials have been ‘duped’ not for the first time on this issue.
This is not acceptable on all sorts of levels.
We believe that we cannot deal with this Government and employers with any degree of certainty and should ballot to reject the current regulations and move to an industrial action footing as soon as possible.
This should be used to gain improvements and focus Government and Employers minds these important issues.
There is LGSGE 5th June to discuss a full agenda including Pay and Pensions."
Thanks to the comrades from Yorkshire for providing such a useful report!
"Officers gave an update on the ‘negotiations’.
Most of it was bad news.
There is no immediate move from the Government to extend protection of the 85Year Rule to 2020.
The contribution bands have changes and instead of being like a tax allowance in that you pay lower contributions on the first £12k of earnings. There are now more bands 5.5-7.5% and members will pay the set percentage on all earnings.
The transitional regulations promising 5% workers a phased increase over 3 years have not been produced.
No movement on part time workers paying contributions on full time equivalent earnings. Heather Wakefield stated that UNISON still thought this was discriminatory but had legal advice it could not be challenged through the courts until after April 08.
Ill Health Retirement, second tier, will only apply to workers who are 45 years and older from April 08.
Members will only be able to get pension based on best 3 years in last 10 if they have agreed to stay on reduced earnings or have accessed a flexible retirement option. Otherwise it is the best year in the last 3.
Term time workers will have pension contributions based on term time pay not full time equivalent.
The Head of Local Government stated she felt that UNISON had been lied too by Government Minister Phil Woolas and that it had implications for the relationship with the Labour Party.
There are a few meetings with other trade unions over the next few weeks.
There was intense lobbying of Government ministers over the protection issue, it was hoped that there maybe movement over the next few days but there was a large amount of scepticism.
Several delegates stated we should not be surprised about Government lies, we had heard them before.
Vikki Perrin, John McDermott and Glen Kelly argued to recommend rejection of the current regulations and move to a consultation ballot.
Some delegates stated that we should not reject the regulations as there are some good points.
A vote was taken.
7 Delegates voted to reject and move to a ballot.
17 Delegates voted to recommend acceptance if additional protection was offered and ballot.
Nobody voted for a proposal from the General Secretary that we should ballot as the best that could be achieved by negotiation.
Pay
There was no report given but after the meeting we spoke to a member of the NJC Committee who said there was a meeting with the employers 21st May, where some progress is expected. There is then a meeting of the NJC 22nd May where an update can be given.
There is also a meeting of all the Public Sector Trades Unions at the TUC in the next few weeks to look at a joint coordinated approach.
Members will recall that at the special pensions conference branches were persuaded to vote against a ballot for action on pensions on a number of promises,
More protection of the 85 Year Rule
No discrimination against part time workers
Justice for 5% workers.
There was no stance taken by the union on the employers cut in contributions.
The reality, at the moment, is that the Government and Employers lied to UNISON officials who then passed on the lies to conference.
UNISON officials have been ‘duped’ not for the first time on this issue.
This is not acceptable on all sorts of levels.
We believe that we cannot deal with this Government and employers with any degree of certainty and should ballot to reject the current regulations and move to an industrial action footing as soon as possible.
This should be used to gain improvements and focus Government and Employers minds these important issues.
There is LGSGE 5th June to discuss a full agenda including Pay and Pensions."
Thanks to the comrades from Yorkshire for providing such a useful report!
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
SGE win without inspiring Special Conference
I have blogged on the excellent Lambeth branch blog about the outcome of today’s Special Local Government Conference. This rejected calls for a strike ballot by a convincing margin and voted instead for continuing negotiations, to be followed by a consultative ballot in which members will be asked to choose either to accept the Government’s proposals, with any changes secured in those negotiations, or to back substantial and escalating industrial action.
Jean Geldart, Chair of the Service Group Executive(SGE), moved the successful composite, acknowledging that we had not achieved all our objectives but pointing out the significant improvements which she claimed had arisen from the negotiations to date. Her most powerful argument, borne out by the eventual vote, was that many branches lacked confidence in the willingness of members to take further strike action on this issue at this time.
I have blogged here incessantly about my criticisms of the tactics in this dispute which have played a major role in creating circumstances in which it is now clear that many members and activists have lost confidence in our ability to repeat the effective strike action taken on 28 March last year.
Paul Holmes, Secretary of the Kirklees local government branch – the branch which had led pressure for a Special Conference to be called – proposed the alternative point of view, that whilst members may have lost confidence and enthusiasm for the dispute because of the errors which had been made, nevertheless when presented with the arguments, members would be willing to back action.
I thought that Paul made amongst the very best contributions of the day and that his initial analysis that we would stand or fall by our ability to impart to those who are disappointed the confidence that we could do better proved to be spot on, albeit that we fell rather than stood as a result.
In my doubtless biased opinion the “left” (for want of a better word) had the best of the debate, with supporters of the platform rapidly descending to the sort of red-baiting that I thought they mostly preferred to do anonymously these days.
I am in no doubt that had we not blundered by calling off further strike action in the run up to last May’s elections we could have secured more substantial progress than we have done, particularly in relation to protecting existing scheme members, some of whom stand to lose many thousands of pounds as a result of this error by our leadership.
I suspect that many of those who supported the “top table” position today share that view – indeed more than one of those supporting Composite A against the pro-strike ballot Composite C said as much.
However, it was always going to be incredibly difficult to overcome the disillusion which set in through the loss of momentum as we were led through fruitless negotiations with the employer by way of a misguided legal challenge. Today an attempt was made to do this, but it failed.
It would be wrong to view this outcome as a crushing defeat, just as it would be wrong to view the current proposals on the new look LGPS as simply a bad deal. They fall short of our objectives (and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise) but there are positive aspects of the proposals.
Our strike action on 28 March last year put us in a better position to secure concessions than if we had not struck (just as further timely strike action would have put us in a better position still). There will be further challenges to our pensions, as there will be to our pay and conditions, our job security and our public services.
The outcome of the LGPS dispute to date shows what can be achieved with organisation and the willingness to take action, and how much more could be achieved with greater organisation and greater willingness to take action.
One final comment – there are those who are critical of the calling of a Special Conference. They should reflect upon the reasons why so many branches backed the call for a Conference, including many who clearly voted today for Composite A. In no sense can today be interpreted as a vote of confidence in the conduct of the dispute. I hope that lessons are learned.
Here is an update on Wednesday afternoon – the UNISON website now carries an official report of the Conference decision. Coincidentally the longest quotation from any individual speech is from an NEC colleague facing, as most do, a contested election.
A further update on Thursday evening. The sole right wing "rank and file" UNISON blogger has now chipped in on the discussion about the Special Conference as you will see in the comments below. I try not to be freaked out by his apparent obsession...
I won't post a link to nonsense - but if you want to know where it is you can email me at jonrogers1963@btinternet.com and I shall let you know. For my part I shall continue only and ever to blog openly - I have very limited respect for those who hide behind anonymity to attack others in our movement.
Jean Geldart, Chair of the Service Group Executive(SGE), moved the successful composite, acknowledging that we had not achieved all our objectives but pointing out the significant improvements which she claimed had arisen from the negotiations to date. Her most powerful argument, borne out by the eventual vote, was that many branches lacked confidence in the willingness of members to take further strike action on this issue at this time.
I have blogged here incessantly about my criticisms of the tactics in this dispute which have played a major role in creating circumstances in which it is now clear that many members and activists have lost confidence in our ability to repeat the effective strike action taken on 28 March last year.
Paul Holmes, Secretary of the Kirklees local government branch – the branch which had led pressure for a Special Conference to be called – proposed the alternative point of view, that whilst members may have lost confidence and enthusiasm for the dispute because of the errors which had been made, nevertheless when presented with the arguments, members would be willing to back action.
I thought that Paul made amongst the very best contributions of the day and that his initial analysis that we would stand or fall by our ability to impart to those who are disappointed the confidence that we could do better proved to be spot on, albeit that we fell rather than stood as a result.
In my doubtless biased opinion the “left” (for want of a better word) had the best of the debate, with supporters of the platform rapidly descending to the sort of red-baiting that I thought they mostly preferred to do anonymously these days.
I am in no doubt that had we not blundered by calling off further strike action in the run up to last May’s elections we could have secured more substantial progress than we have done, particularly in relation to protecting existing scheme members, some of whom stand to lose many thousands of pounds as a result of this error by our leadership.
I suspect that many of those who supported the “top table” position today share that view – indeed more than one of those supporting Composite A against the pro-strike ballot Composite C said as much.
However, it was always going to be incredibly difficult to overcome the disillusion which set in through the loss of momentum as we were led through fruitless negotiations with the employer by way of a misguided legal challenge. Today an attempt was made to do this, but it failed.
It would be wrong to view this outcome as a crushing defeat, just as it would be wrong to view the current proposals on the new look LGPS as simply a bad deal. They fall short of our objectives (and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise) but there are positive aspects of the proposals.
Our strike action on 28 March last year put us in a better position to secure concessions than if we had not struck (just as further timely strike action would have put us in a better position still). There will be further challenges to our pensions, as there will be to our pay and conditions, our job security and our public services.
The outcome of the LGPS dispute to date shows what can be achieved with organisation and the willingness to take action, and how much more could be achieved with greater organisation and greater willingness to take action.
One final comment – there are those who are critical of the calling of a Special Conference. They should reflect upon the reasons why so many branches backed the call for a Conference, including many who clearly voted today for Composite A. In no sense can today be interpreted as a vote of confidence in the conduct of the dispute. I hope that lessons are learned.
Here is an update on Wednesday afternoon – the UNISON website now carries an official report of the Conference decision. Coincidentally the longest quotation from any individual speech is from an NEC colleague facing, as most do, a contested election.
A further update on Thursday evening. The sole right wing "rank and file" UNISON blogger has now chipped in on the discussion about the Special Conference as you will see in the comments below. I try not to be freaked out by his apparent obsession...
I won't post a link to nonsense - but if you want to know where it is you can email me at jonrogers1963@btinternet.com and I shall let you know. For my part I shall continue only and ever to blog openly - I have very limited respect for those who hide behind anonymity to attack others in our movement.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Special Conference Composites decided
I am on my way home from a fringe meeting organised by the Kirklees branch in advance of tomorrow’s Special UNISON Local Government Conference to discuss the Local Government Pension Scheme.
It now appears that the central debate at tomorrow’s Conference will be a grouped debate between two counterposed Composite motions, Composite A will be the position of the majority of the Service Group Executive, backed by the South East Region and North Yorkshire, which is against a strike ballot and for a consultative ballot on whether or not to accept the Government proposals. No proposal is made as to whether there should be any recommendation to the members in such a consultative ballot.
Composite C, to be moved by the Kirklees Branch, has the backing of the Greater London Region, several London branches and Wolverhampton. It reflects the policy of last year’s Conference – and the policy of the SGE until very recently – and calls for a strike ballot. It also calls for any further package to be put before the June Conference to make a recommendation ahead of any ballot on acceptance.
Although supporters of Composite A will argue that the current Government proposals are a good deal, that the members don’t want to strike and that the democratic thing to do is to put it to the members, I hope that the advocates of Composite C will find that their better and more persuasive arguments win the day.
The mixed bag of proposals from the Government simply don’t deliver on the central point for which our members took strike action on March, and there is no sense in ducking that issue.
Nevertheless it would be true that we might have to settle for something less than our objectives (hardly a novelty in our movement!) if our members could not be won to support the action necessary to win – but we have hardly even tried asking at this stage, and where the debate has been had it has generally been won.
Finally – and crucially – it is more democratic to put a clear choice to our members in a strike ballot, with our leadership demonstrating some real leadership by campaigning in support of our Union policies amongst our membership, rather than abdicating responsibility by the ruse of a consultative ballot with no recommendation.
It is to the credit UNISON’s Local Government Service Group that we are having a Conference to debate this vital issue. Whatever the outcome we will at least have had the opportunity to have a debate.
I just hope it isn’t like the last Special Conference at the Ally Pally, the closely contested outcome of which has very much come back to haunt us!
It now appears that the central debate at tomorrow’s Conference will be a grouped debate between two counterposed Composite motions, Composite A will be the position of the majority of the Service Group Executive, backed by the South East Region and North Yorkshire, which is against a strike ballot and for a consultative ballot on whether or not to accept the Government proposals. No proposal is made as to whether there should be any recommendation to the members in such a consultative ballot.
Composite C, to be moved by the Kirklees Branch, has the backing of the Greater London Region, several London branches and Wolverhampton. It reflects the policy of last year’s Conference – and the policy of the SGE until very recently – and calls for a strike ballot. It also calls for any further package to be put before the June Conference to make a recommendation ahead of any ballot on acceptance.
Although supporters of Composite A will argue that the current Government proposals are a good deal, that the members don’t want to strike and that the democratic thing to do is to put it to the members, I hope that the advocates of Composite C will find that their better and more persuasive arguments win the day.
The mixed bag of proposals from the Government simply don’t deliver on the central point for which our members took strike action on March, and there is no sense in ducking that issue.
Nevertheless it would be true that we might have to settle for something less than our objectives (hardly a novelty in our movement!) if our members could not be won to support the action necessary to win – but we have hardly even tried asking at this stage, and where the debate has been had it has generally been won.
Finally – and crucially – it is more democratic to put a clear choice to our members in a strike ballot, with our leadership demonstrating some real leadership by campaigning in support of our Union policies amongst our membership, rather than abdicating responsibility by the ruse of a consultative ballot with no recommendation.
It is to the credit UNISON’s Local Government Service Group that we are having a Conference to debate this vital issue. Whatever the outcome we will at least have had the opportunity to have a debate.
I just hope it isn’t like the last Special Conference at the Ally Pally, the closely contested outcome of which has very much come back to haunt us!
How Special is a Special Conference?
I hope that tomorrow's Special Conference of UNISON's Local Government Service Group will endorse proposals for a strike ballot to continue the campaign we started with last year's strike. My local branch AGM - which was well attended - unanimously endorsed this approach following debate.
The alternative proposition - which is that we embark upon a consultative ballot on the Government proposals without even considering what recommendation to make to members in that ballot (beyond warning them that if they reject them we can go no further through negotiation) makes a nonsense of the Service Group Executive(SGE) having called a special conference in the first place.
Why bring us all to the Ally Pally and then not ask us to decide about anything? At least in 1997 we had a vote on whether or not to recommend the Single Status deal to members in a ballot.
I only hope that the SOC allow proposals for a recommendation to be put in any consultative ballot on to the Agenda - though I am worried about what I hear on this score.
A consultative ballot with no recommendation amounts to an indication to the membership that we are giving up on the question of protection for scheme members losing out - the issue which we put at centre stage when we took strike action last year.
That would be foolish.
The alternative proposition - which is that we embark upon a consultative ballot on the Government proposals without even considering what recommendation to make to members in that ballot (beyond warning them that if they reject them we can go no further through negotiation) makes a nonsense of the Service Group Executive(SGE) having called a special conference in the first place.
Why bring us all to the Ally Pally and then not ask us to decide about anything? At least in 1997 we had a vote on whether or not to recommend the Single Status deal to members in a ballot.
I only hope that the SOC allow proposals for a recommendation to be put in any consultative ballot on to the Agenda - though I am worried about what I hear on this score.
A consultative ballot with no recommendation amounts to an indication to the membership that we are giving up on the question of protection for scheme members losing out - the issue which we put at centre stage when we took strike action last year.
That would be foolish.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Special Local Government Conference - what shall we do?
I blogged the other day about the publication of the agenda for the forthcoming Special UNISON Local Government Conference on the LGPS dispute.
As I observed this agenda is likely to be overtaken at least to some extent by further Emergency Motions, particularly following the Service Group Executive meeting on Tuesday.
Since the SGE motion on the current Agenda (Motion One) has been considerably overtaken by events there must be some possibility that it will be withdrawn, although this will lead to all the many amendments which have been put to it falling as well.
By and large all of these amendments strengthen the motion in one way or another, although some are inconsistent with one another. (For example, if pushed I would sooner see a national demonstration on the second, rather than the first, day of a national two day strike, so that we could focus on picket lines on the first day).
If Motion One stays on the agenda, the sensible thing will almost certainly be to support all of the amendments in the order in which they appear and to live with any “consequences” one for another that the Standing Orders Committee (SOC) may determine.
Of the other motions there are some which deal with particular issues and three groups which are particularly significant for the whole dispute. One particular motion is Motion 14 (from both the Kirklees branch and the Greater London Region) which deals with what you might call “governance” of the dispute will attract opprobrium from the bureaucracy and their more embarrassingly inadequate hangers on but is worthy of support by all those who care about making our Union effective as well as democratic.
Motions 7, 8 and 9 all take in one way or another the “left” position (which I happen to believe to be right!) that we should be moving to a strike ballot since negotiations have demonstrably failed to achieve an outcome sufficiently close to the objectives which we set ourselves and which our General Secretary spoke for with such passion. These motions should be supported.
Motions 2 and 3 however both take what could be described as a “right” position (except that IMHO it is wrong rather than right) and argue for a ballot of our members on the Government proposals, rather than a strike ballot. This is the position adopted by those at the recent NEC meeting who believe that local government workers have changed our minds since March last year and no longer want to fight to protect our pension rights.
The SOC are proposing to composite motions 2 and 3 (along with the otherwise inoffensive motion 4) and also to composite motions 7, 8 and 9. If this is done two clear positions will be counterposed at the Conference – and the fair and democratic way to deal with this would be to have a “grouped debate” with equal time for each point of view (otherwise if the composites were counterposed but debated separately then whichever side had their position put first would have the advantage of a longer opening speech and an unopposed right of reply.
Here will be a test of whether the SOC for Local Government Conference are prepared to be fair! I hope they will :)
Are there other positions which should be advanced in an Emergency Motion – or should we stick with the sensible and reasonable proposal to move straight ahead with a strike ballot? (Bearing in mind that if the prophets of doom are right then all they have to do is vote no…!)
As always (in fact, more than usually) your comments are welcome..
As I observed this agenda is likely to be overtaken at least to some extent by further Emergency Motions, particularly following the Service Group Executive meeting on Tuesday.
Since the SGE motion on the current Agenda (Motion One) has been considerably overtaken by events there must be some possibility that it will be withdrawn, although this will lead to all the many amendments which have been put to it falling as well.
By and large all of these amendments strengthen the motion in one way or another, although some are inconsistent with one another. (For example, if pushed I would sooner see a national demonstration on the second, rather than the first, day of a national two day strike, so that we could focus on picket lines on the first day).
If Motion One stays on the agenda, the sensible thing will almost certainly be to support all of the amendments in the order in which they appear and to live with any “consequences” one for another that the Standing Orders Committee (SOC) may determine.
Of the other motions there are some which deal with particular issues and three groups which are particularly significant for the whole dispute. One particular motion is Motion 14 (from both the Kirklees branch and the Greater London Region) which deals with what you might call “governance” of the dispute will attract opprobrium from the bureaucracy and their more embarrassingly inadequate hangers on but is worthy of support by all those who care about making our Union effective as well as democratic.
Motions 7, 8 and 9 all take in one way or another the “left” position (which I happen to believe to be right!) that we should be moving to a strike ballot since negotiations have demonstrably failed to achieve an outcome sufficiently close to the objectives which we set ourselves and which our General Secretary spoke for with such passion. These motions should be supported.
Motions 2 and 3 however both take what could be described as a “right” position (except that IMHO it is wrong rather than right) and argue for a ballot of our members on the Government proposals, rather than a strike ballot. This is the position adopted by those at the recent NEC meeting who believe that local government workers have changed our minds since March last year and no longer want to fight to protect our pension rights.
The SOC are proposing to composite motions 2 and 3 (along with the otherwise inoffensive motion 4) and also to composite motions 7, 8 and 9. If this is done two clear positions will be counterposed at the Conference – and the fair and democratic way to deal with this would be to have a “grouped debate” with equal time for each point of view (otherwise if the composites were counterposed but debated separately then whichever side had their position put first would have the advantage of a longer opening speech and an unopposed right of reply.
Here will be a test of whether the SOC for Local Government Conference are prepared to be fair! I hope they will :)
Are there other positions which should be advanced in an Emergency Motion – or should we stick with the sensible and reasonable proposal to move straight ahead with a strike ballot? (Bearing in mind that if the prophets of doom are right then all they have to do is vote no…!)
As always (in fact, more than usually) your comments are welcome..
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Special Conference Final Agenda
I should have mentioned earlier that the Final Agenda for the Special Local Government Conference on Pensions is online now.
The strong likelihood of Emergency Motions means that “Final” Agenda may be a bit of a misnomer…
The strong likelihood of Emergency Motions means that “Final” Agenda may be a bit of a misnomer…
LGPS "a good deal"???
I’ll write up my full report of yesterday’s meeting of the UNISON NEC later, but I think it is worth mentioning right away the gist of the discussion on the Local Government Pension Scheme.
The Head of Local Government reported back on the detail of discussions with the Government during the current consultation period, and confirmed that proposals to attack redundancy entitlements were to be dropped.
There has as yet been no movement on the question of contributions from part time employees, although the Equal Opportunities Commission have now weighed in on the side of the unions (which, we were told, effectively means on the side of UNISON as it is UNISON that is making all the running and doing all the work in the discussions).
However, on the question of protection of the rights of those who have lost out with the abolition of the “Rule of 85” our objective was described simply in terms of increasing protection and, it was reported that an extension of protection in full to all those who will turn 60 by April 2020 “would be a minimum for us.”
I think it is fair to say that no UNISON body has ever agreed that this is any sort of bottom line and I, for one, was a little angry. I expressed my view that if the final settlement of the LGPS dispute was on the basis of 2020 then this would have been a defeat – in effect we would have failed to achieve protection for the younger half of the scheme membership when that was precisely the issue on which we mobilised support for strike action last March.
This argument, and similar points put by colleagues on the NEC including John McDermott, Glenn Kelly and Roger Bannister drew two lines of response. On the one hand there were those who said that there was no “appetite” for further industrial action amongst the membership. Chris Tansley said that this was the view in Nottinghamshire amongst local government workers, whilst Gerry Gallagher reported that no police staff branches want to take further action and Stephen Mead indicated similar views amongst members in Higher Education.
Dave Prentis, on the other hand, offered a more upbeat route to a similar conclusion. He said that he was proud of the achievements of our negotiators and that the “deal” on the LGPS (i.e. the current proposals) was the best deal done for any of the public service pension schemes in the last three years.
So now we can see the shape of debate at the 6 March Special Conference. Those of us who think that we should be fighting for LGPS members to be treated no less favourably than members of other public service pension schemes will be told, on the one hand, that members do not want to fight on this issue and, on the other, that we are disgracefully undermining our negotiators and our Union by failing to laud the great achievements reflected in the proposals for the “new look” LGPS.
Of course there are significant positive aspects of the “new look” LGPS. The retention of a final salary scheme with improved accrual is a good thing. However it does seem to me that it would be less than honest to dress up as a victory an outcome which falls well short of the equitable treatment for current scheme members which has been a central demand.
Equally we have to accept that not all members are necessarily going to be gung ho for further strike action. Indeed it is never easy to persuade members to make the sacrifice of strike action. However, members were mobilised on a massive scale on 28 March last year. UNISON is more than capable of mounting the vigorous campaign amongst our own membership which would be required to secure support for the further substantial strike action which can win fair treatment for LGPS members.
The Kirklees branch have very sensibly arranged a fringe meeting on the evening of 5 March at which delegates from branches whose members do want to continue the struggle to defend pension rights can discuss how we go forward. This dispute needs to be put into the hands of the membership.
The Head of Local Government reported back on the detail of discussions with the Government during the current consultation period, and confirmed that proposals to attack redundancy entitlements were to be dropped.
There has as yet been no movement on the question of contributions from part time employees, although the Equal Opportunities Commission have now weighed in on the side of the unions (which, we were told, effectively means on the side of UNISON as it is UNISON that is making all the running and doing all the work in the discussions).
However, on the question of protection of the rights of those who have lost out with the abolition of the “Rule of 85” our objective was described simply in terms of increasing protection and, it was reported that an extension of protection in full to all those who will turn 60 by April 2020 “would be a minimum for us.”
I think it is fair to say that no UNISON body has ever agreed that this is any sort of bottom line and I, for one, was a little angry. I expressed my view that if the final settlement of the LGPS dispute was on the basis of 2020 then this would have been a defeat – in effect we would have failed to achieve protection for the younger half of the scheme membership when that was precisely the issue on which we mobilised support for strike action last March.
This argument, and similar points put by colleagues on the NEC including John McDermott, Glenn Kelly and Roger Bannister drew two lines of response. On the one hand there were those who said that there was no “appetite” for further industrial action amongst the membership. Chris Tansley said that this was the view in Nottinghamshire amongst local government workers, whilst Gerry Gallagher reported that no police staff branches want to take further action and Stephen Mead indicated similar views amongst members in Higher Education.
Dave Prentis, on the other hand, offered a more upbeat route to a similar conclusion. He said that he was proud of the achievements of our negotiators and that the “deal” on the LGPS (i.e. the current proposals) was the best deal done for any of the public service pension schemes in the last three years.
So now we can see the shape of debate at the 6 March Special Conference. Those of us who think that we should be fighting for LGPS members to be treated no less favourably than members of other public service pension schemes will be told, on the one hand, that members do not want to fight on this issue and, on the other, that we are disgracefully undermining our negotiators and our Union by failing to laud the great achievements reflected in the proposals for the “new look” LGPS.
Of course there are significant positive aspects of the “new look” LGPS. The retention of a final salary scheme with improved accrual is a good thing. However it does seem to me that it would be less than honest to dress up as a victory an outcome which falls well short of the equitable treatment for current scheme members which has been a central demand.
Equally we have to accept that not all members are necessarily going to be gung ho for further strike action. Indeed it is never easy to persuade members to make the sacrifice of strike action. However, members were mobilised on a massive scale on 28 March last year. UNISON is more than capable of mounting the vigorous campaign amongst our own membership which would be required to secure support for the further substantial strike action which can win fair treatment for LGPS members.
The Kirklees branch have very sensibly arranged a fringe meeting on the evening of 5 March at which delegates from branches whose members do want to continue the struggle to defend pension rights can discuss how we go forward. This dispute needs to be put into the hands of the membership.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
LGPS - the detailed impact on the individual
UNISON has produced an excellent ready reckoner which members of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) can use to compare their pension entitlements under the proposed new LGPS. Check the relevant page on the website for guidance on using the ready reckoner.
This is a valuable resource but of course it does tend to make you look at the dispute from an individual rather than a collective perspective, as no socialist ever should (but of course I have…)
So if I have worked it out right this is what it means to me personally…
If I retire at 60 and choose to take the same lump sum as that to which I would otherwise have been entitled, my annual pension will be reduced by more than 10% for the rest of my life compared to what I would have had had I been protected.
If on the other hand I work until 65 I can earn the same lump sum as that to which I would otherwise have been entitled I will get a pension 4% higher than under the old scheme. I have to work until at least the age of 64 in order to be better off than I would have been prior to the abolition of the “Rule of 85”.
Of course I am old (well middle-aged). Were I a 20 year old who had started in local government on my eighteenth birthday I would stand to lose more than 20% of their pension on retirement at 60 under the new scheme, compared with what their entitlements would have been under the old scheme with the Rule of 85.
Current members of other public service pension schemes were protected and we aren’t being. If we settle for this we will be letting down our younger members in particular (including those as youthful as myself…)
Hands up again those who think this is a good deal?
This is a valuable resource but of course it does tend to make you look at the dispute from an individual rather than a collective perspective, as no socialist ever should (but of course I have…)
So if I have worked it out right this is what it means to me personally…
If I retire at 60 and choose to take the same lump sum as that to which I would otherwise have been entitled, my annual pension will be reduced by more than 10% for the rest of my life compared to what I would have had had I been protected.
If on the other hand I work until 65 I can earn the same lump sum as that to which I would otherwise have been entitled I will get a pension 4% higher than under the old scheme. I have to work until at least the age of 64 in order to be better off than I would have been prior to the abolition of the “Rule of 85”.
Of course I am old (well middle-aged). Were I a 20 year old who had started in local government on my eighteenth birthday I would stand to lose more than 20% of their pension on retirement at 60 under the new scheme, compared with what their entitlements would have been under the old scheme with the Rule of 85.
Current members of other public service pension schemes were protected and we aren’t being. If we settle for this we will be letting down our younger members in particular (including those as youthful as myself…)
Hands up again those who think this is a good deal?
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Redundancy payments saved - maybe - so who cares about our pensions? (erm, well we do...)
Well it is good news that the Government are redrafting the LGPS Regulations to restore (with some caveats) entitlement to an unreduced pension if dismissed on redundancy grounds above age 55 (age 50 for current scheme members until 2010). As to the caveats, we shall wait and see...
This gratuitous assault upon the rights of older workers facing redundancy was an outrage. It was also an outrage which had not been sought by the employers. If we allow the withdrawal of this recent outrage to become justification for settling for a deal which fails to protect the pension rights of all scheme members we will be letting down the man who rightly said that;
“Members of every other public-sector pension scheme have had their pension contract honoured - why should local government workers be treated any differently? Teachers' contracts honoured but not teaching assistants; police but not police staff; civil servants but not dustmen; and social workers that work in hospitals but not those social workers who work for councils.”
The deal offered at the Public Services Forum in October 2005 to the other public service schemes was a victory for a firm negotiating position adopted by those who simply weren't prepared to accept the "compromise" of protection for those who would turn 60 by 2018 when others were prepared to settle for that.
Let’s hear who says what at the Special Conference…
This gratuitous assault upon the rights of older workers facing redundancy was an outrage. It was also an outrage which had not been sought by the employers. If we allow the withdrawal of this recent outrage to become justification for settling for a deal which fails to protect the pension rights of all scheme members we will be letting down the man who rightly said that;
“Members of every other public-sector pension scheme have had their pension contract honoured - why should local government workers be treated any differently? Teachers' contracts honoured but not teaching assistants; police but not police staff; civil servants but not dustmen; and social workers that work in hospitals but not those social workers who work for councils.”
The deal offered at the Public Services Forum in October 2005 to the other public service schemes was a victory for a firm negotiating position adopted by those who simply weren't prepared to accept the "compromise" of protection for those who would turn 60 by 2018 when others were prepared to settle for that.
Let’s hear who says what at the Special Conference…
Saturday, February 10, 2007
LGPS - 2020 is not enough!
I wish I had been wrong about this, but I have to point out that you read it here last year. The union side objectives in the dispute over the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) appear in danger of shrinking before our eyes.
Expect any day now to start hearing from some in our Union that if we could only get protection of pension rights extended from those who will be 60 by 2016 to include all those who will be 60 by 2020 then that would be great.
You know what? It wouldn’t. If we accept that we will badly let down our members who took strike action in March.
The Government may be about to back off from an attack upon redundancy rights which the employers had never requested. But that is no reason for us to accept a worse deal on protection of pension rights than that which was offered to all other public service pension schemes!
I was unimpressed when the Service Group Executives agreed not to go ahead with a strike ballot last month. I am even less impressed by the continuing delay agreed last week.
Delay and timidity is justified as ever by a process of “consultation” intended to enable members to reflect back at the leadership the feelings of uncertainty which have been engendered by the doubtful tactics which have been the hallmark of the dispute to date.
The Special Conference on 6 March may be our last chance to take this dispute back for our members. The deadline for Emergency Motions is first thing on 28 February and the Service Group Executive meets on 27 February so if anyone in local government has a Branch Committee meeting on the evening of 27 February then please get in touch!
Expect any day now to start hearing from some in our Union that if we could only get protection of pension rights extended from those who will be 60 by 2016 to include all those who will be 60 by 2020 then that would be great.
You know what? It wouldn’t. If we accept that we will badly let down our members who took strike action in March.
The Government may be about to back off from an attack upon redundancy rights which the employers had never requested. But that is no reason for us to accept a worse deal on protection of pension rights than that which was offered to all other public service pension schemes!
I was unimpressed when the Service Group Executives agreed not to go ahead with a strike ballot last month. I am even less impressed by the continuing delay agreed last week.
Delay and timidity is justified as ever by a process of “consultation” intended to enable members to reflect back at the leadership the feelings of uncertainty which have been engendered by the doubtful tactics which have been the hallmark of the dispute to date.
The Special Conference on 6 March may be our last chance to take this dispute back for our members. The deadline for Emergency Motions is first thing on 28 February and the Service Group Executive meets on 27 February so if anyone in local government has a Branch Committee meeting on the evening of 27 February then please get in touch!
Monday, January 29, 2007
A terrible dream?
I must stop working so late.
I must have dropped off.
I had an awful dream in which I was a member of a trade union in which the unelected officials told the elected and accountable activists that they ought not to meet to discuss an important dispute - in the name of guidelines on Democracy!
In that dream world I also heard that there had been no effective lay oversight of the crucial leaflet issued to all members about proposals for the future of the Pension Scheme.
What a good job I am a member of a lay led trade union where such things could never happen.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Lunch before pensions???
Thanks to Dorothy for a comment on an earlier post asking me about the Special Local Government Conference being called by UNISON on 6 March. I’ll return to this theme when there is more information about the motions coming up for debate from branches.
Dorothy asked whether the convening of a special conference is an embarrassment for the Union’s leadership. Technically this Conference is being convened in response to a request from the Service Group Executive (and therefore by the leadership). However, there is little doubt that this would not have happened had it not been for the very strong support for the separate requisition for a Special Conference initiated by the Kirklees branch. I understand that by the time the decision to agree the SGE request was made, the Kirklees requisition was well past the target it needed to reach.
Kirklees needed to gain the support of branches representing 25% of the membership of the Local Government Service Group (the local government section of UNISON) within a two month period. It is clear that they more than succeeded in this objective (branches with a membership of around 300,000 out of 800,000 is what I have heard). It is obvious that if branches and activists up and down the country were happy and relaxed about the way in which the dispute has been run up to now then they would not have supported the requisition for a Special Conference.
The Conference will take place on Tuesday 6 March at the Alexandra Palace. However, as I understand it, the current proposed start time for the Conference is 1pm, so quite how long we will have to debate the dispute over the Local Government Pension Scheme remains to be seen. I am sure that all activists would be sympathetic to any attempt to minimise the cost of a Special Conference, but it may prove a false economy to get us together only from lunchtime if the delegates don’t have time to get through the debate which needs to be had.
It’s the debate on pensions which we will be going to the Ally Pally to get our teeth into – not the over priced sandwiches…
Dorothy asked whether the convening of a special conference is an embarrassment for the Union’s leadership. Technically this Conference is being convened in response to a request from the Service Group Executive (and therefore by the leadership). However, there is little doubt that this would not have happened had it not been for the very strong support for the separate requisition for a Special Conference initiated by the Kirklees branch. I understand that by the time the decision to agree the SGE request was made, the Kirklees requisition was well past the target it needed to reach.
Kirklees needed to gain the support of branches representing 25% of the membership of the Local Government Service Group (the local government section of UNISON) within a two month period. It is clear that they more than succeeded in this objective (branches with a membership of around 300,000 out of 800,000 is what I have heard). It is obvious that if branches and activists up and down the country were happy and relaxed about the way in which the dispute has been run up to now then they would not have supported the requisition for a Special Conference.
The Conference will take place on Tuesday 6 March at the Alexandra Palace. However, as I understand it, the current proposed start time for the Conference is 1pm, so quite how long we will have to debate the dispute over the Local Government Pension Scheme remains to be seen. I am sure that all activists would be sympathetic to any attempt to minimise the cost of a Special Conference, but it may prove a false economy to get us together only from lunchtime if the delegates don’t have time to get through the debate which needs to be had.
It’s the debate on pensions which we will be going to the Ally Pally to get our teeth into – not the over priced sandwiches…
Friday, January 12, 2007
The new look LGPS and the employee contribution escalator
At the risk of becoming boring about the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS), another aspect of the proposals for the “new look” LGPS is troubling me this morning as I speed to a Regional Pensions Briefing.
This relates to the tiered contribution structure in the new scheme. In principle this seems like a good thing. Higher paid workers should pay a higher proportion of their marginal income to pay for their pension – it is the same principle as progressive taxation.
If I have understood the (even more progressive) proposals for the NHS Pension Scheme, each “tier” of pension contribution is linked to an AfC (Agenda for Change) grade - at least for those staff on AfC grades and earning less than £100,000 (!).
As the document explaining the NHS scheme puts it; “For AfC members, NHS pay rises will also apply to pay points. Movement between pay bands will therefore not depend on the level of any agreed NHS pay rise, but in most instances on promotion to a higher pay point.”
However, the proposals for the “new-look” LGPS have just two tiers, which break at £12,000 and – in the proposals – this sum is not linked to (for example) a spine point on the agreed National Joint Council pay spine. This leads to two points, the first of which is only really relevant in Greater London, though the second applies across the board.
First, whereas in the Health Service Scheme, tiers of pension contributions will be linked to grades (and therefore London Weighting, which is paid in addition to the grade will not of itself push staff up a tier) – in the LGPS, because London Weighting is now paid as part of the Inner and Outer London pay spines, this will have the effect of significantly increasing the proportion of the workforce paying a marginal pension contribution of 7.5% in London.
Secondly, because the break point between the two tiers in the “new look” LGPS is a cash sum and is not linked to a point on the pay spine, the scheme includes a built in “escalator” for aggregate employee contributions. Year on year, as pay increases, the proportion of the pay bill going in employee pension contributions will automatically rise.
(To illustrate this point, imagine we get a 2.5% pay rise on 1 April. For some staff this pay rise will not increase their earnings beyond £12,000 so they will experience no change and will go on paying 5.5% on their whole earnings. For some staff the 2.5% pay rise will increase their pay from just below to just above £12,000 so they will start paying 7.5% pension contributions on a small fraction of their income, and their pension contribution as a share of their income will rise above 5.5%. For those staff already earning above £12,000, the proportion of their income on which they pay 7.5% contributions will increase marginally compared to the fixed amount on which they pay 5.5%, so their pension contributions as a share of their income will also increase.)
Of course all of these contributions are paid from gross income, which will further mitigate the impact of what would be – in any one year – a fairly small effect. However, over a number of years the average employee pension contribution in the new-look LGPS will rise, regardless of any annual review of costs. The amount of the rise would not be enormous and would depend upon the pay structure, but, as a ball park figure I would have thought that after five years of increases in the range of 2 to 2.5% the average would have risen from 6.3% to 6.4%. Since one of the points made in the document which discusses the Pension Scheme is that the average employee contribution is currently fractionally lower than the NHS and Teacher’s scheme, it may be important to consider this issue.
Should we not argue for the cut off point to be linked to a point on the NJC pay spine in order to remove this upward ratchet in employee contributions?
I shall ask this – and other – questions this morning…
This relates to the tiered contribution structure in the new scheme. In principle this seems like a good thing. Higher paid workers should pay a higher proportion of their marginal income to pay for their pension – it is the same principle as progressive taxation.
If I have understood the (even more progressive) proposals for the NHS Pension Scheme, each “tier” of pension contribution is linked to an AfC (Agenda for Change) grade - at least for those staff on AfC grades and earning less than £100,000 (!).
As the document explaining the NHS scheme puts it; “For AfC members, NHS pay rises will also apply to pay points. Movement between pay bands will therefore not depend on the level of any agreed NHS pay rise, but in most instances on promotion to a higher pay point.”
However, the proposals for the “new-look” LGPS have just two tiers, which break at £12,000 and – in the proposals – this sum is not linked to (for example) a spine point on the agreed National Joint Council pay spine. This leads to two points, the first of which is only really relevant in Greater London, though the second applies across the board.
First, whereas in the Health Service Scheme, tiers of pension contributions will be linked to grades (and therefore London Weighting, which is paid in addition to the grade will not of itself push staff up a tier) – in the LGPS, because London Weighting is now paid as part of the Inner and Outer London pay spines, this will have the effect of significantly increasing the proportion of the workforce paying a marginal pension contribution of 7.5% in London.
Secondly, because the break point between the two tiers in the “new look” LGPS is a cash sum and is not linked to a point on the pay spine, the scheme includes a built in “escalator” for aggregate employee contributions. Year on year, as pay increases, the proportion of the pay bill going in employee pension contributions will automatically rise.
(To illustrate this point, imagine we get a 2.5% pay rise on 1 April. For some staff this pay rise will not increase their earnings beyond £12,000 so they will experience no change and will go on paying 5.5% on their whole earnings. For some staff the 2.5% pay rise will increase their pay from just below to just above £12,000 so they will start paying 7.5% pension contributions on a small fraction of their income, and their pension contribution as a share of their income will rise above 5.5%. For those staff already earning above £12,000, the proportion of their income on which they pay 7.5% contributions will increase marginally compared to the fixed amount on which they pay 5.5%, so their pension contributions as a share of their income will also increase.)
Of course all of these contributions are paid from gross income, which will further mitigate the impact of what would be – in any one year – a fairly small effect. However, over a number of years the average employee pension contribution in the new-look LGPS will rise, regardless of any annual review of costs. The amount of the rise would not be enormous and would depend upon the pay structure, but, as a ball park figure I would have thought that after five years of increases in the range of 2 to 2.5% the average would have risen from 6.3% to 6.4%. Since one of the points made in the document which discusses the Pension Scheme is that the average employee contribution is currently fractionally lower than the NHS and Teacher’s scheme, it may be important to consider this issue.
Should we not argue for the cut off point to be linked to a point on the NJC pay spine in order to remove this upward ratchet in employee contributions?
I shall ask this – and other – questions this morning…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)