BT is pursuing its pre-existing plan to get its workforce to accept a cut in pensions provision. The Communication Workers Union (CWU) executive committee (NEC) is now recommending that members vote to support BT’s plans. This was after a debate which saw seven CWU broad left NEC members, two of whom are in the Socialist Party, hold the line to defend members and vote against the deal.
A Bristol telecoms worker
This means that the cherished BT final salary pension is to be ended and replaced with a career average scheme that will be based on the Retail Price Index or pay deals, whichever is the lower.
The normal retirement age will be extended from 60 to 65 and other changes mean that workers may have to work longer. For many their contributions will increase.
This is a formula for future pensioner poverty. For many, to retire in the future at 60 will mean a possible 25% reduction in their pension accrued after 1 April next year.
The state will pick up part of the bill for BT’s private pensions holiday that it embarked upon a few years ago – BT will use the public state second pension to top up the BT scheme.
At the CWU’s South West engineering branch meeting set up to debate the deal, a member of the CWU negotiating team, along with an executive member, explained how BT originally wanted to get rid of the final salary scheme. The CWU had prevented this by threatening strike action.
Both speakers referred to previous conference debates where the tactic of ‘do nothing’ or meet BT and negotiate was raised. The policy of negotiation had carried the day, and this explains where the CWU is now.
To a stunned audience at the meeting, the deal was presented as the best achievable after protracted negotiations, and that a ‘no’ vote would mean BT taking everything off the table.
Members could go on strike but victimisation could take place, following the recent announcement that 10,000 jobs are to be axed. Members were further reminded, in response to a member’s question, that even though banks are being nationalised, there was to be no bail out or renationalisation of BT.
I spoke opposing the deal. I explained that to defend the existing pension scheme you need a strong union with a determined campaign. The CWU should have opposed the closure of the BT scheme to new members back in 2001 and gone on the offensive to expose BT boardroom pay excess. And I also pointed out that even if the deal was accepted, BT will be back for more.
The CWU executive speakers asked members: if they vote ‘no’ what is the alternative?
You could have heard a pin drop when over 60 workers realised the scale and scope of the CWU concession to the bosses.
The next day in the workplace the mood was livid. There was anger at the union for recommending the deal, anger at the government for allowing protection of bank savings but not our pensions.
Anger that legally, BT can come back for more.
BT is now continuing its offensive and counter revolution on the shop floor. It has correctly weighed up that in telecoms, the left has split, with some now openly colluding with the old right wing.
On the right, there are now a whole raft of compliant officers at all levels to shackle and disorientate the membership.
Not a jot of opposition has been declared in retaliation to the announcement that 10,000 jobs are to go. But members are keen for someone to explain a credible way forward, how to go on the offensive!
With the CWU recommending the deal, the way is now open for further attacks by the introduction of market-tested pay, rather than that based on RPI. This will impact on future pensions.
Socialist Party members and other activists inside the CWU broad left are urging workers to vote ‘no’ to pension cuts in the forthcoming CWU consultative ballot.
This must be linked to rebuilding the CWU as a fighting union in the telecommunications industry.
