PENSIONS – DON’T LET LGPS SUCCESS DIVIDE US
The government’s incompetence was further demonstrated by Eric Pickles’ stupid statement earlier this week that jeopardised the heads of agreement achieved by UNITE, UNISON and GMB with the Local Government Association on behalf of all the unions involved with the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS).
Fortunately that ripple in the process has now been overcome by a retraction by Pickles, and it seems that the unions have achieved a substantial victory in defusing the government’s ill-conceived pensions’ reforms for workers in the LGPS. As Brian Strutton, GMB National Secretary for Public Services has said “GMB members will be reassured that government has recognised the LGPS needs to be treated separately from the other public sector schemes. What this deal means is that there will be a full re-negotiation of the LGPS with changes to be introduced from 2014/15. This removes the threat of huge contribution rises which would have led to mass opt outs and jeopardised the LGPS funds. So it is good news that common sense has prevailed, it’s just a shame that it has taken 10 months and a strike to get there.”
Given the comment from some on the left, it might seem surprising to claim that this result is a victory, but I think they have both misunderstood the specific arguments about the LGPS, and also misjudged the political and industrial situation. Unfortunately, pension arrangements are an inherently complex and technical topic.
As I explained before, it is important to understand the differences between the various public sector pension schemes. In particular the funded LGPS does give unions representing local authority workers more leverage than the unions representing workers in the unfunded schemes.
These so-called “unfunded” pensions are paid as required by the government out of general taxation rather than out of a specific dedicated pension fund, and the contributions made by teachers (6.5% of salary), NHS workers (5%/6.5% for most workers) and civil servants (3.5%) go into general government revenue. In the past these have run to provide a surplus to government, although there is currently a £3 bn annual deficit; the real cost to the state is only the interest payable on raising that amount; and over the long term periods of surplus and deficit reach a rough equilibrium. The government’s own Long Term Public Finances Report continues to reflect that these schemes are both stable and sustainable.
In contrast, the “funded” Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) consists of a plethora of over 100 pension funds, all paid for by employee and employer contributions. The whole scheme has asset values of £145 bn, which makes it one of the key institutional investors in the private sector. It provides retirement income for 4 million pensioners, and operates at a considerable cash flow surplus (in England alone in 2008/2009, income was £10.8 bn, paying £5.6bn in benefits). The LGPS does have insufficient assets based upon actuarial calculations, but this is the fault of employers “contribution holidays”, often politically motivated to subsidise council tax payers at the expense of local authority pensions.
The latest valuation results for the Local Government Pension Funds (LGPS) in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for 2010 show that overall the funds have £145bn in assets and a funding level above 80%. The actuarial deficit is estimated at £38 billion. The average ongoing employer contribution is 13.9% while the average employee contribution is 6.5%.
Members of the LGPS have an interest in the long term viability and sustainability of the schemes, and therefore that both employer and employee side contributions are sufficient to meet the obligations placed upon the schemes. Regular actuarial re-evaluations and negotiations about contribution rates are therefore in the best interests of members.
The unions are certainly correct that the schemes are generally in robust health. Providing participation levels do not fall the overall picture of the LGPS from the 2010 actuarial valuations shows there is enough funds to pay all pensions for the next twenty years. Some funds have improved their funding level by up to 7%. Some are virtually 100% fully funded. Others have actually been reducing their employer contributions levels, while still maintaining funding levels.
However, that does not mean that the unions are opposed to any reforms. Out of the 101 separate funds in the scheme in the UK (including those in Scotland), sadly a few show shocking results: funding levels of 60%, falls in funding level of more than 15% and increases to employer contributions at a time when the scheme is becoming cheaper for employers as a result of the scheme reforms in 2008.
In the recent negotiations the unions have argued that instead of attacking members’ pension savings or pricing them out of the scheme through a hike in contribution rates, the government should be looking at the performance and management of funds. It should be asking why Teesside can be 99% funded and Northumberland see their funding level improve by 7% while Berkshire’s funding level plummeted by 19% in the same period. Eric Pickles is the Regulator of the LGPS. He should explain why his department are standing by while the funds in Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Havering are so badly managed that the employer is contributing 100% more than those in Greater Manchester, Dyfed and Teesside.
The benefits of the LGPS are the same throughout the UK so how can some funds have got themselves in such a state? The answer for the most part is employers have been allowed, and at times encouraged, to take contribution holidays. Those funds like Greater Manchester, the largest English LGPS fund where such holidays have been rare shows this effect clearly: they are more than 96% funded and have assets worth £10.4billion.
The government’s preferred approach was to increase pension contributions by 50%, raise the retirement age and lower the value of the pensions paid. A survey by GMB showed that more than 50% of members would drop out of the scheme if that happened, already more than one in four Local Government workers are priced out of the LGPS, if any more left then the schemes may not be able to meet ther obligations, and would become a drain on the taxpayer.
Eric Pickles wanted to raise £900m from the two million members paying into the fund despite knowing that doing this will jeopardize the future of the scheme.
It seems that on all the substantive issues, the government has fully retreated. The LGPS scheme will be negotiated seperately – a key union demand – there will not be a substantial short-term increase in contributions, there will be a planned actuarial review in two years, when it would have happened anyway, and there will be both an upper and lower limit of employer contributions (cap and collar), which the unions had pressed for.
Although it is technical and hard to explain, there is no doubt that the LGPS unions have won a victory as a result of 30th November.
After that huge strike I know there was an assessment by many in the unions (and one I agreed with) that the government’s opportunity to make a separate peace over the LGPS had been missed, as any climb down after N30 would be seen as a victory for strike action.
Nevertheless, that is what has happened. We have won; although obviously before peace breaks out the relevant decision making bodies in the different unions need to consider the offer.
It was never realistic to think that local authority workers would continue to fight if an acceptable deal was offered on LPGS.
Instead of the left arguing this is a “sell out”, we should be celebrating it as a victory, and an inspiration that the government is on the back foot. The unions representing workers in the unfunded schemes can still go on and win their disputes as well.
Sorry, off topic, but on the blog roll here the link to dear kitty is to my Blogsome site which will disappear.
Please change link etc. to the new URL:
http://dearkitty1.wordpress.com/
Victory? Government on the back foot? Is this on one of these newly-discovered planets?
Where is there any sign that local government workers are not going to pay more, work longer get less as a result of this “agreement”? Far from being on the back foot, the Government is cock-a-hoop that the leaderships have pissed away the unity and strength of N30 so cheaply. There is no more money on the table and Alexander can state that the government’s key objectives are being delivered while the union leaders depart the field of battle.
All we’ve got (it seems) is a delay after which we will be fighting on our own for what we can get.
I realise that Andy is repeating the GMB spin on this, but it doesn’t wash.
We need to kick out this rotten deal and get back to the unity we had on N30.
a strange analysis being put forward here. there isnt a great deal of detail on offer in terms of the actual deal. as far as i can tell, the key planks of the attack, raised contributions, higher retirement age and lower value are still going to be in place.
the strength of n30 was the coming together of so many parts of the public sector, now is a bizarre time to be calling of strike action. all those union leaders itching for a deal were, a matter of weeks ago, talking up public sector
@1 – I’ve amended the blogroll.
continued
public sector unity, a lot of rhetoric only it turns out. it is now a matter of urgency that strike action is put back on the agenda and that we do not waste the momentum that has been building up. there is a statement going around – reject the deal – i believe there is a link above.
what is unisons position? i am recalling dave prentis’ “fight of our lives” speech – it would be very shoddy indeed if he were any part of this rubbish.
On the issue of unity, it was always conjunctural to an extent, given that the nature of the schemes is so different. It was the government’s choice to take on reform of LGPS at the same time as reform of the unfunded schemes.
If a deal is being offered to local authority workers in the LGPS that is acceptable, then it is a misreading of the current combativity of the union members to assume that local authority staff and school support staff would continue to fight for the pensions of civil servants and teachers.
What we have to do is take the advances made by unions on LGPS as eveidence that the government can be beaten.
Let us also be clear that the arguments I make above are very specific to the LGPS, and you shouldn’t assume anything about the NHS, civil service teahcers or other schemes.
The idea that the far left has the clout to overturn this in UNITE, GMB and UNISON is quixotic to say the least.
“It seems that on all the substantive issues, the government has fully retreated. The LGPS scheme will be negotiated seperately – a key union demand – there will not be a substantial short-term increase in contributions, there will be a planned actuarial review in two years, when it would have happened anyway, and there will be both an upper and lower limit of employer contributions (cap and collar), which the unions had pressed for.” Andy Newman
You haven’t really explained what the ‘gains’ are. The problem with the positions of the unions overall has been no agreed ‘bottom line’. For instance, opposition to the change from RPI to CPI. Without an agreement on a collective negotiating position the chances were that the government would make concessions of some sort to break up the united front.
Unless you explain what the government has conceded, how is anybody supposed to believe what you are saying?
Also if the unions are to accept state and other pension retirement age rising this will have the impact of there being less jobs available for the younger generation.
Will contributions for all be held at their present level ?
Will any of the proposed increased contributions be going into the LGPS ?
Will pensions be linked to the RPI ?
Will local government workers be able to retire at the present age level ?
Will the pensions be held at the present level ?
So where is the victory except for Pickles and the tories. I know Mr Newman has been moving to the right but where does it stop ?
He seems to have forgotten a basic principle of trade unionism that unity is strength which was proved on the 30th. He now wishes to break that unity and fall for the old divide and rule of the tories. They must be loving him.
Answers please to Andy (Yes sir Mr Kenny) Newman.
Will contributions for all be held at their present level ?
Will any of the proposed increased contributions be going into the LGPS ?
Will pensions be linked to the RPI ?
Will local government workers be able to retire at the present age level ?
Will the pensions be held at the present level ?
So where is the victory except for Pickles and the tories. I know Mr Newman has been moving to the right but where does it stop ?
He seems to have forgotten a basic principle of trade unionism that unity is strength which was proved on the 30th. He now wishes to break that unity and fall for the old divide and rule of the tories. They must be loving him.
#2 – spot on, Alexander, Maude and the rest (quietly) think they have won, and yes, it is of course, divide and rule. I have some time for Brian strutton, but not over this. The fact that the government took on so many over pensions was a sign of their stupidity, ala Pickles glee (and no wonder the bastard is such, given Unison and others stance this week) and
potential to be beaten over the issue. Most of what the Tories wanted is STILL in place, hence Pcs and others relutance to sign. Never mind jibes about the quixotic far left, (not so quixotic in Unite health sector, seemingly) the potential is still there to win over this, to stop now would be a huge error and set us back donkeys years.
#8
Well the abolition of the retirement age is now enshrined in law, and as far as I am aware every union welcomed it under the equality agenda. There are indeed issues to do with succession, but no easy answers to that one.
#11
But the different pensions schemes have different proposals, and the uniosn have varying degrees of leverage.
For example, all the unions have concluded that there is no further adavcne that can be made over the NHS scheme by negotiation, and are therefore going back to the various lay member committes to consult what to do next.
At last an objective article on the LGPS and also, importantly, on the vast differences between the 4 public sector schemes. How anyone can describe the agreement NOT to increase employee contributions to the LGPS(as originally proposed by Osborne)as a’defeat’or ‘sell out’is beyond belief. It is a massive victory.
And it should be acknowledge that the civil service, health and teaching unions ALL conceded a 5 year increae in retirement age to 65 under Labour’s reforms in 2006. At that time a career average scheme to replace final salary scheme was accepted by PCS and other unions in the civil service. Therefore much of what is claimed as detrimental in the current proposed reforms relates to the removal of future protection of workers employed prior to 2006.
Once the different starting points are understood, no objective trade unionist would buy into the betrayal agenda peddled over recent days.
Well, maybe you’re right, but this ” it’s hard to explain…actuarial …” stuff feels too much like the stories I get from my neighbour of late when I give him a tenner to get me a couple of loafs, and he brings back twenty pence change.
What agreement “not to increase contributions”? The one you just pulled out of your ass? As far as I understand, contributions will increase, just not for all workers next year. I’m happy to believe LGPS is different and needs to be treated differently from the others. But this myth-making suggests the union leaderships know full well they gave the store away and are now sending out their mouthpieces to cover it up.
Re @4: thanks!
The unions welcomed the increase in retirement age under the equalities agenda. I must have missed that. Perhaps you can furnish us with the quotes of unions welcoming it. You might also tell us is you agree with people being able to work until 75 – one of the ‘principles’ which the major unions appear to have signed up to.
Now I remember it, didn’t some unions complain that increasing the state retirement age was unjust because, for example, manuals workers tend to keel over earlier than others?
God, my memory is really kicking in tonight. Didn’t you tell us all at the Swindon demo on N30 that we were going to bring the government down?
#16 ‘As far as I understand, contributions will increase, just not for all workers next year’ – that’s the problem – you and other critics DON’T understand it. Status quo in LGPS until 2014, Gov’t proposed increases set aside, and both sides enter negotiations with an agreed principle of avoiding future increases. Th unions won the argument that increased contributions would cause major drift from LGPS membership.
The fact is union members not part of this LGPS ‘victory’ will be far less inclined to support industrial action – we will feel isolated and weakened. You can almost see the the Tory / media barrage: ‘reasonable unions settled for this great deal – only you militants want to damage the economy.. etc’. What a let down.
Here’s Jeremy Corbyn in the Morning Star, earning his keep with a good basic narrative of recent events, plus perspective:
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news/content/view/full/113428
The deal is clear
We will pay more, get less and work longer.
The effect of N30 was a significant recruitment to all involved unions and a boost to confidence of many workers which of course does not overcome the defeats of the last number of decades but can start to turn the tide.
Prentis and others are scared to escalate the action. There is a possobility that the FBU, RCN etc to join further actions.
If this is a big victory that Andy Newman claims it is remarkable that after 1 days action a Governent rolls over on a central plank of it economic strategy. Read Danny Alexander’s statements, that the Government has not given a single penny extra.
The Government however is desperate for a deal as it is worried that industrial action could increase.
Andy’s position is I am afraid typical of his politics. The moving right show rolls on…….
Sorry Andy but I think you’ve missed the point. The Government have accepted the employers’ manifestly correct argument that there simply is no viable mechanism to siphon money out of the pockets of LGPS members and into George Osborne’s coffers without a (self-defeating) interim actuarial valuation.
We are being invited to surrender on the RPI/CPI and accept increased retirement ages in return for a welcome delay in contribution increases, but a delay which has no opportunity cost for the Government.
It is positive that we shall have negotiations on the future of the LGPS, and I would not call this a “sell-out” – but I see no need to rule out further industrial action to achieve more.
Why do you?
If this is a victory where are the billions of pounds savings coming from that Danny Alexander gloated over in his statement to Parliament?
#18
martin when you say
you seem to be foolishly confusing the issue of the raising of the minimum retirement age, which all the unions are opposed to (one of the reasons being the one you raise); with the abolition of the default retirement age (DRA) this year, which I understand the unions are broadly in favour of.
Certainly i have been to a couple of seminars with Thompsons about the impact of the abolition of DRA, and no-one from either the union or solictors have expressed strong objections to it.
It is broadly a progressive change that employers can no longer require an employee to reluctantly retire at 65. How it will play out we don’t know yet. We suspect more people getting a redundancy pay off.
You argument about needing older workers to retire to make space for yuonger ones above is objectively an argument not against raising the minimum retirement age, but against abolition of the default retirement age.
i know it is technical, but try to keep up.
#22
errrr . the LGPS is self funding, so of course the government have not given any extra money.
However, as i understand it the immediate short term raid to dramatically increase LGPS contributions has been scrapped. that is a significant concession.
#19
Let us just repeat the excellent summary from Tony C, for the hard of understandin reading this thread:
#20
Only because that is the narrative of betrayal that you have sought to spin for yourselves.
You could instead argue that the unions represnting members of the LGPS have won, and therefore so can the unions involved with the unfunded schemes.
You are not considering the reality that we found it bloody hard to deliver a strike in the schools and town halls that directly affected our LGPS members; there is no chance of getting those same members to strike just to support people in the other schemes.
The reality, as I argued months ago, was that if the LGPS unions could get a deal they woudl accept it in the interests of their members, and would be right to do so.
Let me return to a point I made at #7, and explain its relevance:
It is misleading to argue that this is a “sell-out” when there is neither an actually existing mood amongst members of the LGPS to continue to fight, nor any body with the authority to call and lead such a strike.
This whole dispute has surrounded some highly technical argumenst about pension reforms, where it is the union leadership who have made the running, and we achieved a difficult and patchy but largely effective strike on N30 because the members broadly trusted the unions.
The far left running round talking of betrayal is an irrelevance to most union members; and in so far as anyone notices it is actualy divisive and it damages combativity to be talking down the sucess to the members. the far left are sadly echoing the arguments of the right that the union action was ineffective.
What the responsible left will be doing is backing the union leaderships, and explaining to the memebrs that their strike on n30 forced government concessions; and that we are thereofre in a stronger position than we were.
#23
It is a judgement call of whether to cash in the concessions we have already obtained based upon action we have already taken; or whether to roll the dice again.
You live in the real trade union world Jon, you know that sometimes you need to factor in not only what is on offer, but also what pressure you can actually deliver to impose a change of heart from the employers/government.
That is the hard calculation that the union leaders have had to take; i don’t know about UNISON, but in GMB it will have to be approved by elected lay members who will make their own judgement.
What the responsible left will be doing is backing the union leaderships
That just sums up Andy’s whole politics in one sentence… replace “union” by appropriate other term where necessary.
Andy
Will we work longer, pay more and get less???
Yes or No?
32#
The simple demographics make this essential, for we are living longer, less people are being born and the alternative is for the younger generations being little more than slaves for the boomers. As my job advisor said of herself,
“I’m 25, I will live to I’m 85, I sure as hell do not want to spend 25 years doing nothing and earning nothing.”
#30
Andy,
We can do better than this if we recognise that the material basis for the concessions in the LGPS arise from the nature of the scheme itself.
By taking further action we will not risk a contribution increase in 2012. Such an increase offers Osborne not a penny.
We should adopt a united position across all unions to reverse the RPI/CPI change at the very least. There is no reason to suppose that the LGA would want to walk away from negotiations if we fought on on that issue at this time.
Unbelievable, almost…”objective trade unionists, will (not)buy into the betrayal agenda”, wtf, define your definition of an objective trade unionist, only heard that one from Blairites and Tories, whats this, ‘new trade unionist?’.
Re #29, the union leaderships have made the running you say, well, its well known in Unison, for instance that Dave Prentis said several times to full time officials, that they have to keep up with the members anger over pensions, such was the level of understanding amongst members what the Tories are up to over this. ‘the far left are echoing the arguments of the right re ineffective action’, bollocks, where, when has anyone on the ‘far left’ said that action was ineffective?
The left, the apparently, irresponsible left(?!) said re N30, the opposite, The display of trade union strength on that day proved what was possible re taking on the Tories over this and winning, not coming to shabby compromises. No one on the left as far, as i can see, said the action was ineffective, quite the opposite. Jon Rogers and others are right, if we keep fighting we may well get more out of the buggers, to accept now is really irresponsible.
#35
this narrative of betrayal is debilitating.
In a major political strike against the government, surely no-one thinks there will be an outright victory for the unions with no change whatsoever, especially on such a complex issue as pensions.
Secondly, in any dispute there is a fine balance to be judged of when to cash in your chips.
N30 put the government under a lot of pressure, and they moved sufficiently on LGPS for UNITE, UNISON and GMB to feel that it would be better to settle than to continue.
remember that continuing a fight doesn’t always get a better deal as attitudes harden, and also there is no guarantee that the the union action would be stronger and more politically effectuve next time. There is ceratinly a plausible case that N30 already put the optimum political squeeze on the colaition over LGPS. To continue may be pursuing diminising returns.
“…remember that continuing a fight doesn’t always get a better deal as attitudes harden…There is ceratinly a plausible case that N30 already put the optimum political squeeze on the colaition over LGPS. To continue may be pursuing diminising returns.”
Dead right! What did fighting ever get the working class? The vote, habeas corpus, education, health-care?
The ‘optimum political squeeze’ is to bring the country to a standstill and force a new election to get these pricks out, and leave their successors in no doubt that we’re not going to put up with the same shit from them either.
You think that the public service workers have no real will to fight? Well, the role of socialists should be to bolster their courage, not to whisper wormtongue messages of despair.
A divided, precarious coalition government with no mandate dismantling everything valued by the British people, and this isn’t a propitious time for a fight? If not now, when? You’re beginning to sound like the Communist Party of Britain.
So Andy thinks the unions are correct to settle because there is no stomach for a fight. The miners fought and lost, now we don’t fight and we have not been thrashed. Progress!
I fear Andy is correct though, the masses have lined up behind the banksters, the corrput politicians, the corrupt super wealthy and the phone hacking tabloids.
To call this a victory is stretching it somewhat if you ask me!
Just watching “It’s a Wonderful Life” hope you internet rrrrrevolutionaries and rrrrreformists have a good xmas and gossipy new year on this ‘socialist blog’. LOL The question is who is Potter and/or George Bailey on the editorial board, LOL.
Andrew ( Andy) Newman as Trotsky once wrote ‘from a scratch to gangrene’ and yet for all your fawning you are completely without influence even within the ranks of the GMB.
This site is dead so sayeth the Undertaker
There is an elitist aspect on some of these posts which undermines the heart of Trade Union democracy, the members will decide, not the leaders, not the bloggers. Or have those who oppose settlement no faith in the concept that working men and women can make up their own minds, and in the midst of a world recession the act of bringing down this government will have zero effect as another will pop up or the Parliament will be overruled and the state will be handd over to the technocrats.
#36 Andy we all know the SWP/SP et al love a glorious defeat, particularly when its a game where they don’t have to suffer the consequences.
The rhetoric, grandstanding, delusion and cries of betrayal floating around in ultra left land over this issue display the usual comforting infantile certainities.
The N30 day of action was more sucessful than many of us hoped (and before the likes of the underpantaker carp, yes i visited several picket lines some and attended the london march) but we shouldn’t forget the reality that the ballots showed a low level of turn out that in any other dispute would mean not going forward with any action.
The pension dispute as Andy has stated is a complex one and continuing an all out fight may as Andy said produce diminising returns. I personally can’t call it but neither will the ultra lefts with their unhelpful simpleton blanket like statements of betrayal and transistional demands. Decisions made will be up to the relevant lay members and their elected bodies.
PS Why does the underpantaker continually deride this site as being dead or of no influence but clearly continually reads what is posted and comments on here????????
Jimmy Haddow – I’d really appreciate an answer to my comments in the other thread. I am genuinely interested in why you think the November 30th strikes represent a permanent change in class relations in the UK. Go have a look, it’s in the “Scottish Election Results” thread.
PS Why does the underpantaker continually deride this site as being dead or of no influence but clearly continually reads what is posted and comments on here????????
Undertaker is the one who, at a meeting in 2007, stood up and pointed into the crowd, and said “if you’re not in the SWP, you’re nowhere, you’re nothing”. I learned not to take his hectoring seriously at that point.
In fact Andy there are no ‘chips to cash in’ as yet. Stage 2 of the ‘agreement’ involves seeking to reach agreement on all the ‘big ticket items’. In other words there is no agreement as yet on contributions, accrual rate, revaluation rate, protections, employer cap, cost management mechanism. So where’s the ‘victory’? The only concession I can see is no increase before 2014.
The ‘principles’ document, as well as accepting an end to the final salary set up, inlcudes support for ‘flexible retirement’, meaning that people can work up to 75.
#44 LOL I can so imagine it!
If you replace the meeting to a pulpit and congregation you have got a religious cult and not a ultra left cult. Or is it the same difference????
#45
yes, due to the abolition of the Default Retirement Age, which has been broadly welcomed as giving older workers the choice to retire or not.
Workers will know if they are paying more and getting less when they retire later…. Andy, are you serious?
Your idea of ‘responsible’ is to back the Labour Party whatever they do, no matter the result for workers, that much is obvious. This makes perfect logic from a party that sees a powerful, confident working class as a threat.
p.s. Are you feeling ok in yourself Andy? I’m a bit worried about you… You were a bit on the odd side before, but some of your posts lately are… um… well, they have a special sort of logic of their own..!
#37
So, we need a sober assesment of whether such an all out struggle to bring down the government is likely. There was a relatively low turn out in the strike ballot, and the strike itself was patchy, especially in the NHS, and if it had not been for the magnificent scale of the demonstrations, rallies and street protests there would have been a searching probe by the Tories and their tame newspapers into whether the big public sector unions are paper tigers.
Perhaps the mood would be stronger for the second strike, but do we want to rely on perhaps?
With regard to the role of socialists in “bolstering courage”, the tiny forces involved in the far left are effectively irrelevent in delivering action, but are sufficiently large for spreading confusion and discord.
#45
So as the issues are highly technical, the members need to decide whose interpretation to trust, that of Brian Strutton, or yours.
It’s a pity that the LP doesn’t play a role in bolstering confidence in workers.
Right-wing trade unionists have no confidence in the working class or they are actually afraid of them… You can now count yourself among them Andy.
#35
this is one of those self-decieving myths that the far left snuggle up in bed with to feel good about themselves.
In reality, UNISON’s strike in town halls, hospitals and schools was less solid than we might have hoped.
the far left can talk tough in conferences and meetings, but are actually unable to deliver any substantive action independent of the official UNISON machine.
#51
It is worth noting that Paul Kenny, len McClusky and dave Prentis are not “right wing” trade union leaders.
But surely we have to base our assessments of how able we are to deliver action on more than the homilies and self-decieving perpetual optimism of the ultra-left?
If you have such confidence in the combativity of the rank and file membership, then why do you need the support of the union leaders. You can surely lead this confident combative struggle yourself.
The official Unison machine may well see new leadership coming along as these cuts continue to bite and the existing ‘leaders’ fail to lead.
#54
Yes, I am sure that Dave Prentis is very worried about such a warning from soemone who doesn’t even have enough confidence of their standing in the movement ot give their name on a blog comment
#53 Andy invite them and they shall come…….. and if by magic there appears post #54
Self decieving perpetual optimism of the ultra left part 1
………………. Yes and tomorrow i might see the birth of christ our lord and saviour.
51# looking at the posts I must take the opposite point of view, many Left Wing trade unionists think they are way above the average union member who must be thick as they do not think in the way ordered.
#44 ho ho you been taking fantasy lessons from jelly eh Mr Collins ?
this site is really dead if clowns like you are the admin
Have one ( or ten ) on me Brian after all its only the members money youre pissing up the wall
#58 The spiritualist underpantaker has a sixth sense as not only does he know the drinking habits of people he doesn’t know but he talks to people on dead websites …. oh spooky and if i may say kind of a useless talent.
……… If you are not in the swp, you are nowhere, you are nothing …… what a deluded fool.
“So as the issues are highly technical, the members need to decide whose interpretation to trust, that of Brian Strutton, or yours.”
Oh dear this rather sounds like the issues are too technical for the members so they have to rely on Mr Strutton’s ‘interpretation’.
I would have thought the members want to know what they would get under the proposed changes. They’ll make their minds up on that very concrete answer to their questions, not on an ‘interpretation’.
And by the way why did you tell the rally in Swindon that ‘we’ were going to bring the coalition down?
Incidentally, you should top trying to convince people that you are no longer on the ‘far left’. I would have thought everybody knows that by now.
#60
Martin – you are lettig your personal antipathy to me cloud your judgement
Unlike you I spent a large part of October and November explaining the pensions issue to GMB members in th LGPS, and I can assure you that the details of actuarial revaluations, acrual rates, percentage funding, etc, fly straight over everyones heads.
The negotiations have been about complex issues and it simply does come down to a question of trust that our members will make a judgement based upon the advice of their union.
Clearly, the heads of agreement postpones a number of issues, but it is in the context of a government retreat that they have now accepted there will be no short term rise n contributions, and they have recognised that LGPS sustainablity is a core objective, which means that the unions are confident about the next phase of negotiations.
With regard to me perfectly correct remark that if the government persisted in confrontation then the unions would tear cameron down, that remark was contingent upon us needing to continue the fight. However, the government have backed down.
In these debates it is clear that “far left” becomes a synonym for impossibilist. I remain as committed to a future socialist society as i ever have been.
#36 ‘the far left love glorious defeat’, shite, my first job was at Wapping, after a year on strike and being done over as around 6000 of us were by News International, i can tell you that it wasn’t glorious. It was very demoralising and took time to get over, so less of your preconceptions. Who doesn’t want/love a victory, but some can smell bullshit when we see it.
#52 -’myths that the far left snuggle up’ etc, ? No, just, a number of reports that Prentis was surprised by the level of feeling for N30 from members and told several officials that they had to ‘catch up with members’. Dont take my word for it, this is quite well known in Unison, ask around in the East Midlands for starters. the jibe re the far left in Unison might carry more weight if it took into account the terrible attacks on various lefties that Dave Prentis, among others, have sanctioned. Prentis hinted when he became Gen Sec, that attacks on the left would end, the opposite as we know happened.
Prentis took over from where Rodney Bickerstaffe started. Happy Xmas!
“if the government persisted in confrontation then the unions would tear cameron down,” And Andy accuses the revleft of hyperbole. Kenny,Prentice prepared to bring down a government. Pull the other one.
#63 Why did the government announce that they would be having talks with the unions involved less that 24 hours after the strikes Cameron had described as a damp squib had taken place?
Talks that led no concessions except, if true, a delay in implementation of higher contributions in the LGPS. You really believe that Prentice and Kenny were/are prepared to bring the government down ? You are imbibing too much Xmas spirit or as delusional as a North Korean Communist.
Would they have brought the govt down? Of course they would have been prepared go do that. You can easily imagine the. Coalition splitting or Came ron being forced to step aside or call an election )
The two most right wing union leaders would have taken on Cameron, the government and their political leader Miliband, called massive industrial action to bring down the government for what ? A delay in implementation of increased contributions and an actuarial review in a few years time. If they are going to bring the government down they might as well go for the three main demands. No increase in contrtibutions, no cut in pension and no increase in retirement age.
Can you show any quote from either Prentice or Kenny saying they would be prepared to bring the government down, for what and how they planned to do so? Sounds very leftist to me. Have they secretly joined the SWP or the SP ?
Dave Prentis and Paul kenny, you state, are the most right wing trade union leadrs. Poppycock
Can you seriously argue that either Dave or Paul is not to the left of John Hannett? or Michael Leahy? Or Tim Poil? Or Ged NIchols?
By what possible frame of reference could you come to that conclusion?
Clearly these union leaders did actually call a massive strike on N30, so your argument that they wouldn’t looks incredibly stupid.
Obvioulsy, the pensions dispute is a political one that opposes the government of the day, and therefore the whole purpose of it is to effect a change of policy from government.
If the coalition government had persisted in confrontation without any compromise, then the dispute would have escalated raising inevitaibly the question of whether the authority of the government was sustainable.
I think that in your puerile mind bringing down the government involves a strorming of the Winter palace. You are mistaking the government for the state. Governments come and go, the state remains, it is therefore perfectly possible to undermine the continued viability of any particular government without challenging the constitutional basis of parliamnetary government as a constitutional system. Both Ted Heath and Margaret Thatcher’s governmens were brought down by events outside the parliamentary arena. The dynamic behind Thatcher’s demise is illustrative of how such things work, with the government shaken by the poll tax, then internal divisions over Europe and the ERM giving manifestation to Thatcher’s reduced authority, and then the Lib Dem stunning victory in the Newbury by-election is a previously safe Tory seat making Thatcher’s position unsustainable.
If we look at the current conjuncture, then divisions in the government over Europe are very deep, they already have two parties with different institutional intersts, and Cameron is a personally weak and divisive figure. Do you really think that removing cameron would not have been a realistic outcome had the government escalated confrontation with all the unions? Why do you think the government were so keen to make a deal on LGPS?
In reality all it would take would be for a significant number of government supporting MPs to vote against the government in a vote of confidence, or for the chair of the 1922 committee to let it be known that david cameron no longer had the confidence of the Tory back-benchers; or for the Lib Dems to decide that their fate would be less uncertain by switching to criticiing the pension reforms.
This is in constitutional terms a weak government because no party in Westminster has an ovrall majority, therefore it is not well placed to weather a serious chalelnge to its authority.
However, neither can such a challenge simply be conjured like a rabbit from a magician’s hat. The considerations of the unions also need to take into account the actual level of organisation, political awareness, trade union consciousness and confidence of the membership. Outside of the lurid imagination of the impossibilist left, then the town hall, school and hospital membership were not champing at the bit for action, and in many workplaces N30 was precarious. Maybe any follow up action would have been strionger, maybe not. But would you really want to bet the farm on another roll of the dice, when an acceptable offer was on the table?
#68 And another point that has to be factored on to all of this is what would happen if the government WAS brought down. If it led to a general election, we know that there is a fairly reasonable chance that the result would be a Tory majority.
The fight against austerity is a long game of which the public sector pensions issue is only a part.
While the political argument that cuts are wrong and unnecessary is yet to be won, compromises wrested from the government have to be taken seriously.
But as someone who neither works in the public sector nor has a current pension scheme I am not going to venture an opinion on the specific merits of what may now be on offer, or of continuing industrial action. That’s a mattter for those affected and their elected leeadership.
@68.
” The considerations of the unions also need to take into account the actual level of organisation, political awareness, trade union consciousness and confidence of the membership.”
Oops Andy. You are going outside of the safe world the Ultra Left exist in!! Dont blow their minds. Their CC’s wont habe justification to exist!!
#69 It is Andy Newman who was talking of UNISON and GMB “bringing the government down”. I was not advocating the ‘storming of the winter palace’ or any other action to bring it down. That was Andy in a speech previously quoted.
I simply do not believe that Prentice and Kenny were/are willing to go further that the one day strike on the 30th to achieve a settlement for their members. The fact they have virtually agreed to settle on the basis of a delay in implementing the increase by one year and an actuarial review shows that they never had the confidence to take on and “bring down the government”. If, as Andy says, the government is split and weak then surely the unions have a duty to take advantage and campaign for additional action which would result in, maybe not “bringing the government down” as Andy not me advocated but, getting a settlement over pensions that is more advantageous to the members. Saying that further action “cannot be conjured like a rabbit from a conjurers hat” is self evident and would have to be campaigned for within the unions. It is just that Prentice and Kenny, whatever the rhetoric about “bringing down the government” had/have no intention of doing so and are happy to settle at the least concession as has been shown by their grasping at the first offer, post 30th Nov, by the government. You dont have to be a red guard to see that.
It is Andy who advocated bring the government down. Has given an analysis to show that it is a possibility. All he has to do now is follow his own logic and campaign within his union for that to become a reality and leave the final decision to the members.
It was obvious this was going to happen all along. Talk of “unity” is all very well, but in reality you can’t expect school caretakers and dinner ladies to take protracted strike action for teachers’ pensions.
#71 There is no contradiction between understanding the limitations of where we are at the moment but also understanding the weaknesses in the government’s position.
That’s why they wanted talks in spite of Cameron’s hyperbole about the strikes. If his real response had been to behave as if he actually believed the strikes were a damp squib and tell the unions where to go, rather than entering into talks, then there is a good chance that they would have been (quite unnecessarily) committing suicide.
Good post Andy. We still need to see how things pan out but there has been a significant improvement in the government offer since we took the decision to ballot and since N30. The betrayal politics stuff is just silly and self defeating. I suspect that if things go okay in future LGPS negations then this deal will be proudly talked up as an example of what can be achieved by strike action by those currently crying “sell out”.
BTW Merry Crimbo and a Happy New Year
“Leave the final decision to the members”
Lay members will of course take the recommendations of the negotiators into account, depending upon the decision making process in each union.
But what we cannot afford is to call a fight which the members don’t support.
#74 says it all really being congratulated by a right wing new labour witchunter who couldn’t even win an election in his own union branch
Andy,
I have to take issue with your contention that “details of actuarial revaluations, acrual rates, percentage funding, etc, fly straight over everyones heads” and that therefore all we have is a question of whom our lay members should trust.
UNISON has put a lot of effort into increasing understanding of pensions issues amongst the membership and I will be content if our decisions are taken fairly and inclusively.
In particular, many of our members are capable of comprehending (for example) the response to the LGPS consultation from (say) Tory Wandsworth Council, and therefore of appreciating the success of negotiators on both sides of the table in educating the Government about the utter futility, from a deficit reduction point of view, of imposing employee contribution increases in the LGPS ahead of the next triennial valuation.
I work as part of a multi-skilled, highly talented local government workforce, many of whom are perfectly capable of comprehending the issues.
I take the point made by some commentators above that there is a certain arrogance in comrades decreeing “from outside” what is or is not a “sell-out.” That said, I don’t think those comments have any bearing on the ability of our members to make their own decisions.
However, it would be equally arrogant if (which is not happening) our national negotiators were to descend from the summit with the Framework Agreement engraved on tablets of stone and tell us to have trust in them!
As I say, and in fairness to the negotiators let’s be very clear, that isn’t happening.
What is happening is that our lay structures are to debate what to do. In so doing it will be the responsibility of the relevant bodies to take account of the views of an intelligent and informed membership.
From sublime to the rediculas the situation re the LGPS is not a victory but nor is it a sell out. Yes it look very likely the contribution may not increase but we will still have to agree to a career avg scheme, to a later retirement age and change from RPI to CPI .
Hardly victory to still work longer and get less. It is however good prgress but not enough we should fight on with the other unions.
#75 “We cannot afford to call a fight which the members dont support”
Well,they wont vote for it then will they ?
#77#78 So imprisoned by your opportunist alliance in UNISON with the SWP impossibilists you can’t accept the logic of your own balanced analysis and commit to negotiate on the remaining issues within the framework agreement. Tragic but I suppose that’s the eternal fate of FoxTrots.
The leaderships of Unison, Unite and GMB will have a real conundrum to deal with in Scotland in particular if they settle for this. The Scottish Government had already ruled out increased membership contributions to the Scottish LGPS well before N30.
Those 3 unions argued that was not good enough and members in Scotland were balloted and mobilised. The strength of the strikes and the size of the demos in Scotland were the largest in decades, and by any measurement per head of population were impressive in size.Upto 30,000 demonstrated in Glasgow, over 20,000 in Edinburgh and upto 10,000 in Dundee (a city with a population of around 140,000)along with 5,000 in Aberdeen and hundreds more at a number of towns ranging from the northern isles, the western isles, the highlands to the borders.
So clearly local government workers in Scotland were still able to be mobilised against the tory govt even when increased contributions had supposedly been ruled out. There is no reaason why local govt workers in England and Wales could not be persuaded to continue the struggle on the same basis that they still want us to work longer and to get less.
Hi #76 anon coward. Not that it really matters if I had lost but I have won all my recent elections in my branch? BTW Do you think union branch elections have to be controlled by their existing branch officials? Interesting view! I bet your central committee like’s it
One thing I forgot to mention is that the LGPS not only suffers from previous contribution holidays but far more important is the fact that the scheme suffers from a lack of proper governance and it is split into 101 different funds. Some schemes have no employee representation whatsoever (unlike private DB schemes). This has enabled some Tory Councils to gerrymander their LGPS contribution levels to keep down Council tax. Also the financial service industry rip off the LGPS. All 101 schemes have to employ their own set of advisors and fund managers. The majority of very small schemes have no economies of scale. We could save hundreds of millions of pounds if we merged some schemes and brought the investment and administration “in house”.
#79
So you are suggesting that the union leadership put it to the members without a recommendation?
In a serious fight with the government we can’t afford to look stupid or divided.
#77
Jon
Of course informed lay member committees will consider a more detailed recommendation from the negotiators. And that will inform the unions recommendation but it is foolish to assume the mass of members can follow the complex arguments.
#83 Divided ? A bit rich coming from the unions that have divided the opposition to the pension changes with the first government offer after the strike. As Andy has said, if the unions are capable of “bringing the government down” (we agree not through the use of red guards)then they could achieve far more by staying united and pressing for further concessions. The UNISON and GMB attitude has divided the opposition and made themselves look stupid in the light of all the pre strike militancy of Prentice and Kenny.
I dont think the unions or membership are stupid or incapable of understanding the offer. Basically they want answers to 1. Will contributions increase and when. 2. Will the retirement age be raised. 3. Will they (we) be getting less pensions. If it is more “complex” than that then explain why it is so. I hope there is a recommendation from the union. “No” to the present offer and stay united with the other unions until more is achieved.
As Andy says the unions have the strength to “bring the government down”. That’s a pretty strong bargaining tool to gain more.
#85
“Divided” no, we are inherently divided by the differences between. The different pension schemes
Let us be clear, people went on strike on N30 because their own personal pension entitlements were under threat, not out of solidarity for other pension schemes.
We are simply not in the situation where widespread militant solidarity is in peoples consciousness
Agreed solidarity is an alien concept in most unions particularly encouraged by the action of UNISON and GMB in their recent go it alone approach to pensions. Unity is strength is not some old fashioned slogan on ancient banners but a general tactic that can work in practice now. If the public sector unions remain united they can ALL gain more from the government around the three issues 1. Paying more and working longer for less. As any decent negotiator knows you never settle on the first offer. If as Andy says the government is under pressure then why not stay united and go for more? There is nothing to lose and a lot to gain.
To win the dispute the govt had to split the unions and undermine the confidence of those who hadn’t settled. Some marginal compromise with the most ‘moderate’ leaderships was the obvious way of achieving this. If LGPS members see this as a triumph, fair enough, I suppose. But as a public sector worker (not a member of SWP or any other far left group), it feels like a defeat. Maybe you are right and the unity was only ever illusionery – and therefore, division always inevitable, but it did feel like it on the day. What is certain is that the PCS and any others who want to keep fighting, will find it much more difficult to mobilise members now – and not because of far left claims of betrayal as you have suggested, Andy.
Personally I find the arguement that us members are too stupid to understand the facts incredibly patronising. As it goes they aren’t that complicated at all.
The fact is that the government has conceded almost nothing on the LGPS scheme. The inflationary changes on RPI/CPI remain the same, increase in retirement age will stay the same, as will a change to average rather than final salary schemes. The only reason the government had backed down temporarily on pay more is because they have realised they can’t in the case of the LGPS raid it for Osbournes coffers and the Bank Aid Scheme. There wasn’t any self interest on their part to go ahead with that, it simply didn’t matter them letting that one go.
If this goes through and will mean far worse pensions, how that cannot be regarded as a defeat is beyond me.
Where I work it was the best supported strike for probably 20 years. There is more that can be won through a further fight rather than taking a totally defeatist attitude.
More to the point until we build grass roots networks in the unions and get rid of right wing leaders like Prentis we will always hit brick walls. Andy N if this is the best we can do then we are stuffed is all can I say. The attacks will continue thick and fast. The Tories know this which is why they are laughing their heads off at this deal.
UNISON has been witch hunting activists and demobilising members for well over a decade. If it is hard to mobilise members in some areas this the reason why.
#90
Well done for the most fucking stupid comment of 2011!
What an amazingly solipsist view of the importance of the far left in the unions.
Just ignore all the objective and subjective factors why trade union confidence and organisation is weaker, and blame it on UNISON making life hard for half a dozen activists!
Not content with patronising members by saying they are too stupid to understand pensions you come out with this. Surprisingly enough I’m well aware that there are “subjective and objective factors” my pompous friend. But given the leadership have played such an appalling role they have also had an important part to play. That has gone much further than the far left. They have taken over numerous branches and demoralised the membership. Unless you are suggesting the role of the leadership and bureaucracy is meaningless?
But given you seem to think that the pensions deal is a great victory nothing would surprise me. I’ll leave it for you and the Tories to back slap each other on a job well done.
#92
Well pensions are inherently complex, and the real world impact of changes to accrual rates, actuarial revaluations, capitalisation, etc, etc are difficult to quantify. What is necessary is for the unions experts to make recommendations.
But what we also need to take into account is the cost/benefit appraisal of seeking to settle now, compared to the added uncertainty of continuing.
In your simple world, you simply assume that continuing the struggle will inevitably lead to escaalting action, greater pressure on the government and a better result.
This avoids taking any recognition of the real world strengths and weaknesses of the unions’ positions; and the consequent risk that participation levels in strikes might tail off rather than intensify.
It is hard to know what the “appalling role” is that the union leadrrships palyed; all I saw was a brilliant, massive and sustained effort to make N30 effective, through both campaigning for the ballot result, months and months of back office preparation in ensuring membership details were up to date, thousands of notifications sent to employers, and effective and sustained media and lobbying campaign to get our case accross; and weeks and weeks of hard work liaising between different unions to ensure an extraordinary level of cooperation in delivering not only a massive strike, but also protests, rallies and marches; and an effective effort with the media on the day.
What is interesting – as you blame “the leadership” is that n30 was delivered by those self same leaderships that you decry. Nowhere in the local authority workforces is there any independent grassroots capablity to deliver action. If it is really the fault of “the leadership” then what is stopping you organising independently?
the truth is that the fragile level of workplace organisation, weak branch participation, low levels of trade union awareness, reliance by members upon the union as a servicing rather than organising body, effects the capability of the grassroots activists as much as it does “the leadership”.
It was a heroic acheivement of the major unions to deliver effective action on N30 despite these weaknesses.
Pensions aren’t inherently complex, at least not in this case. It was explained to me and I understood it. Maybe, Mr Newman, you’re just not very good at explaining the issues yourself? Experts aren’t needed at all. Actually the simple fact is that:
1) The age that we will retire will go up, at a minimum, to 68, unless you want a far smaller pension to retire on.
2) That we will be moved to a career average from a final salary pension scheme and that will mean, for most, a worse pension.
3) That we we haved been moved from CPI/RPI at a huge detriment to our pensions.
4) That in LGPS the government gave a concession on paying extra because they realised they wouldn’t be able to use those extra payments to pay off the deficit as with other schemes. A more cynical part of me thinks the government deliberately put that in as a way to say they had given something back, full well knowing that it wasn’t a concession at all.
The laughing and crowing by the Tories at this deal shows you all you need to know, expert or otherwise.
Given that the one concession they have given is not really a concession at all but at best a late realisation that it did them no good to impose it, it really can’t be any worse a deal if we chose to carry on, there is little or nothing to lose.
In your simple world, and a defeatist attitude, members are dupes who can’t understand these “complex” issues and have to hearded by the bureaucrats and “lay officals”. Nothing more we can do guv. Not only will this mean a defeat in this dispute it just means the government will continue the onslaught of attacks on wages, conditions and public services. But like a rabbit in the headlights you have no tactics or strategies to stop this (vote Labour maybe?), and have to be content with the crumbs that are thrown our way.
As I’ve said in my workplace it was the best supported strike in probably two decades. Maybe in your workplace you weren’t very good at mobilising people, but don’t write everyone off because of that. Many local councils reported the same thing, that it was a very well supported strike. The NUT had extremely impressive turn outs in terms of the amounts of schools shut down. There is no reason to think that members won’t take more action in very significant numbers. Certainly if the unions remain united, which almost every member I spoke to wanted them to.
Even Prentis said initially that one day certainly wouldn’t do it and we would need more, but surprise surprise he buckled at the first hurdle.
In terms of an appalling role I’m not talking about the few weeks in the run up to N30, as with your sage like knowledge I thought you would have realised. It is the two decades or more of turning trade unions in to services unions, of demoralising the membership, and the worst cases like UNISON, even taking over branches that didn’t suit their agenda. You can’t just turn the tap on and off like that. In our own branches experience we have seen how the regional bureaucrats, far from supporting us taking action in past disputes, have done all they could to delay strike action to the point where it becomes futile. All the while they pocket their huge salaries from our subs.
Even in terms of N30 I thought UNISON could have done far better in terms of practical support from union full timers, and thought the literature given to us from national was often fairly wishy washy. But, in comparison to past disputes, there was a big improvement. It should bring optimism that this came after all those years of demoralising the membership, but they then fritter that momentum away by folding their cards at the first chance. If this goes through we will have the strange victory of a far worse pension scheme. A funny old world where this is a victory.
But as said the main point is that you can’t turn these things on and off like a tap. In the past few years in my area of work we have increased density from around 35% to nearly 70% (over 50% in UNISON, the rest GMB, which has probably delined a bit). We have recruited stewards hand over fist. We have a regular bulletin for the first time in years. We have had record levels at our AGM and branch meetings, the biggest in over a decade. And surprise, surprise these last few years of work helped to build for N30. Lots of branches are in a total state, and the region and national spend more time overseeing branches where they think members have got a bit boshy than trying to turn branches around that are in a dire state but run by the old boys network (and more than often it is men). There is nothing special about he workplace I work in, it’s just we have put in the hard work to turn things around, and this has had results regardless of the “subjective and objective” situation. We have a long way to go, but at least we have started that process.
I agree that the grass roots networks are almost non-existant and that’s exactly how the leadership of UNISON wants to keep it. That doesn’t mean that if the leadership calls something off that could have been something far better that you just roll over and say thank you very much sir.
I also agree that grass roots networks need to be built, it’s a huge problem not having them there and means we are in thrall to the leadership. But your defeatist and uninspiring politics won’t move us in that direction, they will just be more of the same, over and over, in ever more defeats. Vote Labour do I hear?
To describe a defeat as a victory won’t help anyone. It’s almost like the way the SWP seem to think that if we keep telling everyone it’s all brilliant then it will stop people being demoralised. Actually it has the opposite effect, people aren’t stupid and can handle bad news if people have a constructive way of turning things around.
The government have conceeded almost nothing, and the concession they have given in the LGPS scheme is in their own self interests, and could well have been a rouse all along. Prentis said we would need far more than one day, and he was right. With the state of the trade unions it was always going to be very hard to win all the fundamentals on this, but we could and should win more than this. To fritter all the momentum away on such pathetic concessions will mean that building a member led union with a network of activists will not only not be moved forward, but possibly set back even more. You have the politics of despair Mr Newman, and it comes out in you disparaging the members as being ignorant sheep. Unfortunately your type of mind set and politics plays its part, if only a small part, in trying to turn things around.
Around and around in circles you will go, ever more clinging on to the coat tails of the bureaucrats pleading for a few crumbs.
Dan,
I was working to get out about 2000 members across 100+ workplaces, and GMB is committed to an organizing not servicing model; but organising doesn’t come from nowhere, you have to identify and empower the reps, and the lack of capable individuals at grass roots is z product of decades of social and political changes, not the fault of the “leadership ” .
You have reduced the issues to a few slogans and then proclaim that you understand, when you clearly don’t.
Obviously I don’t understand in comparison to the sage that is Mr Newman. Pensions, far too complicated for me guv. Maybe you could just post up on the socialist unity site how we should all vote and we can take it from there. We don’t want to worry our heads about those complicated issues, leave it to the experts I say. Doffs cap.
If you were working with 2000 members (as was I funnily enough), then you will hopefully know that a lot of people were genuinely annoyed by what the government is doing. I don’t mean the “Mr Angry” stereotype that the far left is so keen on, but a geunine belief in members that the government had gone too far. Strange then that you seem to think we have to settle for a deal which gives no genuine concessions whatsover. Nothing to do with slogans, it’s just total defeatism and dressing up a potential defeat as a victory.
Also if the GMB is commited to not organising on a service model I don’t think it’s doing any better than UNISON to be honest, and that’s a pretty low benchmark.
But I will concentrate on UNISON, as that’s who I am a member of. We have recruited well over 30 stewards in the past four years, and yes it’s hard work. But it’s not that there is a lack of capable individuals (again I think your patronising attitude comes through, is there a Mr Newman stewards test they have to pass?), indeed there is an abundance of talented people in the public sector, who are far brighter than you or I. But the trade unions have made themselves such routinist, boring, unappealing orgnaisations that it is no wonder that floods of people aren’t knocking on the door to get involved. Rather than blame the members, which is all too easy, we should look at why unions are as lame as they are now in terms of creativity and getting new people involved, especially younger people. I’m proud that our branch has got younger people involved, and one of our assistant branch secretaries is a young woman in her 20s who had led a victory in a libraries dispute in the last year. Again there is nothing unusual about our workplaces, it’s just we have done things in a way to get people more involved.
Obviously there the “subjective and objective” factors going back decades but just saying that and nothing else is a cop out. Where trade unions have fought back, such as the RMT, they have increased membership and gained more activists. The same goes for active branches in UNISON. However the leadership of UNISON speands large amounts of time and money taking over the more active branches, and has done this on many an occasion, and even if it doesn’t do that it holds up strike ballots and casts doom and gloom negativity everywhere. You can keep giving them all the excuses you like, but as said it’s part of a totally defeatist attitude and a strategy which seems to say little more than vote Labour you ignorant sheep.
Andy,you say the workers lack confidence and consciousness:
Well, I have a few genuine questions for you…
1) How do we build confidence and consciousness among the working class?
2) How do we strengthen and develop trade unions so that they can better defend us?
3) How can we bring about a socialist society?
I’m interested in hearing your ideas/method.
Have been waiting for Andy or people who supports his position to respond to post 81. The turnout in Scottish local government branches was incredible, some with a strike rate of over 90% (employer figures) yet there was not even an immediate threat of a contributions increase. The turnout was won on the arguments of RPI – CPI, rising retirement age when the pension fund was healthy etc etc. At the meetings members raised the pay freeze, cuts to jobs and services,threat of privatisation etc, they saw the bigger picture and wanted a kick at the bastards and a campaign of fighting back. Members not even in the pension scheme were wanting to go on strike. Unison gained a lot of members because they gave a lead, especially in health where the fence sitting RCN were hemorrhaging members to Unison. The UK leadership position ain’t going down well at all here.
While it is true that each pensions scheme is quite distinctive and thus a resolution will be under different circumstances in each case the key feature of the N30 action was its mass character – mobilising many people who had only a sketchy idea of the exact impact on their own circumstances but had a powerful grasp of the wider context
In the minds of many people, the raising of the retirement age, and the related reduction in final pensions, made the public sector pensions question of even wider significance and could have served to generalise the battle to include people outside the public sector schemes.
The unions clearly missed a good campaigning gambit and future battles need to be located in a more active campaign around retirement as a whole upgrading occupation schemes in the private sector, a SERPS type component to the state scheme, compulsory regulations for employers.
Some union leaderships were dragged unwillingly into joint campaigning and are only too happy to reach a separate settlement. But the genie is out of the bottle and the mobilisation effort by activists and magnificent response by members, especially Unison members, has raised expectations that will not be easily satisfied by marginal concessions, or by attempts to buy off older workers at the expense of under 50s.
No victory is ever total and no defeat ever final. It is important for union leaderships to spell out honestly what has been won and what has not been achieved. At some level millions of people understand that the issue is not settled but that the present stage reflects the actual balance of forces.
If the issue goes to a membership vote it is by no means certain that people will vote to accept what is on offer and even if they do they will do so knowing the battle will be resumed at some stage in the future.
Public sector workers occupy a contradictory position in terms of their class consciousness and social position but part of this lies in the peculiar contract that emerged in the last century around job security, relatively low pay and relatively good pensions. This is being systematically violated and is having a powerful effect of their thinking.
http://21stcenturymanifesto.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/hold-the-line-on-pensions-say-communists/
http://21stcenturymanifesto.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/pensions-build-on-success/
How far Andy has travelled – from the SWP, now to this!
IN my workplace, we had the biggest and best ever supported strike. This was replicated in other parts of where our branch is organised. Clearly, some parts were weaker than others, and there is much work to do. An interesting point, our branch recruited 171 new members in just one month in the run up to the strike.
Unison’s recruitment was up by over 100 odd per cent in the month running up to 30th Nov. Yet you say we should stop now?!
I agree with either Dan or Jon Rogers above (can’t remember who said it), to say that all of this stuff flies over the head of members is totally insulting and shows the contempt with which certain sections of the trade unions hold our members. Should we leave it to the unelected full time officials?
Even if what we were being offered was hunky dory (which it certainly isn’t) why andy, don’t you look at the bigger picture and see that this is not just about pensions but the whole cuts agenda? Millions not in the public sector were inspired by the strikes, and were pleased to see people fighting back.
Members(because they are not thickos as you seem to imply)are already starting to see through this nonsense
all the best
Paul
Coventry
#100
The more ordinary workers are drawn into action, the more they understand….
That’s the problem: they begin to understand TOO MUCH!
~
Then the right-wing trade union leaders and the ironically named ‘labour party’ hacks are exposed for what they really are.
That is the last thing they want: we might get ideas above our station.
The issue of Pensions is just one aspect of life challenges in Britain and other countries today. The TUC has supported the people’s Charter. This gives us a way of bringing together the industrial struggle with the political. The two are halves of the same coin. People are educated and aware, and sophisticated in their understandings but we need a message that brings together a strategy that all can understand and develop from. There are all kinds of aspects such as automation, unemployment, the need for a shorter week without loss of pay, rents and other housing costs. Environmental protection.
Here is a link to the latest People’s Charter leaflet and it would help if this was got out to all workplaces and community groups for discussion.
http://thepeoplescharter.org/images/leaflets/Peoples_Charter_PensionsA5.pdf
When we contacted our branch office for extra materials for the strike on N30 they sent us some leaflets, some flags, some picketing armbands – and two ice scrapers with UNISON logos on them!!
At first, we all thought they were those things they use in shoe-shops when you are trying new shoes on, but eventually we worked out that they were ice-scrapers (don’t ask us about pensions, we don’t have a scooby).
So has anybody else got these ice scapers then? And what is the meaning of them, do you think? A long strike through the winter months, perhaps? Or is it Prentis sending us subliminal messages about the gulag if we ask to go on strike again?
Anyway, you will all be pleased to know that we have set up a rota so everybody gets a turn with these wonderfully inspiring ice scrapers – it’s only fair, isn’t it? And at least we know that our subscriptions are not being wasted.
http://pcseuston.org.uk/pcs-left-unity-pensions-organising-conference-london-7th-jan-2012/
Lol! The biggest strike this country has ever seen comprising of union members across the public sector and Andy and the right wing bureaucracy are claiming that workers aren’t up for a fight and only care about their own sectional interests. It would be funny if it wasn’t so predictably pathetic. This is the same stay at home and leave it to the bureaucrats line Andy tried to sell us regarding the EDL. Thankfully this was ignored.
Unless public sector unions fight for and include none unionised workforces in private sector when discussing pensions, there will never be any unified support for the public sector pension strikes, wake up and smell the coffee guys, private sector workers are no longer ignorant to the fact that PSW receive two pensions when they retire, there occupational pension and there state pensions which is never mentioned when union state that the average PSW is 4.500 to 5.5000.
Look at the bigger picture.
Re Andy’s comment above:
‘Just ignore all the objective and subjective factors why trade union confidence and organisation is weaker, and blame it on UNISON making life hard for half a dozen activists!’
To JUST blame it on the witchhunts would of course be ludicrous. But you are underestimating how much the witch-hunting of activists confuses and disorientates a far wider range of stewards and rank and file members beyond those immediately in the firing line. What must Unison memebrs in the North East have thought of the scandalous antics around Yunus Baksh, especially those who would have known him at Newcatsle General Hospital? Whenever this stuff happens in sows cynicism and confusion in the organisation affected way beyind the activist concerned. Or what about that case where SP activists in a council branch of Unison reached the point where they felt they had to change unions in order to operate as trade unionists? (a wrong call imo but understandable)
It’s not the main factor for sure, but it was an insane tactic for the bureaucracy to start attacking some of their most self sacrificing activiasts, it reminded me of one of those diseases where your immune system starts attacking healthy tissue.
Hopefully we’ve seen the end of it for now.
#107
Oh come on, while difficult for the handfull of individuals and branches involved, and while i am opposed to UNISON’s actions, it is nothing to the real witchhunt againt the Communist party in the 1950s and 1960s, in unions like ETU and TGWU; which was a thousand times more intense, but did not really dampen workplace militancy.
You cannot credibly claim it has made a substantive difference to the strngth of the unions, especially as UNISON doesn’t seem to be different from UNITe and GMB where there have been no such expulsions.
#108
Mr Newman obviously no-one has claimed that the witch hunts are the main factor as you have tried to suggest on a couple of occasions. But taking over some of the most active branches and running them in to the floor is not insignificant either. Where I disagree with Swp member is that this is an insane action. For a bureaucracy who wants a passive, apathetic membership while they have their cushy wages and perks it makes perfect sense. Their main concern is themselves.
But more to the point the leaderships turning the unions in to service unions and demoralising the membership year after year has even more affects. Clearly we are not in a 50s or 60s situation and on a far weaker state. The bureaucracy knows this and stamps on every green shoot it can. And that applies to all the bigger unions. The RMT has shown what can happen with more militancy, whatever the flaws.
I notice you haven’t come back on the Scottish point or the fact that the so called LGPS concession is actually none of the sort, but given because it made absolutely no difference to the government.
#109
Is thwere a village somewhere short of an idiot?
Dan wrote above at #90
Dan now inconsistently says
So at #90 above dan specifically argues that “the reason why” there was low mobilisation in some areas was the so-called witch-hunt.
dan further says
have you been reading “Ultra Leftism for Dummies” ???
If you had been paying attention to the debates in the movement at all you would know that the extreme version of the servicing model has been discredited for some 10 to 20 years, precsisely because the business model doesn’t work. Having full time officers servicing a passive membership doesn’t give FTOs a “cushy job” but makes them rushed off their feet.
A passive and appathetic membership, makes all versions of trade unionism difficult.
Dan also seems confused in linking the organising model to militancy, possible the most successful exponent of the organising model in the UK is USDAW, because there is nothing inherently militant in seeking to have branch organising and member servicing handled by lay reps rather than FTOs.
It has been many a long year since there has been any drive towards the servicing model; and itself that was a reflection of defeat and the attenuation of the the layer of shop floor and branch reps; however, even those uniosn committed to the organisaing model GMb, USDAW and TGWU(and since Len’s election rolling that out to all of UNITE), find that the real world scarcity of activists who can take up the necessary organising and representing roles means that FTOs often have to fall back on servicing.
To argue that the “bureauccracy” have demoralised the membership is simon-pure ultra-leftism. If you look objectively at the consciousness of most trade union members they do want to be serviced by the union like an insurance company. The active appreciation of the requirements for self-relaiance, organisation and occasional confronation come from a narrow layer of activists, and it is necessary for the unions to nurture and grow that layer, but there are no easy answers to that.
This is utter rubbish; and it is obvious you are parroting something you have read or been told rather than something you have expereinced. In most unions any sign that the members are willing to engage in a fight will be encouraged at every level.
*sigh* this tired old cliche again. Firstly, over the period of Bob Crows GS-ship RMT’s growth has been broadly in line in both absolute and relative terms with Southern region of GMB (which is about the same size as the whole of RMT), so has been good but not exceptional; if you were looking for a real success story in terms of member growth, look at USDAW.
Secondly, the RMT’s model of growth is a specific one that is not easily generalisable, dealing with a sector that already had a well established trade union tradition, reasonably high membership density, and where strike action immediately creates political and financial problems for the employers. In fact RMT has been less successful, as I understand it, in growing outside London, where those conditions do not obtain.
It would be interesting to know how RMT would fare if they were seeking to recruit, e.g. nursery nurses, or probation officers.
This is a silly point, that shows you have very little expereince of trade unionism. the art of negotiation is to explore what is important to the other side, and see if there is something you can offer them which is valuable to them, but of little cost to your own side; and then seek to explain to the other side what matters to you, and see if you can find a way to acheive it at little real cost to them.
the big ticket items in the LGPS negotiations for the unions were to seek to get the government to understand the dynamics of the LGPS being a funded scheme; that sustainability of the scheme ruled out a big increase in contributions that would increase the drop out rate, and therefore jeopardise its sustainablity, as well as increasing opension inequality. This meant persuading the government in particular that the medium term actuarial deficit was not an immediate problem as there is a short term operating surplus; and that any deficit revealed at the next actuarial reevaluation could be looked at then.
This was of course helped by the government realising that a short term raid by forcing an increase of contributions (£900 m had been mentioned) could not easily be transferred to George Osbourne’s coffers.
The government has conceded on both these issues, it has recognised that LGPS is funded and therefore needs to be negotiated seperarely, and it has abandoned its suggested short term hike.
All the other stuff you are coming out with (RPI/CPI, work longer, pay more) is noise because you are transposing issues that directly relate to the unfuinded schemes to the funded LGPS.
Negotiations on the LGPS have to start with emphasis on its sustainability, and only then address issues of how much benefit its pays, when people are entitled and how much contribution is made by employees and employers.
Negotiations are now set to look at these items, but if the scheme has an adequate actuarial valuation, and its contribution rates from employees and employers are sufficient to sustain it, then how much it pays out and when are issues that can be negotiated between the unions, the LGPS schemes, and the Local Government Association, based upon what the LGPS can afford, and really don’t need to worry government at all.
It is a victory that the heads of agreement between the unions, the government and the LGA is now to set not only a cap but also a collar (a normative floor level for employer side contributions), this potentially addresses one of the issues where local authorities have taken employer contribution holidays to subsidise the council tax payer.
With regard to Scotland, Mary argues:
Pulling out Scotland when there was no immediate threat to the LGPS there, was a marker for how determined the UNISON, GMB and UNITE leaderships were that N30 would hit the government hard politically.
Continuing the struggle is a judgement call based upon an assessment of the strengths and weakenesses of our ability to escalate the action on the one hand and the level of concession that we have already received on the other.
N30 created a political difficulty for the government that we have expoited in negotiations, and got significant movement on the questions that matter. To continue the action may mean we get more, but it could mean that we face diminishing returns, and end up with a weaker position and a worse outcome.
What an unpleasant and dishonest character this Andy Newman is. He either has great difficulty in following a basic argument or likes to set up straw men in order to be able to make some abusive and tedious counter argument.
Dan has made it clear that he and others are not saying that victimisation of activists is a main factor in the ability of the union as a whole to mobilise their members; just that it is a factor in SOME areas ie those areas where the branches have been badly affected by the witch-hunts.
This is quite an uncontensious statement for anyone who
claims to be even slightly on the left.
As for the final paragraph on comment 110 this has to be one of the most idiotic arguments I have seen about the pensions dispute.
Wow what a long post with so many words that ended up saying not very much at all.
Yes, yes, we know Mr Newman that you are the sage of trade unionism, and members are idiots who can’t understand pensions and just want insurance, but do try and reign in your patronising attitudes just a little eh?
#90 may have been lazily written but anyone reading my subsequent posts would have clearly have known what I meant. So why not try actually debating rather than childish point scoring?
I’ve already outlined that there are far wider forces at work, but just saying it is the objective situation is lazy and wrong. It’s also strange that on one hand you talk about the objective situation, on the other you make lazy comparisons to the 50s and 60s, when we are in a far weaker situation now than then so the behaviour of the bureaucracy has different consequences. Dialectics old boy.
I know I’ve heard all the rhetoric that unions are turning away from the servicing model, but in reality it’s been the same old, same old. Tired routinism, no imagination and the same old faces saying woe is us. I’ve been a trade union activists for 15 years, since I was a trainee. I am now an assistant branch secretary, and unlike most in their posts, was actually elected against competition at the AGM.
If it was just the objective situation then why is it in the ALMO that I work for UNISON, in the last four years, has increased its density from 28% to over 50%? That we have gone from having a couple of stewards to a dozen and more workplace contacts and H&S reps. All the while the GMB membership has gone down and they have next to no stewards? There is nothing about our workplace that is particularly different from other places, so if it can be done there, it can be done anywhere. Blaming the members, which you have obvious intellectual disdain for, is all too easy.
FTOs have far better wages and conditions than the members they represent and the current leaderships and FTOs know that an active involved membership would get rid of nearly all of them as soon as they could. Therefore it’s clearly not in their interests for them to do that.
As for USDAW, please, are you really going to bring that union in to the debate? Whatever model it has, it is not an organising one. An organising model doesn’t simply mean less FTOs and more lay officials. USDAW is one of the worst trade unions about, it’s even worse than UNISON, with a model of partnership with the employers.
One of the reasons trade unions can’t get more people involved is because of people like you Mr Newman. Boring routinists, who will blame everything and anyone rather than themselves and their turgid ideas. In our branch we have had increased density, rapidly increasing amounts of stewards, the biggest AGMs and branch meetings for more than a decade. It can be done, but not in your defeatist world.
I have experienced again and again the way UNISON bureaucrats operate. In our workplace they held up a strike ballot for about six months, totally taking the momentum away. The same old excuses were used about the membership database, the myriad of forms that had to be filled in etc but funnily enough on N30, none of that seemed to matter so much, because the leadership was now in favour.
To say that the buraucracy encourage membership at every turn shows how out of touch you really are.
A couple of stats for you:
* Since he became leader the RMT’s membership increased from around 57,000 in 2002 to more than 80,000 in 2008. An increase of about 40%.
* The GMB went from 712,000 members in 1999 to 590,000 members in 2009. A decrease of 17%.
You can use all the ridiculous semantics you like, but this says it all.
As it happens from 1999 to 2009 USDAW membership went up by 17%.
Then you go in to your bureaucrat speak about negotiations. Trying to hide the fact that government hasn’t given up anything at all, it has merely realised that it has nothing to gain in the LGPS by pushing ahead with that bit of it, so can happily give it up. As said the more cynical part of me thinks they knew this all along but held back as something they could “give” the unions, and I think this is more likely, I can’t imagine the government didn’t know how the LGPS operated. They know they can’t use those extra contributions for their coffers, so there was no point in keeping that there. It wasn’t because of sustainability, I suspect that was very much a secondary consideration.
That wasn’t just the big ticket. Working to 68, the CPI/RPI, and end of final salary pension schemes are also big tickets. But to you they are just noise, says it all really.
We have had the biggest public sector strike in history, and your judgement call is that we need to call it all off quick. You couldn’t make it up. Pathetic. No wonder unions are in trouble with people like you about.
How can we possibly get a worse offer. The one so called concession has been given because the government have now realised (and probably knew all along) that it is pointless them pursuing that particular raid on the pensions. The government really couldn’t have offered any less than they have.
But still, nothing to see here members, go off back to work. You don’t understand anyway, dumb proles.
#111
dan explicitly said that about the “witchhunts” If it is hard to mobilise members in some areas this [is] the reason why
This should be easy for you to quantify then. the expulsions of a half dozen mebers of far left groups by UNISON affected a handfull of branches, were the turnouts for strike action lower in those areas?
can you give me a single example of an area where mobilisation on N30 was lower because of far-left activists being expelled from UNISON?
For example, Tony Staunton was expelled from UNISON in Plymouth, I was recently at SW TUC exec with Tony, and he was talking about the big success of the mobilisation in Plymouth. so Dan’s argument falls down right there.
Tony Staunton’s expulsion was a disgrace, as Nigel Behan’s recent expulsion in Taunton is a disgrace. Whilst it didn’t make N30 more difficult – because the Bureaucracy in Unison pulled their finger out a millimetre or two at the last second (In Taunton the regional office – opposite County Hall – had one poster in a rear window about the strike until the day, when as backdrop to the Rally it suddenly festooned itself) and actually supported the action. But kicking out seasoned fighters like Tony and Nigel, and others elsewhere, certainly makes it more difficult to recruit and retain people to a Union and to organise members towards strike action when it’s not so popular with the Bureaucrats – when they are directly controlling the Union Branch!
Mr Newman, I am seriously worrying about your position as Great Sage of the trade union movement. I have already said that the post you are quoting is lazily written but my subsequent posts have made it more than clear that this is not what I meant.
It is hard to prove, but I very much suspect that in areas such as Sheffield, Greenwich and Bromley and other branches that are and were under regional supervision that the turnout for the strikes was indeed damaged by the witchhunts. Membership density certainly has been.
Unfortunately, due to the festive period and family illness I have not been able to ‘intervene’ in the putrid ideologically pro-capitalist and some-what personally abusive comments made by Mr Newman over a certain section of the trade union bureaucracy wanting to pull back from taking on the ConDem government over the pension question and the austerity cuts. I have not even attempted to reply to a previous post and questions asked of me, but at some stage I do want to respond.
Just suffice to say that Mr Newman speaks for a particular narrow section of the working, and even middle, class. That section is staid and ossified and cannot see out of the narrow interests of his ideological and material structure. The argument against his type can be honed on the internet blogs, but it is more important for trade unionists who disagree with his ideologically pro-capitalist bovine excrement after the holiday period to get back into the workplaces and explain to ordinary working people that what the right-wing trade union leaders are doing is a betrayal of the post-second war labour government and everything our grandmothers and grandfathers fought for. The internet is one thing the mass discussions is another and the real start of that will be the Open meeting for trade union reps organised by PCS Left Unity
Saturday 7th January 2012
Friends Meeting House, Euston Road, London
11am – 4pm
Chair: Janice Godrich PCS President
Speakers: Mark Serwotka, PCS general secretary
John McDonnell MP
Mark Campbell, UCU
Kevin Courtney, NUT deputy general secretary
Roger Bannister, Unison NEC (personal capacity)
#114
I didn’t know Nigel had been expelled from UNISON, that is a great shame, if correct. However it is certainly untrue that UNISON in the South West were in any way half hearted. Nor is it true that the strike was particularly weak in Somerset.
#112
The quoted figures you give for GMB’s alleged reduction in membership cover the period of transition from Kevin Cur ran to Paul Kenny, as incoming G S Paul removed the members who didn’T exist from the system and put the union back into financial health.
Since then there has been steady growth in most regions. London region and Southern region have exhibited the strongest growth, proportioate to the growth in GMT over the same period.
With regard to your own workplace, it clearly does have an exceptional characteristic because it has you there, and perhaps other like minded activists. Well done for what you have achieved, but you can’t presuppose that activists exist.
What we cannot do is predicate a strategy for union renewal on a requirement for a layer of grass roots activists that doesn’t exist.
I don’t have to answer to you for my trade union activity but check out the prevent threads on what we are doing at Carillion, or the local working class history school and resulting book we initiated. Or the film we made about Tolpuddle, hardly routinism.
The low level of trade union consciousness and the fact that most members have an expectation of a passive relationship wth the union is not to be celebrated, but you can’t just dismiss it. That is the context we are all working in.
#112
The argument that FTOs are better paid than the members they serve is a silly one. Firstly it isn’t necessarily true, secondly, so what. Members expect officers to be skilled and trained and to be paid accordingly.
But the idea that officers fear an activist membership might get rid of them is just like a conspiracy theory. Are his sure union full timers aren’t shape shifting multi dimensional lizards?
Hello,
I haven’t read ALL the comments on here, of which there are a lot. From what I can gather (I may be wrong,i am but a humble member after all) this deal means we are going to be paying more, working longer and getting less at the end of it.
As a student nurse in my mid 20s, as much as i enjoy my work, i do not really want to be emptying bedpans, drawing up care plans, drugs rounds, comforting patients and their families, running tests, supporting the doctors and all of the other countless (largely thankless lol) tasks involved in nursing for the next 40 years.
In UNISON Health we are in an unusual position. The LGPS does not directly effect us in the NHS. However, organisation is poor within Health. Branches ARE run, with a pretty tight grip, by the officials. My branch didnt even take strike action on the 30th, because, despite a large yes vote, the officials sent the paperwork to the wrong trust.
The point is that members in local government taking action gives confidence to members in health. For a long time, the gap between leadership at a local level and membership has been widening in health. The relevance of the union is not widely demonstrated to most members. At my hospital, the leadership is stale, right wing, and has over a prolonged period of time, isolated itself from the membership. Some members see the union as apologists for poor clinical practice. Even under those conditions, members still supported the action, because they don’t want to see their pensions slashed and burnt.
Industrial action wasnt as solid in health as it was in some areas. However, some unions did it better than others. The physios for example, had 2 people go in, and they were union backed emergency cover. Unite, who did take strike action at my hospital recruited a fair few of the angriest UNISON members and signed up stewards on the picket line.
I just think its a bit rich that on the one hand people moan about the lack of engagement with the union by members, but at the same time, when it comes to showing members what a union is for, to defend our living standards are found recommending a deal that in no way meets any of the 3 central demands of the strike. Bit hypocritical, wouldn’t you say?
Finally, I am posting anonymously and have not mentioned the trust for a reason, No! Its not because i’m not confident to defend my opinion to bloggers, but because I would like a job in the NHS (if theres anything left of it by the time I finish my training!) and calling for further strike action to defend pensions and help replenish the trade union movement could well go against me at interview!
Jock McTrousers at 37 above, attacking Andy Newman:
“A divided, precarious coalition government with no mandate dismantling everything valued by the British people, and this isn’t a propitious time for a fight? If not now, when? You’re beginning to sound like the Communist Party of Britain”.
CPB general secretary Rob Griffiths in the Morning Star on November 30:
“… That’s why today’s day of action should be merely the prelude to mass popular and industrial action to bring down Britain’s illegitimate government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich”.
Why the falsification, McTrousers?
Also for McTrousers’ benefit, CPB chair Bill Greenshields writes at length in today’s Morning Star against unions falling for the government’s divide-and-conquer strategy, and for a programme of strikes and mass campaigning to bring down this illegitimate Con-Dem regime. Bringing down this government at the earliest opportunity has been at the centre of the CPB’s statements for 12 months and more. Again, Jock, why do you so blatantly misrepresent the CPB’s position?
##120
The NHS pension scheme is another kettle of fish. The unions have concluded nothing more can be gained by negotiation and referred back to the relevant decision making bodies in their own unions.
Certainly the progress made with LGPS is not experienced with NHS pension.
However local authority members will mostly want to decide whether to continue based upon their own pensions, there is little prospect of local authority workers continuing a strike for the benefit of NHS staff, however much we might wish they would.