GOVERNMENT RISKS CONFRONTATION WITH CIVIL SERVCE UNION
The announcement of changes to civil service redundancy payments made today by the Cabinet Office is an outrageous breach of faith with the unions, the Public and Commercial Services union says.
Following proposals announced in July to cut the terms of the civil service compensation scheme, ministers had promised to instruct officials to meet PCS and other civil service unions to discuss our concerns.
But that ministerial commitment appears to have been undermined by senior officials, as over the past two months four scheduled meetings have been cancelled. The government now risks squandering the opportunity to prevent what could be a damaging national dispute.
A limited improvement to the original plans - to cap payments at three years or £50,000, instead of two years - was only made after pressure by the union and because of the thousands of responses from PCS members to the government’s consultation. Also, 35,000 PCS members have attended workplace meetings organised by the union to express their opposition to the government’s proposals.
The changes will still rob low paid staff of their entitlements if they are forced to leave their jobs.
PCS’s ruling national executive committee is due to meet next Tuesday (8 December) to consider possible legal and industrial action.
The changes are due to be implemented in April 2010, one month before a likely general election.
PCS is particularly concerned that the proposals pave the way for a massive job cuts programme as the government can only save its intended £500m by making thousands of members of its own workforce compulsorily redundant.
PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka said: “For the Cabinet Office to announce these changes as a fait accompli, without informing us or seeking to reach an agreement, shows an outrageous lack of respect for hard-working civil servants.
“After ministers had shown a willingness to talk, it is appalling that they appear to have allowed senior officials to lead them into a damaging dispute with hundreds of thousands of their own staff months before a general election, when an agreement was in fact possible. We sincerely hope ministers will meet us urgently to discuss ways of avoiding that dispute.”
So!
Comment by Frank — 4 December, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
hi Frank, 1700 jobs to go at curus what have you said about that?
Comment by steelcityred — 4 December, 2009 @ 10:20 pm
I’m surprised Lawrence Shaw hasn’t put in an appearance on this thread - you know, the usual rants of bitter and twisted ex-SP members who can’t let it go.
Comment by Doug — 6 December, 2009 @ 11:35 am
Thanks Andy. This is vey important fight for us. Interestingly, Unite members in MOD are likely to come out with PCS members - it does raise the spectre of picket lines in Afghanistan. In any case, this could well be 250,000 people on strike; so is very significant.
Comment by Keith Watermelon — 6 December, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
none of this surprises me
we are entering a stage both in imperialist countries but also throughout the world of massive attacks on workers rights-we have to understand the nature of the economic policies Imperialism is trying to impose on the working class - i think we have to understand this all in a wider context:
as a commentator has argued recently-the following serious questions need to be addressed:
1. Why greedy bankers are not fundamentally the cause but only a ‘mechanism by which the economic crisis worked itself out’?
2. Why US capitalism is in decline despite its economic, political and military pre-eminence in the world today?
3. What Karl Marx and the concept of ‘ rising organic composition of capital’ have to do with the present crisis and the whole history of capitalist development?
4. How China has generated a higher rate of investment and higher economic growth than any other country in history and moved over 600 million people out of poverty?
5. How the US sub prime mortgage crisis was a symptom of, not a cause of, the crisis?
6. How the policies of Ronald Reagan in the US in the 1980’s and Presidents since then are linked with US’ policies and crisis today-what difference if any does Obama represent? Is anything different happening in the UK reflected in the policies of the mainstream parties?
7. The role of over production and why the ‘euthanasia of bankers’ is necessary-as Keynes argued many years ago.
8. Why the UK taxpayer is bearing the brunt and bailing out bankers?
9. The alternative policies and priorities in the struggle defending the interests of the majority of humanity and what we can do in the UK today?
10. How China has coped with the crisis and maintained its amazing growth rate with very different policies and outcomes from the capitalist west?
All these issues have been addressed very cogently and coherently in a recent article entitled ‘No butter, just guns’ http://www.socialistaction.net/Editorial/No-butter-just-guns.html
We needs genuine debate, which i hope Socialist Unity can encourage-and i hope editorial supervision can ensure we can avoid the usual personal attacks and red-baiting that some on this web site engage in- as the left, and progressives who ally with the left, need to understand these issues-which are key underlying factors which will play out throught the many economic and politial strugles the working class and all oppressed groups globally will be facing in the coming decade
Comment by sylvia ebberly — 6 December, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
“This is vey important fight for us. Interestingly, Unite members in MOD are likely to come out with PCS members - it does raise the spectre of picket lines in Afghanistan. In any case, this could well be 250,000 people on strike; so is very significant.”
Every single person in the PCS that was hired after the pension deal, which the union agreed, is not on the CSCS. They have no reason to support this strike. That is tens of thousands of PCS members.
Comment by Ian Croft — 6 December, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
Every single person in the PCS that was hired after the pension deal, which the union agreed, is not on the CSCS. They have no reason to support this strike. That is tens of thousands of PCS members.
This is crap of course. Those of us in the NUVOS scheme do not want our jobs cut or privatised; and in any case the PCS demand is for one scheme for all staff, on the current terms.
Comment by Keith Watermelon — 6 December, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
“Those of us in the NUVOS scheme do not want our jobs cut or privatised”
That is nothing to do with any strike over the CSCS.
“and in any case the PCS demand is for one scheme for all staff, on the current terms.”
It is a fact that tens of thousands of PCS members are not on the CSCS.
It is also a fact that it was the union that agreed to this. It a bit of a joke to demand one scheme for all staff when the union itself agreed to a two-tier system. Is the PCS going to demand all existing members not on the CSCS are upgraded to CSCS? Will they back this up with strike action?
They cannot seriously expect people not on the CSCS to back strike action unless that is part of the demands.
Comment by Ian Croft — 6 December, 2009 @ 5:02 pm
“Those of us in the NUVOS scheme do not want our jobs cut or privatised”
That is nothing to do with any strike over the CSCS.
Yes it is, the employer is cutting the cost of redundancy payments precisely so jobs can be cut and so our terms are more attractive to the private sector. Why would they make it cheaper to get rid of people unless that was their intention.
Is the PCS going to demand all existing members not on the CSCS are upgraded to CSCS? Will they back this up with strike action?
That already is the demand.
Comment by Keith Watermelon — 6 December, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
“Yes it is, the employer is cutting the cost of redundancy payments precisely so jobs can be cut and so our terms are more attractive to the private sector. Why would they make it cheaper to get rid of people unless that was their intention.”
Ok I was wrong. It is to do with cutting jobs but only the jobs of people on the CSCS. It doesn’t affecet those of us not on the CSCS at all. If anything it helps us as it makes it more likely those on the CSCS will lose their jobs instead.
“That already is the demand.”
Empty rhetoric. New entrants where on the CSCS. The union agreed to them being taken of it.
Comment by Ian Croft — 6 December, 2009 @ 5:23 pm
Nope, no-one in NUVOS has ever been in CSCS. PCS has been seeking to negotiate a compensation scheme to cover NUVOS since 2006.
‘Ian Croft’ you are Rob Bryson and I claim my £5.
Comment by Keith Watermelon — 6 December, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
I cannot quite believe Ian Croft. Are you a member of any faction within PCS? To say that it benefits NUVOS scheme members if our CSCS colleagues are easier to sack is a disgusting message! It is a complete betrayal of the union maxim: “an injury to one is an injury to all”.
The PCS is committed to securing an improvement in the redundancy protection for NUVOS members. It was unfortunate that PCS was forced to give up rights for new entrants like myself, but I lay the blame squarely at the Government, not the union. I’m not convinced that PCS members would have supported the scale of action required to secure a total victory, but the threat of united action secured a partial victory by protecting existing members.
Comment by Nick Parker — 6 December, 2009 @ 7:03 pm
“11.Nope, no-one in NUVOS has ever been in CSCS. PCS has been seeking to negotiate a compensation scheme to cover NUVOS since 2006.”
Yes and it was the Union that agreed that new entrants would be on NUVOS.
Comment by Ian Croft — 6 December, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
If its cheaper for redundancies under CSCS/TUPE terms, it makes civil service work (and transferred staff) more attractive to private companies so this change is not only a precursor for more redundancies but more privatisation. The PCS ‘Left Unity’ leadership should have been fought more in the past for new staff’s redundancy/pension arrangements, but the whole union should now fully support the current CSCS campaign.
Comment by GT — 6 December, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
“I cannot quite believe Ian Croft. Are you a member of any faction within PCS?”
No. I was thinking of joining Left Unity but their leadership seems to suck.
“To say that it benefits NUVOS scheme members if our CSCS colleagues are easier to sack is a disgusting message!
Actually it just a statement of fact.
“It is a complete betrayal of the union maxim: “an injury to one is an injury to all”.”
It was the union that agreed to new entrants not being on the CSCS. Is that not an injury to one? I don’t see the union raising the war banner over the way casual contractors are treated. Is that not an injury to one? I don’t see the union marching to war over the tens of thousands of Fixed Term Employees who should be on proper contracts. Is that not an injury to one? Where is the strike action over that?
I suspect the reason is that the members will not back strike action to defend the Fixed Term and Casuals Employees. If the permanent staff on the CSCS won’t come out to help the new entrants get on the CSCS and keep the Fixed Term and Casual Employees in jobs then why should we rally to their defence?
Why should we come to aid of those who would not come to ours?
“The PCS is committed to securing an improvement in the redundancy protection for NUVOS members.”
Empty rhetoric. There is no action, nor the threat of action, to back it up.
Comment by Ian Croft — 6 December, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
so just remind me how the last set of PCS strikes were ????
on pay and cuts ????
I dont recall a victory or even minor victory
just a load of members in inland revenue leaving the union
Great work
Comment by Sean — 7 December, 2009 @ 12:13 am
#3 - don’t understand why on earth you are baiting me on a serious union topic Doug.
Who are you?
Please feel free to contact me (not hard to find my contact details) so we can carry on a detailed discussion.
Comment by Lawrence Shaw — 7 December, 2009 @ 5:22 am
Looks like we don’t have to worry about the casuals crossing picket lines. They all just been sacked.
Comment by Ian Croft — 7 December, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
Hi there, I dont know if I am writing in a proper board but I have got a problem with activation, link i receive in email is not working…
Comment by Anonymous — 20 March, 2010 @ 12:27 am