What we think

Local government pensions battle

Keep up the pressure on bosses and union leaders

ON 28 MARCH over one million local government workers went on strike
to defend their pensions. Now the unions involved have decided to
suspend further strikes on the promise of talks with the employers. This
is a tactical error that does not bode well for the outcome of the talks
themselves.

As Glenn Kelly, a Socialist Party member and member of Unison’s NEC
and Service Group Executive (SGE) for local government, said: "why do we
have to call off the action when we have the employers by the throat".

The employers themselves did not even threaten that they wouldn’t
enter into talks unless the action was called off. It seems that it came
entirely from the union side and in particular from Brendan Barber the
TUC general secretary who, according to the Financial Times, brokered
the peace formula.

This does not mean that that there will not be a deal. The most
probable outcome is that there will be a deal that gives protection to
the 1.2 million existing members of the Local Government Pension Scheme
(LGPS).

Actuaries

The actuaries (so-called pensions experts brought in by the
employers) had already indicated that the ‘savings’ from the abolition
of the "85 year rule" would be £8 billion. Whilst the cost of allowing
existing scheme members the right to retire at 60 without it cutting
their pensions by 30% (as the government is proposing in making its
changes to the scheme) would be some £5 billion.

However, such a deal cannot be guaranteed. As Glenn explained at the
SGE, there was no need to call off the regional strikes planned for 25
to 27 April. If the employer was ‘all ready to make this concession’, as
union leaders claimed, then they could have been made to do so now
rather than letting the talks drag on until June, which is when they are
expected to conclude. Glenn called for full consultation with the
membership before any deal is signed.

None of the main political parties want to be seen to be signing a
deal that the press would interpret as adding to the council tax (even
though this would be untrue given the level of savings that the
employers are going to get anyway). The main reason that the trade union
leaders called off the strikes to allow talks was to "spare the Labour
Party embarrassment in the run up to the local elections at the
beginning of May" (Financial Times 13 April).

Once again those unions that are closest to the Labour government and
the Labour Party are prepared to make concessions to the bosses rather
than represent the real interests of their members.

Mass action

It is mass action that has and is forcing concessions from the bosses
not any ‘influence’ with the Labour government. The effects of the mass
strike action on 28 March put the fear of God not only into the bosses
but also the union leaders.

They must have looked across the channel to the example of the French
workers and saw how the union leaders over there did not have full
control of events. Brendan Barber and his ilk will do all they can to
stop this happening here.

The tabloid press have talked about "a climb-down" by the government
in face of "strong arm union tactics". But this is just a continuation
of the right-wing press propaganda, constantly demanding that
public-sector workers suffer the same fate as private-sector workers who
have seen their occupational pension schemes disappear.

Rolls Royce, for example, are currently attempting to end the final
salary defined pension rights of 120,000 members of their pension funds.

The right-wing press is doing its level best to paint lurid pictures
of "feather bedded public sector workers" with "gold plated pensions".
But in fact the average pension of a female local government worker is
no more than £31 per week.

But this doesn’t stop the rabid right from fulminating that this "has
to be stopped now". Unfortunately for them, workers in the public sector
have demonstrated that they will fight to keep the gains made in a
previous period.

Unity in action has been the most positive aspect of the pensions
struggle. But if it was up to most of the union leaders then they would
long ago have capitulated to the demands of the bosses.

It has been the massive pressure from below that has stopped them up
to now. Only by maintaining that pressure, not just on the bosses but
also on the union leaders, can local government workers get at least the
same sort of deal as the rest of the public sector – protection for
existing members which is the main demand of local government workers
themselves.

The attacks on public-sector pensions have seen a step back for new
scheme members and a united struggle will be needed to change this in
the future.