WHAT NEXT FOR THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT PENSION SCHEME?
As part of the continuing debate surrounding the dispute over the government’s proposed changes to the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS), Socialist Unity asked Jon Rogers, a member of Unison’s National Executive Committee, to give his thoughts on recent events and the potential agreements that may end the dispute. Jon writes here in a personal capacity.
What next for the LGPS?
As we move towards next week’s meeting of all UNISON’s Service Group Executives (SGEs), and to many similar meetings in other public service unions, it is very much the right time for trade unionists to debate, carefully and in a balanced way, the merits of the Framework Agreements for the four main public service pension schemes and to consider what we do next. Shrill cries of “sell-out” are not a particularly helpful contribution to this debate (though neither are ritual denunciations of the “ultra-left”).
What has been impressive about the pensions dispute, particularly in the ten weeks leading up to the strike, has been our unity of purpose behind decisive leadership. Following the strike our negotiators quite properly sought settlements and have now to report to elected lay Committees on the outcome of those negotiations. All trade unionists have a legitimate interest in the discussions which will take place. We have a clear choice between settling for what is now on offer or planning for further sustained and serious industrial action.
I would like to take a particular look at the case of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) because that was the subject of an earlier post on Socialist Unity arguing that the Agreement between the Local Government Association and the national officers of the local government unions was a “victory”, an assessment which would imply that the local government workforce would be right to refrain from further industrial action over pensions. I think that this was a mistaken assessment which could lead to the wrong conclusion.
It is certainly important to appreciate the differences between the LGPS and the other schemes, particularly that it is a funded scheme in which local government employers are an important stakeholder, autonomous from the Government. The interplay of these two differences led to the most significant positive outcome of negotiations from the perspective of scheme members, the two year delay in any immediate increase in employee contributions to April 2014.
This has arisen as a consequence of the Government being compelled to accept that there is no way in which they can derive any benefit from a reduction in employer contributions commensurate with increased employee contributions other than in connection with the next triennial actuarial valuation. An earlier increase in employee contributions in the LGPS would be futile from the Government’s point of view and would not be supported by any of the stakeholders in the scheme.
What we have now is a proposed agreement on some principles for a new LGPS, to apply from April 2014. This needs to be evaluated in its own right – but we do also need to consider the wider political context of confrontation between the trade unions and the Coalition Government.
There are ten principles to govern the design of the future LGPS and these can be assessed against the three objectives that we struck for on 30 November – that we ought not to have to work longer, whilst paying more to get less.
Working Longer?
Principle Five of the Agreement with the LGA concedes completely the Government’s desire to link our normal pension age to the state pension age. Although it is envisaged that retirement will be flexible between 55 and 75 the actuarial reductions for voluntary early retirement will be linked to the normal pension age (and therefore the state pension age). Although, protection is to be afforded to those within ten years of retirement in accordance with Principle Seven, these are to be subject to “further negotiations with Treasury on meeting the costs of protections.”
Paying More?
Our members in the LGPS will benefit from the delay in any contribution increases until 2014. We don’t at this stage know what we will pay after 2014. Although Principle Two states that the future LGPS “can include zero increases in employee contributions for all or the vast majority of members provided overall financial constraints are met” these “overall financial constraints” could well mean that the resources are not available for both decent benefits and affordable contributions. Although it may be that significant savings can be made from “scheme cost efficiencies” in accordance with Principle Eight, we have absolutely no guarantee that these will be sufficient to achieve the Government’s stated target of saving £900 Million a year from the LGPS in England and Wales!
Getting Less?
Nothing in the Agreement with the LGA changes the fact that the Government have imposed uprating of pensions in payment in line with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rather than the Retail Price Index (RPI) – a change which we have argued has reduced the lifetime value of our pensions by 15%. It appears that, across all the negotiations, the trade unions are now relying only upon the Court of Appeal to reverse this massive theft.
Unlike the unfunded schemes we do not yet have firm proposals on accrual or revaluation rates in the future LGPS career average scheme because it is envisaged that these will be the subject of further negotiation. However, Principle Nine, which states that the LGPS will maintain “its relative value in terms of benefits in relation to other public sector schemes” suggests that the we will see a similar reduction in the worth of the LGPS as in the other schemes. The reference to “overall financial constraints” in Principle Two indicates that the our negotiations with the LGA will only be able to deliver a scheme which meets the Government’s financial targets.
Victory?
Therefore, if we proceed on the basis of the Agreement with the LGA, we will be conceding that our members must work longer, and accepting that they may pay more and will get less, albeit we have some leeway to negotiate the details. Even if this were an isolated dispute about the LGPS alone, to describe this as a “victory” does a fair amount of damage to the English language.
However, this is not an isolated dispute about the LGPS. It takes place in the context of the wider pensions dispute, and of the Government’s political offensive against our movement. This means that we should be more cautious about a hasty settlement, and more ambitious in our objectives than we might otherwise be.
Unity is Strength
Our members took action on 30 November because they believed we were serious about defending our pensions, and because they could see that the impressive unity of the trade union movement demonstrated that we could have the power to force the Government to back down.
If we now abandon the option of further industrial action in order to settle at this point for the individual scheme by scheme agreements, which the Government describe as achieving their objectives, we will be all but giving up the struggle for which our members took action.
Eventually there will be scheme by scheme settlements and, even in the best case scenario, we probably won’t have achieved every single one of our objectives. Disputes end in compromises. However, what is on the table now – even in the case of the LGPS – is not good enough. If we build upon what we achieved on 30 November we can secure a better settlement on pensions and thereby create a less unfavourable environment for our trade union movement to defend the interests of our members in the face of job cuts, pay freezes and assaults upon our legal rights.
We should send our negotiators back with demands which unify the interests of trade unionists across all the different schemes – for no increase in pension ages across the schemes or (crucially) for the restoration of the link to RPI rather than CPI to uprate pensions in payment, and we should plan now for further unified action in support of these demands. In this way we can put more pressure on the Government and secure a better outcome in the decisive dispute of this Parliament.
I hope that the arguments against acceptance will carry the day at UNISON’s SGE meetings, and believe that, if they do, UNISON will show the same determination and unity in continuing the dispute that we showed in the run up to N30.
Thanks Jon and Tony for this. Very useful for clarifying my arguments for when I speak to fellow UNISON members in my workplace about what’s on the table for us.
I agree entirely that to call the Framework Agreement a victory is very much a mistaken assessment. I’m also somewhat disappointed that fractures are appearing, not just within UNISON, but also in what was a pretty solid coalition of public sector unions that went out on strike on 30th Nov – unity is strength.
On a side note, it’s good that we can debate these issues/differing views on SU in a fraternal manner.
I agree completely it’s a crap framework agreement and in no way a victory.
The Government have backed down on the immediate contribution increase in the lgps because they worked out they couldn’t do it – not because of any pressure from our union movement.
In health it is a sell out – and whilst the lgps deal is marginally better as we don’t have immediate contribution increases – to claim it as a victory for us is just wrong.
We went on strike to stop the plans for all of us to pay more work longer and get less – that is still what t he government are offering.
Prentis said it will take more than one days action to settle pensions dispute and yes it will – but does he have the stomach for it? Unison members do – we need our general secretary to lead our fight
I agree in the main, but though I shouldn’t be surprised, I always find this kind of comment disconcerting:
“Shrill cries of “sell-out” are not a particularly helpful contribution to this debate (though neither are ritual denunciations of the “ultra-left”).”
- I suppose it depends on how you view the purposes of the sustained campaign of mass-mobilization in the lead up to November 30th, and over a year’s worth of a General Secretary’s ‘fighting’ rhetoric, and the relation it bears to the LGPS settlement proposed and the wider set of issues around pensions. I know a lot of Unison members whose level of commitment to the breadth of this dispute has been accelerated in no small part by the above, and it’s potentially quite insulting to a large proportion of the membership to characterise dissatisfaction with the prospect of accepting the current LGPS offer as the routine commentary of the far left – especially when you’re making the same argument.
Congratulations to John for giving us the serious evaluation of the principles of the proposed agreement.The most serious aspect,from my point of view, is the linking of the scheme normal pension age to state pension age. The Marmot review argued that at age 68 around 75% of people would be suffering with a disability. There is a profound social gradient involved and the average disability free life expenctancy for those from the poorest areas was only 53 years. So many ( most?)will either take a huge hit to their pensions from actuarial reduction or will be pushed into an increasingly hostile benefit system.
Whereas it is undeniably necessary to negotiate the fine detail of pension schemes seperately, it must be possible for the unions as a whole to establish some red lines that no negotiating group would breach. If the unity of November 30 is allowed to splinter, there could be considerable demoralisation which would make it far more difficult to oppose the coming cuts and job losses.
An excellent article – it examines the detail of the offer set out in the Heads of Agreement properly and in a measured way. This piece deserves further and wide circulation amongst Unison activists and members. I hope at the very least the respective Executive members get to read it.
My fear however is that, on LGPS at least the Unison and GMB horse may have already bolted.
Jon has written an excelent article, and people are correct that it deserves circulation; and congratulations to Tony Collins for suggesting and commissioning it.
And congratulations to me for offerinf space to someone to so comprehensivly refute my arguments!
However, I still don’t agree with Jon’s arguments, and I will elaborate why.
Firstly, I agree that denouncing people for being ultra-left just becuase they oppose this deal, or think that more could be acheived is unhelpful and unfair.
However, I think that those who combine arguments about this deal with blanket condemnation of union officials in general and Dave Prentis in particular are being ultra-left and obscuring rather than clarifying the issues.
With regard to whether it is a victory t be where we are, I am sympathetic to the argument that that might be an overstated evaluation. However, of the government had put on the table what they are now offering before N30, then there wouldn’t have been a strike from GMB and UNISON. So as a result of the N30 action we have moved from a situation that was completely unacceptable to a situation that we can live with. That is movement from the government, and is a mutually acceotable compromise. Whether we chose to describe a mutualy acceptable compromise with management as a victory or not is really a question of politics.
Jon argues:
The issue here is to what degree that broader political context is germane to whether or not our members are prepared to escalate industrial action over their pensions.
Let me state at the outset, that if the question could be decided merely on what I personally would like to see happen, then we would continue the action.
Let us look objectively at the situation, one in four of LGPS members have already opted out – prusumably because they feel it is too expensive. Among school support staff (where the majority of GMB’s memebrs are), the opt out rate is higher because not only are they low paid, they are often part time, and only paid for 30 weeks per year, so their pension is marginal, on average being just 2000 per year.
For a large proportion of lower paid members in local government, pensions are a less important issue than pay, cuts, and more directly workplace specific issues.
This was reflected in the relatively low turn out in the strike ballots (GMB the highest of the big unions at less than 34%), which also reflects the weakness of workplace organisation. Participation levels in the strike were patchy, and delivery of strike action in schools largely on the back of the teachers and NAHT, who were involved in a dispute over a different pension scheme.
It is my judgement, based upon conversations with many many members overs the last several weeks, is that the level of political generalisation is less pronounced than Jon asserts. People were on strike over their own pension, and while they were receptive to the idea that a strike also highlighted other iniquities of government policy, there was no widespread mood to fight the government industrially over all those things.
The unity between different unions on the pensions issue was conjunctural, and contingent upon the government’s choice to pick a fight with us all simutaneously.
Continuing the dispute therefore had two possible outcomes, either it would escalate; or we may face diminishing returns as members decide that the government are not going to change their mind.
Now it is ultra-left, and I have no hesitation in saying so, to assume that continuing the fight has no risk, and that members will automatically respond to escalation.
If we roll the dice again, and the action is not bigger than N30, then we may lose momentum and the government may gain ground on us.
Of course it could be bigger and better, but we cannot at this stage guarantee it.
However, as we stand, then we have given our organisation a boost, and we are in a stronger position to pursue pay and fight redundancies this year.
So the judgment has to be whether or not the current heads of agreement is a sufficient advance for us so that we don’t have to take the risk of further action.
At this point Jon assumes the most unfavourable intrpretation of each specific issue; which assumes that our negotiators will roll over in phase two, and that we would not be able to take industrial action if we fail to reach acceptable areement in the next phase.
the fact is that the government has moved considerably, not only in cancelling any immediate increase in contributions, but also in recognising that the other issues will be resolved by negotiation within the context of a funded and self-sustainable scheme.
BTW, if people want to know how effective the strike was on N30, put an FOI request in to your local council to see how much salary they saved on the day.
You may be shocked by the results.
Andy Newman says “However, of the government had put on the table what they are now offering before N30, then there wouldn’t have been a strike from GMB and UNISON. So as a result of the N30 action we have moved from a situation that was completely unacceptable to a situation that we can live with. That is movement from the government, and is a mutually acceotable compromise.”
I deduce from this that the offer of no contribution increase in 2014 and talks about increases after then (within a cost saving envelope that has not moved at all) is seen as a compromise?
I suppose it could be read that way, but what I can’t deduce is how fracturing the unity now (with all of the limitations highlighted) and putting any sort of futher fight off until 2014/5 makes any industrial sense? The job cuts, pay freeze, privatisation are happening now. Another year of this surely weakens workplace organisation, makes more opt outs from the LGPS likely for cost reasons if nothing else and, accepting the limitations of support on N30 in some areas, makes a battle in 2014/5 harder to win?
I am glad to see Jon coming out with a clear rejection positon but I think we also need to be absolutely clear what we are demanding. If Jon litterally means what he says below I think he is wrong when hes says the following
“We should send our negotiators back with demands which unify the interests of trade unionists across all the different schemes – for no increase in pension ages across the schemes or (crucially) for the restoration of the link to RPI rather than CPI to uprate”
This would be to limit our demands to just two of our claims. We went into the dispute rightly demanding 1.no increase in pension contributions, 2.no increase in retirment age, 3.no cuts in retiremnet benefits 4.for the restoration of the link with RPI rather than the CPI. I see no resaon for a single one of these claims to be dropped as Jon appears to suggests.
As in any dispute the outcome is dependent on the balance of forces.If we were the case that we were at the end of a battle with a membership worn out not wanting to take any further action that would of course influence us as to what was acheivable or not but that is simply not the case.
No one could suggest that the 30th NOV was not a massive show of strenth from the unions (although some leaders may seek to rewrite history already in order to justfy giving in). From my 22yrs experence the size of the pickets lines and demonstrations were a clear reflection of its strenth.
As for those who think we could take todays “concession” of a delay in increase in the contribution rate and fight tomorrow for other issues if we dont get what we want,they would need to ask the question do we have a better chance of securing more today with united all unions action or left on our own as local governemnt workers, the experince of 2006 did not prove this to be the case when £1billion was wiped in beifits to the local government scheme.
Thanks for all the comments.
To Andy at #6 I would say that it is wrong to see this as a “mutually acceptable compromise with management” – although the form is of an agreement between the LGA and the three unions, the substance is given to this form by the acceptance by the Government of the reality of the impracticability of imposing a contribution increase on employees in the LGPS ahead of 2014. The concession which is of benefit to our members (that there shall certainly be no contribution increase before that date) is a concession to reality by the Government rather than a concession to the trade unions by the employers.
There is no real risk that this concession would be removed, since increased employee contributions in the LGPS in 2012 would be futile from the point of view of the Government and of no benefit to the employers. We have made no headway on the question of the increase in the pension age, nor on reversing the very detrimental RPI/CPI change – issues which would have required material concessions from the Government.
I don’t say that there is no risk to continuing conflict, but I don’t think that there is a real risk of contribution increases ahead of 2014. I also don’t think that my worries about what will happen in negotiations suggest that I think that our negotiators will “roll over” – whatever they do we will have already sold the pass on the pension age and indexation of course. However, we will be sending our negotiators back to negotiate within the same “overall financial constraints” against which we struck in November.
As to the point about trade union unity, I think Glenn at #9 answers that well with the observation that “As for those who think we could take today’s “concession” of a delay in increase in the contribution rate and fight tomorrow for other issues if we don’t get what we want, they would need to ask the question do we have a better chance of securing more today with united all unions action or left on our own as local government workers, the experience of 2006 did not prove this to be the case.”
I accept Andy’s point that “The unity between different unions on the pensions issue was conjunctural, and contingent upon the government’s choice to pick a fight with us all simultaneously.” However, we do not have to accept that it is only the other side who can shape our conflicts. We needn’t let their first concession end that unity – particularly not when they are still “picking a fight with us all simultaneously” on RPI/CPI and the increasing pension age
This leads to my response to Glenn’s further observation at #9 that I seem to be wanting to “limit our demands to just two of our claims.” This is a misconception. My point was to pick out, as an example, two demands which are capable of being made across all the schemes (restoration of the RPI link and no change to pension age). Demands around particular pension benefits or particular contribution rates cannot be made in such a unifying way with such ease, because the schemes are so different.
In passing I will also comment on the apparent contradiction between Glenn’s optimistic assessment of the effectiveness of N30 at #9 and Andy’s aside at #7. To see the number of deductions made following a strike in local government is always dispiriting, and not only because the employers never manage to deduct from everyone who was on strike. The important comparison is not, however, between N30 and a 100% solid strike but between N30 and other strikes.
N30 was the best national strike action in local government in my twenty years as a Branch Secretary – I think we could therefore expect to do better than we have at this point.
I certainly also welcome the opportunity for a comradely debate on this issue here, and hope that the debate within each of our trade unions will be as comradely.
#10
The trouble with this Jon is that your are presuming that the government would not proceed with something that was irrational, counter-productive and deleterious to the stablity to the LGPS.
YOur argument about the government’s acknowledgment of reality is true, but it was also true before N30; and the unions side negotiators have been making this point to them for ten months.
Only after N30 did the government realise that this argument was true. So the “concession to reality” was also a concession to trade union pressure.
#9
Okay, but let us consider some other aspects of unity.
All along in this dispute I have pointed out there are two factors which complicate maintaining unity; one of which is the inherent differences between the LGPS and the unfunded schemes; and the other is the income and pension inequality in the current system.
There were always real challenges with building the strike with, for example, school support staff (SSS), who have a high drop out rate from LGPS due to a combination of their low income, often part-time work, the fact that they don’t get paid for a school holidays, and because SSS often join the LGPS expecting to pay in for relatively few years. What is more the proposed reforms have lower impact on lower paid grades.
The fact that we nevertheless got a strong strike vote (admittedly on a low turn out) is testament to the trust our members have in the union; and we did deliver a strike.
But over the longer term maintaining unity between the lower paid staff less effected by the pension changes, and the higher paid staff might have become an increasing challenge. To be honest, from my experience, the more school support staff heard the argunments from the teaching unions the more they realised how poor their own pensions were compared to teachers, which did not further foster a spirit of unity.
Also one of the considerations we need to make about unity, is that it does not just go between unions, but also within them. The response of some has been to shout sell-out, insult the union leaders and negotiators, and argue for escalation regardless of any practical considerations, or addressing why some other people in the union support the idea of reaching a deal now. Does that make us stronger or weaker?
Andy I have no problem with accepting that the “concession” on the stay of the increase of contributions rates til 2014 was also as a result of trade union pressure and the threat of the N30,but lets not forget it was offered before the 30th Nov and rejected by the same local government negociators who are now using it as reason to call off further action and are recommending the framework agreement, if it wasnt enough then they can hardly claim it as enough now!
I’m not sure it was a concession to trade union pressure, as I said on the other thread. There is literally nothing in it for the government in making people pay extra in the LGPS pension scheme. It could easily be the case that they held back on it as something to “offer” knowing that a strike was likely, and it would have more impact after the strike than beforehand as it gave the bureaucrats cover to say “we have gone out, done our best, got this, and that’s all we can get”. I know you say they could have done thie before N30 but tactically, from their point of view, it was far smarter to do it afterwards.
However even if we assume that it came partly from pressure, it is as Glenn says an offer which had already been made in Scotland and was rejected by the trade unions. It is also the case that Dave Prentis said again and again that more than one day would be needed to get anything meaningful, but now he has done a complete about turn on this.
Also a capitalist government is not usually totally irrational, they play to their class interests. While they might attack the LGPS as a wider agenda, it is unlikely they would want to undermine it too much as it has £150 billion of shares and causing a collapse in the LGPS could have significant ramifications for the economy. I agree with Jon that with such a paltry deal there is very, very little chance of getting anything worse with further action, and a good chance of getting more. I would say Mr Newman that you would have to ask yourself how you have managed to place yourself in a position of being more defeatist and right wing than both the Morning Star and the Manchester UNISON branch, hardly bastions of far left radicalism.
As a last point firstly I don’t think there is anything particuarly wrong with characterising this deal as a sell out. If it passes I will certainly feel sold out! Also I don’t think there is anything wrong with pointing out the wretched structures in our unions with the undemocratic practices and overpaid bureaucrats, it is hardly incidental to the dispute, there are material reasons why bureaucrats sell out disputes, and UNISON in particular has a nasty, witch hunting leadership.
Of course practical considerations have to be taken in to account, but if the suggestion is that this is the best we can get after N30 you should prepare yourself for a dire few years ahead with even more of a decline in trade unionism and many defeats. This is the best momentum we have had for years and we have to get something tangible from it.
Below is a leaflet about the pension deal that came out of a trade union activists meeting. It might be better if people use it as they want e.g. just as an email and amend it for use with your organisation/trade union.
Pensions: Deal or No deal?
You will have seen on the news that some unions have signed an agreement with the government on pensions. This has been presented as a final agreement, a done deal, but it is not.
Unison and GMB have both signed “heads of agreement” in local government and health.
Although it is not a final agreement it does mean any final deal will mean workers in those sectors
· will work longer
· pay more
· receive less in pensions
The only concession from the government is that some workers will not have to pay more towards their pensions for two years. After that pension contributions will increase. The agreement also mean those unions have agreed not to call any more strikes while they are negotiating.
Even if there are further negotiations this agreement will leave us with a terrible deal on pensions.
Members of Unison and GMB should tell their national union leaders that the agreement is no good and they should tell the government – No deal!
Most unions have not signed up to any agreement in the other public service sectors. The PCS and most of the civil service unions have rejected the agreement. So far the NUT, NAS/UWT and UCU have said they will not sign the agreement on the Teachers Pension Scheme.
Members of these unions should call on their leaders to call more strike action as soon as possible. If your union is still in dispute get your union branch to send in resolutions calling for more action now.
We should make it clear – there is no deal and we continue to fight against the government’s attack on our pensions.
We must unite to help Unison and GMB members force their leaders to call off the agreement with the government. Please sign the petitions against the agreement and support any lobbies of the Unison and GMB national executives.
Lobby of the Unison Service Group Executives
Tuesday 10 January
12 noon until 2.00pm
Unison national HQ, 130 Euston Road, London, NW1
Called by Camden, Lambeth and London Met University Unison branches
Lobby the TUC
Thursday 12 January, 2pm
Congress House, Great Russell Street
London WC1B 3LS
(nearest underground station Tottenham Court Road)
Sign the petitions
For Unison members: Why we say ‘no deal’ on pensions
For all unions: Don’t give up the pensions fight
Meetings open to all trade unionists
Defend pensions—escalate action—name the day!
Organised by PCS Left Unity
Saturday 7 January, 11am – 4pm
Friends Meeting House (opposite Euston station).
Go to http://www.leftunity.org.uk
Unite the Resistance emergency national meeting
Saturday 14 January, 12 noon – 4pm
central London – venue to be confirmed.
Unite have rejected the government offer for their NHS members. That’s good.
#11 Andy, I concede the point that trade union pressure may have helped to acquaint the Government with reality, though I doubt that there is really a risk that the Government would smash up the LGPS out of spite. After all, how many Tory Councillors would be worse off? (One irony of these negotiations is that the employer side negotiators were all, if not scheme members, at least eligible for membership whereas there were no lay members, and therefore no scheme members, amongst the union side negotiators!)
Though please let’s not have a debate on this thread about the nature and role of trade union bureaucracy!
#16 I agree with you, but it is worth reflecting on the fact that, having agreed the offer is unacceptable, the Committee has agreed to meet again on the 11th (the day after UNISON’s Health SGE considers the offer) before deciding what to do next.
The crucial question is whether or not we can mobilise our members for further effective action. I hope and believe we can, and take yesterday’s ballot result from UNISON’s Ambulance sector (in favour of action short of strike action over pensions) as one positive indication.
It is fantastic that Unite have rejected this.
As a Unison member, this gives me much more confidence to go in and argue for rejection.
Concerning whether the coalition has made any concessions; looking at Andy’s post #13 – gosh Andy, you are really clutching at straws here – have you ever thought of becoming a speech writer for Prentis or even Ed Miliband ? Dan’s reply in post #14 is an excellent answer to your pessimism.
A report on Unite’s Health Sector National Committee that rejected the deal:
Unite’s Health Sector National Committee met today and voted unanimously to reject the ‘Heads of Agreement’ – the Government’s so-called final offer. As far as we’re concerned, we have a mandate for action from our members. We’re still being asked to pay more, get longer and pay less. We’ve not won, so this fight goes on.
This was an angry meeting. We looked at the detail of what’s on offer, and took detailed reports from the Unite pensions expert and the National Officer who has led the negotiations. The consensus was that the Government has never been serious at all about meaningful negotiations. The impressive part of the meeting was when we went round the table and gave our individual views.
One comment was, ‘It’s a rubbish deal, it always was and it still is. This is about our integrity. We’ve got to fight’. Another Committee member said, ‘We’re not being offered anything. Let’s get on with further action and not sit around talking’.
There was robust rejection of the Government’s bullying tactics. A typical comment was, ‘If you allow yourself to be bullied, the bully will smack you in the face again and again and again’. The meeting understood very, very well that the attacks on pensions are a prelude to savage attacks on pay, jobs, national pay bargaining, facility time, privatisation and service cuts. We have to fight on pensions. If we don’t, we’re opening the door to all of these attacks.
People talked about the impossibility of marching members up to the top of the hill – and then saying, ‘Sorry, we give in now’ when we’ve won nothing at all. We all felt that members would never forgive us if we did this. There were reports of members already threatening to tear up their membership cards if Unite walks away from this fight. We also agreed completely on our wish to unite and fight with any NHS union that rejects the Tory attacks on pensions.
General Secretary Len McCluskey was in the meeting, and pledged his support for the decision taken by our health workers.
This was an important meeting. It gives the lie to the Government’s pretence that this is a done deal. Our decision to reject is already all over the news. This can give confidence to all the public sector activists who are angry about what’s happening. This is a fight that can be won.
Crucial meetings take place next week – of Unite’s other public sector groups, and – absolutely crucially – Unison’s Service Group Executives. The deal that Unite activists unanimously rejected as shit today is the same deal that will be put to Unison’s leading Health workers next week.
It’s all still to play for.
Gill George
#18
To be clear, UNITE’s health committee have rejected the heads of agreement for the NHS pension scheme; which has nothing to do with the discussion of the LGPS which this and previous articles have been about. As this article specifically concerns the LGPS UNITE have not in fact rejected “this”
I hesitate to comment on the NHS scheme, as it is clear that what is on offer from the government is poor, but the way forward for effective industrial action in the NHS is challenging to say the least. It is perhaps worth taking a measured view of the significance of UNITE’s footprint in the NHS.
United we Stand, Divided we’re Lumbered
Harry Flowers: Performance 1970.
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
Kevin Courtney, National Union of Teachers deputy general secretary (personal capacity)
Roger Bannister, Unison executive (personal capacity)
Padraig Mulholland, Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance vice-president (personal capacity)
Mark Campbell, University and College Union executive (personal capacity)
Zita Holbourne, Black Activists Rising Against Cuts
Kevin Donnelly, Unite United Left
——————————————————————————–
PCS Left Unity organising conference (Click to enlarge)
Janice Godrich, President of PCS, on behalf of PCS Left Unity, issued the following statement:
“PCS Left Unity is organising an open meeting at Friends Meeting House, Euston Road, London on Saturday 7 January to demand further action on pensions. This meeting will be open to all reps in any union that took action on N30 and is to put pressure on union leaderships to name a further strike day.
“Please pass on to all your contacts in other unions, put the date in your diary and attend.”
——————————————————————————–
I had a dream on Saturday that I had gone back to a 1972 meeting of the Communist Party Liaison Committee for the Defence of Trade Unions. There was one resolution and no amendments were allowed.
The resolution called for the “setting up of a temporary co-ordinating committee of all left organisations within the union movement, including those invited to this conference” “this committee should then meet shortly”.
There was no discussion on which organisations, eg SWP, SP, CPB, Workers Liberty and the Labour Party or which rank and files eg NSSN, Right to Work, Coalition of Resistance etc or which work place based rank and files or the number of delegates from each organisation who would be on the committee.
There was no discussion on how the committee would be elected or appointed and by whom. There was no election to the committee.
Thee were some good speeches. There was a party cheer leader at the end.
And then I woke up and found I was at a meeting of the PCS Left Unity National Committee “Defend Pensions” Conference in London.
Plus la change.
Yes it would have been better to spend hours on exactly who to invite and what we call ourselves rather than actually talking about pensions and how we maintain unity
No Jane. I didnt put the resolution. It was put by the organisers and then ignored. The resolution was precisely to set up a committee to organise unity, as you say, around the fight over pensions. If you and the organisers didnt want a committee why did the resolution call for one?
unionworkeruk,
It would have been easy for the organisers to either announce who they proposed to invite on the the committee if they didnt want nominations etc and to put a time limit on discussions.
There was no one there who disagreed with the overall strategy of the plateform so no time would have been wasted in getting back to the discussion which was very constructive.
Serwotka speaking at the Left Unity meeting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDmeTAu2HwY
Unite has now rejected the local government pensions offer as well.
#28 Just to confirm the Unite Local Government Niational Industrial Sector Committee have rejected the Heads of Agreement as a whole, not just the Pickles letter. In doing this they join the Health NISC who voted unanimously to reject last week. The MOD/Government Departments NISC (covering Civil Service pensions) meets on Wednesday, and is also expected to reject.
Brilliant work from activists in the Union to make sure Unite can stand firmly in the camp of the rejectionists.
Excellent news.
This excellent news from Unite is a direct result of the tactics of PCS and in particular of PCS Left unity in reaching out to other activists in other unions. The work of PCS Left Unity members in lobbying United Left members and the official presence of representatives from United Left at the PCS Left Unity meeting on Saturday has been crucial in delivering this result.
Mark Serwotka was corrected when he said Saturdays meeting was pivotal for the pensions struggle and the meeting has quickly produced results.
What a turnaround it’s been from December 19th TUC Public Sector Liaison Committee meeting where the PCS was supposedly isolated! Now it seems it’s Unison and GMB who are isolated. Who knows, maybe by Tuesday evening it’ll be GMB on their own?
The next step is the lobby of the Unison Health & Local Government Service Group Executives tomorrow at Unison HQ on Euston Road at 12:30.
Indeed – well done to all those who have worked hard for this.
Neil, I think you underestimate the amount of work done by UL activists ine the weeks between December 19 and today. While the PCS Left Unity initiative was welcome, it was not the key factor in winning today’s vote. It was part of the process that won the unanimous rejection of the deal at last week’s Unite Health NISC.
The following Tweets are from Paul Couchman, Surrey County Unison branch secretary and member of South East Unison Regional Committee:
@PaulSurreySP Paul Couchman
All Unison SE national service group reps pledge to vote against ‘deal’ tomorrow. Well done comrades. @unisontweets @surreyctyunison
Should be interesting Unison SGE’s tomorrow!
attended very lack lustre Unison Northern region pensions meeting. Not delegate based but a fair cross section of activists.No leadership given Nov 30th was good but no confidence in taking dispute forward. Unison has other priorities eg outsourcing, unble to see the link and that current pensions offer will speed up outsourcing and privatisation. Hopefully the meetings tom orrow will reflect rank an file position.
#35 correct.
The attacks on public sector pay and conditions is just the prelude to far more extensive privitisation and outsourcing… and of course even deeper attacks on the private sector too.
Unite’s press release:
UNITE PRESS RELEASE
For immediate release
9 January 2012
Attention: news, public sector and political correspondents
Unite rejects local government pensions offer
The government’s latest proposals to cut local government pensions were rejected by Unite, Britain’s biggest union, today (Monday, 9 January).
The Unite local authority national industrial sector committee (LANISC), which met today, rejected the ‘principles document’ as a basis for a satisfactory outcome. Last week (5 January) Unite’s health sector national industrial sector committee (HSNISC) also rejected the government’s latest proposals on the NHS pension scheme.
Unite General Secretary, Len McCluskey said:
“Unite’s local authority representatives have lost trust after Eric Pickles let the government’s real agenda out of the bag.
“The security of our members in retirement is just too important to leave any space for doubt or mistrust, so the union’s senior representatives in local government have rejected the government’s proposals.
“Our senior representatives believe they have no choice but to reject the ‘principles document’ after Eric Pickles claimed the unions had made commitments which have not been fully discussed. There now needs to be genuine discussions without arbitary deadlines. Our members need clarity before we can move forward.”
In a letter on 20 December, communities secretary, Eric Pickles claimed commitments including linking the local government retirement age to the state pension age, a career average pension scheme and introducing an employer cost ceiling of 10.9 per cent, had been agreed when, in fact, discussions on these important issues were still due to take place. The letter has caused a crisis of confidence and trust. Unite’s local authority workers will now consider their next steps.
#31
Over the question of the LGPS, it is eccentric to argue that GMB and UNISON are “isolated” when these two unions represent the vasy bulk of those members effected.
Of course UNITE make their own decisions, but it is hard to see what industrial strategy they could adopt over the LGPS on ther own.
UNISON and GMB are currently going through their own consultation processes, in UNISON by a series of regaional delegate meetings, and in GMB by consulting the Oracle of Delphi. I am confident that both of those processes will refelct not only on the merits of the government’s current offer, buit also on the strengths and weaknesses on N30, and our strengths and weaknesses to continue an industrial struggle.
“Of course UNITE make their own decisions, but it is hard to see what industrial strategy they could adopt over the LGPS on ther own.”
But they are not on their own. And there are all sorts of very disruptive tactics that could be used. Have a bit of imagination.
How about showing a bit of solidarity to those unions who are taking action Andy? Or is that asking too much of you?
“UNISON and GMB are currently going through their own consultation processes, in UNISON by a series of regaional delegate meetings”
This simply isn’t true Andy – most of the regional delegate meetings are taking place next week after the key decsion has been made!!!
#40 Unison’s biggest region, London, point blank refuses to have any meeting AT ALL!
Andy Newman,
A rare thanks to Andy. Jon Rogers post here was circulated to members of Unite’s Local Authorities NISC and, I’m sure, helped ensure the overwhelming vote to reject.
And, as Rob has said, Unite health and local government workers are not alone. There are over a million of us who have rejected the the Government’s “deal”.
It is clear that the attempt by Prentis and Barber to bounce the unions into a very shoddy surrender is starting to unravel.
Those who joined the ‘blink first’ crew such as Andy and various other labour loyalists on here will now have some explaining to do.
Andy has written on several occasions that he feels the so called ‘ultra left’ ie the majority of the PCS executive and now seemingly the UNITE Health and Local Government Committees as well as presumably the NUT,UCU and NASUWT were all out of touch with the rank and file. quite where he got the idea that rank and file workers were just desperate to work longer pay more and get less is anyones guess.
Yes its true the GMB and UNISON have yet to make a decision and yes its true the UNISON bureaucracy is pulling out all the stops to try to push Prentis’s pathetic sell out down the throats of the membership,but when even a leadership loyal branch like Manchester rejects the deal this strategy is in serious trouble.
The leadership have resorted to the type of tactics John Gray will be proud of, refusing to let meetings take a vote when it looks like they will vote to reject, stopping the likes of Karen Reissman speaking at a Service Group meeting,threatening people with disciplinary action if they breach ‘collective responsibility’
Even if the UNISON service groups do vote to accept I can still see the other unions who represent at least a million workers pursuing the battle ,and lets be clear co ordinated strike action by a million workers is not something to be sniffed at !
If this is so it will without question lead to large numbers of people leaving UNISON and the GMB, it will also present a problem to those like Andy, what will he do if UNITE,NUT,NASUWT strike in his authority will he issue an instruction to cross the picket lines telling his members that the GMB think its right they should work longer pay more and get less ?
Lets hope the UNISON service groups don’t cave into the spineless Prentis sell out and stick two fingers up to this coalition of millionaires
Just received
The UNISON Local Government Service Group Executive has reputedly voted by 24 votes to 10 to endorse the proposed Agreement, the Higher Education Service Group Executive voting likewise by 8 votes to 5. This would appear to mean that UNISON is accepting the agreement which UNITE rejected yesterday.
Separately the Health Service Group Executive voted to ballot members on the offer to them, and will meet next week to agree their recommendation to members in that ballot.
There is no point pretending that that this is not a huge blow to UNISON members and the movement as a whole. Also while the term sell out can be used in a lazy way, make no mistake that this is a sell out. It is selling out our pensions and the workers movement as a whole and is wasting the momentum that was built up around N30 at a time when we are facing more and more vicious attacks from the government, and this will only give them more confidence to continue those attacks. Obviously we have to be positive and carry on the campaigns that we have built up, and this is a set back that can be overcome. But it is a terrible deal none the less.
In the service groups that have accepted members will have no vote to decide whether they agree.
[DELETED - I WILL NOT TOLERATE HATE SPEECH AGAINST A UNION OFFICIAL]
[DELETED - I WILL NOT TOLERATE HATE SPEECH AGAINST A UNION OFFICIAL]
#45 and 46;’hate speech’?! From Ted and Stockwell Pete…unless Terry Fitz has posted in their name, there is no way either would do such a thing. If their comments have been deleted for strong criticism of certain Union’s officials, ie Unison and GMB, wtf? Whatever else, it wont stop people being rightly critical of what Messrs Prentis and others
are up to around pensions.
As a UNISON member, Dave Prentis frustrates me and makes me very cross sometimes because I percieve him to be quick to sell out my interests.
Better?
Andy, you are losing the plot. I only said that I disliked (I used a different word that was not a swear word)Prentis more than Cliff Richard. Any sensible person reading that would have taken it for a throw-away jokey remark. It’s the fact that I said it about a trade union official that really upsets you, isn’t it?
But what about me? I have feelings too, you know.
“Hate speech” is a thoroughly ludicrous description of a bit of possibly over-robust criticism of an individual.
[DELETED - I WILL NOT TOLERATE HATE SPEECH AGAINST A UNION OFFICIAL]
#49
I think I agree with Stockwellpete’s comment at #45
hahaha tremendous stuff andy “hate speech” indeed – you should see if unison have any full-timer vacancies, you’re well equipped for the job.
A lot of UNISON members will be very angry about this. The unelected appointed UNISON beaurocrats were on a three line whip to stop a strike.
The line being that there is no support among the rank and file for further action….. my arse.
re hate speech
This is more serious than Andy just being offended on behalf of Dave Prentis. It is a thoroughly dishonest and pernicious way of debating. By characterising what are really quite mild opinions as ‘hate speech’ he is trying to create a narrative that suggests people opposed to the deal are hate filled, swivel eyed ultra lefts. People who don’t read the original comment are just informed that this is ‘hate speech that will not be tolerated’ which when you consider what is tolerated when it comes to other individuals/organisations implies it is rather more serious than someone simply saying that they ‘h*t* Prentice more than Cliff Richard’ for example.
I think he should reinstate the comments and apologise to Stockwell Pete and the others for his hateful insinuations.
I am so upset about all this that I have decided to release a new single.
#56
My relations with UNISON officials can be tetchy enough without my hosting people making infintile insults against Dave Prentis.
Please note that in the service of debate this website hosted the above substantive article by Jon Rogers, which I thoroughly disagree with myself; thus giving the opposition argument in UNISON more publicity than it might otherwise have had.
I welcome genuione debate, what I do not welcome is a climate of vilification against hard working and dedicated trade union officials just becuase you disagree with them.
Why can;t members have a vote on the deal in Unison?
My branch hasn’t even met to discuss it yet nor has my region!!!
Then say “infantile insults against Dave Prentis will not be tolerated”, if that’s what you mean.
Hate speech. Seriously Andy, get a grip.
Censorship is a well known bureaucratic manoeuvre so it’s isn’t surprising that it’s being used here in the context of rising anger at Prentis and the sell out. Let’s hope that Unison members translate that anger into action.
“I welcome genuione debate, what I do not welcome is a climate of vilification against hard working and dedicated trade union officials just becuase you disagree with them.” Pot and kettle comes to mind
11 January, 2012 Press Release
Government employees unanimously reject public sector pension plans
Ministry of Defence and government departments’ staff – members of the UK’s largest union, Unite – rejected the government’s public sector pension proposals unanimously today (Wednesday, 11 January).
This follows decisions by Unite’s health and local government national industrial sector committees to also reject the government’s pensions’ ‘reform’ plans.
Unite General Secretary, Len McCluskey said: ‘It is clear from the decisions of the three executive committees representing our public sector members that the current proposals are unfair.’
‘The message to ministers is that the wide-scale protests on 30 November highlighted the serious concerns that public sector employees have about being forced to pay more, work longer and receive less when they retire.’
‘Unite again calls on ministers to enter into real, genuine and meaningful negotiations to reach a fair and equitable solution.’
The MoD/government departments’ national industrial sector committee had concerns
about the increase in pension contributions; the linking of the retirement age to the ever-increasing age that people will receive their state pensions; and the unsatisfactory accrual rates being proposed.
Unite will continue to hold discussions with all other civil service unions on the pensions’ issue. Unite has in excess of 25,000 members in the MoD/government departments, including MoD fire fighters and the MoD guard service.
-ends-
Note to news editors:
For further information, please contact Unite communications officer, Shaun Noble on 07768 693940
Our SGE member has tried to claim he was mandated by region to accept. Our branch find this strange as we were never asked or canvassed and one of the SGE members is a member of our branch!! There was not a delegates meeting that we were aware of and our branch only met yesterday after the Xmas holidays – how can it be possible to mandate someone to vote when members haven’t been asked. Our position was clear – reject. People are really angry at the way our SGE members voted.
The mandate was the thousands in the region that went on strike on N30 surely?
We have argued it is unfair that ‘savings’ to Council Tax should come from members who are trying to save for their retirement in the LGPS. The LGPS is currently ‘cash rich’ – it takes in more from contributions than it pays out in pensions – and is likely to remain so for the next 20 years. In the longer term, increasing life expectancy will place new strains on the scheme, but we have argued that these could be dealt with in other, more ‘sustainable’ ways, than a short term ‘smash and grab’ raid on LGPS members which will not benefit the scheme and may lead to many members opting out, even the government says it does not want that!
Interesting that Mr Newman should censor criticism of Dave Prentis on the grounds of it being ‘hate speech’.
Firstly to designate it as such is to devalue and demean the very term itself ,but is eerily similar to what the UNISON bureaucracy itself have been doing in recent years,thus a leaflet put out by the SP critising a standing orders committee stich up becomes ‘racist’ on the absurd grounds that it makes a reference to the three monkeys. Now it says a lot about the mindset of the UNISON bureaucracy ( who let it be said in at least one very notorious high profile case have tolerated and used the ‘evidence’of a self confessed racist steward to expel a black activist)who associate black people with monkeys.
In my region the very right wing regional convenor who is by day a senior NHS manager in the ‘transformation ( cuts) dept labels any criticism of her as ‘bullying’,despite her ex partner and now departed deputy convenor being known for his aggressive and violent behaviour
This oh so sensitive bureaucracy led by Prentis a man who has never held a job outside of the machine and who it is commonly accepted is little more than a mouth piece for his wife Liz Snape have had no qualms in driving out of the union ,genuine hard working dedicated activists, this has even included colluding with employers to get them sacked.
Now having spent huge amounts of members money in destroying some of the best branches and witchunting key activists the same bureaucracy is happy to accept a deal that will see UNISON members working longer ,paying more and getting less.
Of course Mr Prentis on his pension of £40,000 will not suffer.
Mr Newman must have led a very sheltered life indeed if he thinks what has been said about Prentis constitutes ‘hate speech’
I understand that there are moves afoot to get a special conference called whereby UNISON members in local government can discuss the union’s position in relation to the pension’s dispute. Has anyone got any more details about this? Particularly, what are the prospects of being able to get eough support to ensure this conference takes place.
I also see Balls is saying that Labour would support a public sector pay freeze, which is actually a worse position than the Tories who are intent on capping our pay increases at 1% for the next two years.
Hi Pete
This is the wording that needs to be used in the motion
‘This Branch requisitions a Special Conference of the Local Government Service Group to consider the policy of the Service Group in relation to the Local Government Pension Scheme’
My branch here in Coventry passed it unanimously on Thursday. We need branches representing 25 per cent of members in the service group for it to be called.
#68 Thanks very much for that, Paul.
HOPE not hate
Celebrating modern Britain
Socialist Unity: Discussion, debate & analysis for activists and trade unionists, covering British & international politics, economics, anti-racism, anti-imperialism, music and culture