NUT / PCS: Are Workers Unwilling To Fight?

The last couple of days have seen NUT members vote by only a small majority on a low turnout for strike action; and PCS call off a strike called for Monday based on a ballot which also had a smallish majority on a low turnout. NUT's Executive has decided not to call strike action; PCS has got the employer's agreement to extend its mandate pending talks.

It was hardly a surprise to see the PCS strike called off, as its advance press release had led on a call to the government to avoid the strike rather than an announcement that the strike was to take place.

I'm not going to comment on the rights or wrongs of the specific decisions not to call and to call off, respectively, strike action - rank-and-file activists in those unions are better placed than me to judge the rights and wrongs. But obviously the weak mandate is a key factor, and I think it is worth kicking off a discussion on why the members' votes were so un-resounding. I would suggest two factors.

Firstly, the economic crisis. Many workers may respond to the economic doom and gloom with a reluctance to rock the boat in case the boat capsizes and tips them out. They may feel too nervous about keeping their job to be willing to put themselves on the line for higher wages - perhaps especially in the civil service where so many jobs have already gone. Or they may go along with the idea that in times like this, the whole country should pull together and tighten our belts.

This is an understandable but unfortunate attitude. Alternatively, workers might respond to the economic crisis in a more belligerent way, saying "If I have got higher fuel bills then I need higher wages", or "If the government - my employer - can afford £500 billion to bail out the bankers, then it can afford less than that to give me and my workmates a decent pay rise". Indeed, workers may well feel both the fear and and the sense of injustice at the same time. Which one is decisive in choosing whether to vote for a fightback or not may well depend in their confidence in their union's chances of winning.

Which leads neatly on to my second point. Striking involves sacrifice, and beyond a certain limit, workers will be willing to make that sacrifice not just to make a gesture but if they think they have a chance of winning. This is perhaps especially the case, and more of a cold mathematical calculation, when it comes to pay fights. In my experience, when a union asks its members to fight over pay, the members ponder on how much they will lose by striking versus how much extra they are likely to win.

It has been great to see both NUT and PCS take national strike action over pay when for so many years neither did. But those have been one-day strikes months apart, easily ridden out by the employer, and I can't see how anyone would think that Gordon Brown would crumble in the face of that.

It is a particular shame to see the confidence, mobilisation and power of April 24's action apparently dissipating, its momentum allowed to drain rather than being built on.

Finally, I am not excepting my own union from criticism. RMT has messed up its share of pay fights, and lost a ballot in Network Rail operational grades earlier this year. Here is an interesting analysis as to why that particular ballot was lost.

Cuba Scraps Equal Pay

One story this month that seems have slipped quietly under many lefties' radar is that Cuba has scrapped its 'equal pay' system and brought in performance-related pay.

Deputy labour minister Carlos Mateu Pereira said that the new policy would enable Cuba to conform to “the socialist principle of distribution, wherein each person receives according to his or her contribution, that is: pay for quantity and quality.” Oddly, I thought that the relevant 'socialist principle' here was 'from each according to ability, to each according to need'. Perhaps I should not have opposed my employer bringing in a performance-related bonus in our most recent pay deal after all.

The 'equal pay' rule probably meant, in practice, equally low pay, and I doubt there was ever genuine income equality between a factory worker and a member of the Castro family.

But this latest development must surely underline that the left and the labour movement should take a more critical attitude to the Cuban regime, and should direct its solidarity to Cuban workers rather than to their rulers.

We oppose policies such as performance-related pay in Britain, so why support or remain silent about it in Cuba?

A Fine Day Out

I thought I'd share some of the fun, confidence and determination of yesterday in pictures rather than words, starting on a PCS picket line in Hackney and moving on to the mainly-NUT march.

Dear Sir / Miss

Tomorrow, I will be handing in this letter to my kids' school ...

To NUT members at Brook Community Primary School

I am writing on behalf of myself and my partner to express our full support for your strike action on Thursday 24th April.

Over the last six years, many of you have taught one or more of our sons Alex, Joe and Harrison. We want you to know that we really appreciate the work of our kids’ teachers, and we understand that you do that work in very difficult conditions. You are not paid nearly as much as you deserve, with the result that not enough people want to become teachers and of those who do, too many become demoralised and leave. As a consequence, there is a fast turnover of teaching staff and instability for kids.

The government should be offering teachers a hefty pay rise, not a miserly offer that amounts to a pay cut in real terms. Perhaps MPs should vote to pay you as much as they pay themselves!

Thursday’s strike may be an inconvenience for parents (though the kids seem well pleased!) – but it is a minor inconvenience compared to the ongoing damage to our kids’ education caused by under-paying teachers.

Yours in support and solidarity
Janine Booth
(on behalf of myself and John Leach)

April 24: Support the NUT strike

For the first time in donkey's, teachers wil hold a national strike on April 24. And quite right too. A pay 'rise' that amounts to a pay cut is just not good enough.

We should all offer as much solidarity as we can. In fully intend to write to all of my kids' teachers personally expressing support. How about you go down to you local school and deliver a message to the NUT rep? Or write to your local paper? Or get a message of support sent from your union branch? Or go along and swell the numbers at the strike rallies? Details below ...

• Central London: March from Lincoln’s Inn Fields 11am, rally at Central Hall 1pm
  
• Newcastle: Grays Monument, Midday
  
• Manchester: Friends’ Meeting House, 11am
  
• Liverpool: Liner Hotel, 11am
  
• Preston: Preston North End Football Club, 2pm
  
• Bolton: Friends’ Meeting House, 10am
  
• Nottingham: Assemble 10am at the Forest, march to Congregation Hall, rally at 11.30am
  
• Barnsley: March from Barnsley College, rally at Town Centre Cinema, 9.30am
  
• Calderdale: The Traders Club, 10am
  
• Derby: Market Place, 11am
  
• Leeds: Victoria Gardens, 11am
  
• Sheffield: City Centre, Midday
  
• Bradford: Bradford City Football Club, 10.30am
  
• Lincoln: Turks Head, 11am
  
• Leicester: Athena Conference Centre, 10.30am
  
• Birmingham: City Centre, 12.30pm
  
• Northampton: Guildhall, 12.30pm
  
• Cambridge: Guildhall, Midday
  
• Oxford: Picket outside Oxpens FE College 7.30am, March to Town Midday, Rally 2pm
  
• Windsor and Maidenhead: Thames Hotel, 9am
  
• Medway: Command House, 12.30pm
  
• Reading: International Solidarity Centre, 10.30am
  
• Bristol: March from Castle Green 11.30am, rally at Marriott Royal Hotel 1pm
  
• Exeter: Exeter City Football Club, 11.30am
  
• Taunton: Rugby Club, 10.30am
  
• Dorchester: Town Hall, 10.30am

FT Debunks Brown's Pay Cut Argument

Interesting article from the good old FT yesterday. Sure, it might be (might be?!) a bosses' journal, but it gives some useful insights at times, and this is a good example. It debunks New Labour's main argument for the public sector pay cuts, which of course then begs the question: what is their real reason? Teaching the workers their place, you think?

[Hat tip: Patrick]

The puzzle of PM's wage stand
Financial Times Thursday April 3rd

By Chris Giles

Published: April 3 2008 03:39 | Last updated: April 3 2008 03:39

The reaction of economists to Gordon Brown's continued insistence that public pay restraint is vital to keep inflation low tends to be a collective scratching of heads. The link between public sector pay rises and inflation is generally thought to be weak.

No self-respecting economist would argue that public sector pay does not matter, but they believe that the effect is generally felt in the cost and quality of public services, not in inflation.

The main reason public sector pay is only weakly linked to inflation relates to the financing of public services, which tend to be free at the point of use. Schools, hospitals, the police force, the army and even refuse collection are financed from taxation, not from direct charges to users. So there is no direct mechanism for higher nurses' pay, for example, to be passed on to higher charges for healthcare services.

In fact, the inflation index is comprised of goods and services that are almost entirely provided by the private sector.

Stephen Nickell, head of Nuffield College, Oxford, told the Financial Times in January that public sector pay rises "have nothing to do with inflation".

Mr Brown's emphasis on public sector pay can therefore relate only to indirect effects of public-sector pay, either on private-sector wages or on demand in the economy. But economists are sceptical, since employment in the private sector dwarfs that in the public sector by roughly four to one.

Martin Weale, director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research said recently: "What I really can't believe is that, when private sector pay rises are 4 per cent, a rise of 2.5 per cent for the public sector is inflationary."

Even Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, played down the link in his inflation report press conference in February when he was generally stressing the need to combat inflation.

Public sector pay settlements "affect the tone of the labour market as a whole and will have an effect on the likely path of private-sector settlements in due course", he said.

"But that's a matter for government. We have never set out to say either for an individual company or a sector what the pay settlements should be or what pay growth should be."

Don't Spend It All At Once

The government is to increase the minimum wage - by a pathetic 21p. Unless you are aged 18-21, in which case your minimum hourly wage will rise by an even more pathetic 17p. And if you are 16 or 17, you can salivate at the prospect of a minuscule 13p. A quick surf of online shopping reveals that teenagers could rush out and buy an economy peg to pin down ground cover in their gardens. Shame that one peg alone is useless.

The minimum wage is on the few things that New Labour can genuinely boast that it has done for the benefit of workers. Then it spoils it by setting it at such a miserly level that fewer benefit than could, and those who do benefit little.

Over the last year, I have taken part in several discussions - some more productive than others - about how to close the still-enduring gender pay gap. One obvious answer is: pay low-paid women more. And one easy way to do that is to increase the minimum wage - by a serious hike, not a paltry 21p.

PRP For The Old Bill? No Thanks!

The Daftest Idea I've Heard In A Long time award goes to the 'think-tank' that has recommended performance-related pay for the police.

PRP is a crap idea anyway - its criteria are necessarily arbitrary and/or unfair; workers who don't put in unpaid extra hours or kiss management arse don't get the dosh; it encourages division, bitching and back-stabbing amongst workers who would get a better deal if they stuck together; and in any case, we don't have performance-related bills or mortgages, do we?

But for the police - double bad. What will it be? A PRP bonus for the number of arrests or crimes solved? So the cops come upon a 'disturbance' - say a heated argument in public or a picket line - and with their eyes on the next pay packet, it is in their interests to nick everyone in sight. And if they haven't got enough collars for this month's target, then how about a trip to the local cruising ground to create some victimless crimes to bump up the figures? I could go on and on, but really the dangers of this should be obvious to everyone, let alone people awarding themselves the title 'think'-tank'.

And which 'tank' has come out with such nonsense? Why, it's the Institute for Public Policy Research, labelled by the press reports as a 'left-wing' body. Left-wing, my arse.

Teachers: Poxy Pay Proposal

Bad news for teachers today, as the government tells them they are to get a poxy 2.45% rise this year with rises of 2.3% in the next two years. With RPI-inflation running at 4.3%, this announcement may exceed Brown’s limit but is still a real-terms pay cut. Moreover, it is a multi-year offer, which would demand that the unions put away their weapons for three years while the employers attack their members’ livelihoods.

Almost unbelievably, this miserly offer has provoked objections that it is too generous, and breaks Gordon Brown’s 2% pay cap. Perhaps New Labour thinks that it can sell teachers and trade unionists a con – that they have ‘backed down’ over the pay cap, and that workers should therefore be grateful and not fight for more. Fortunately, most workers are not daft enough to swallow this, though we can not be so sure about union bureaucrats.

Mind you, even the notoriously right-wing Professional Association of Teachers has issued a statement expressing its disappointment.
No sign of action from the PAT, oh no, but more belligerent noises from the NUT, at least some of whose officials are saying that the union is ready to ballot members for strikes.

But while politicians continue to decry what they claim are poor standards among teachers, I have to moan about terrible standards of literacy among government representatives and the media. Since this story broke, they have persisted in referring to the government’s announcement as a ‘settlement’ and/or a ‘deal’. Listen very carefully, you at the back, this is an offer: it will only become a settlement when it is actually, erm, settled – which will hopefully not be until it has been massively increased and delivered as a one-year rise without strings.

Snouts, Troughs

Gordon Brown has come over all ever-so-'umble, opposing an above-inflation pay rise for MPs. Ah, isn't it great to see him observing the same pay restraint he urges on other public sector workers? So principled he is, protecting us from another scandalous expose of polliticians' hypocrisy.

Bollocks to that. It's not like he's advocating a below-inflation rise, or a pay cut, like he expects lower-paid public servants to endure, is it? And it's not like MPs are exactly going to struggle on their mere £60,675 (plus £90,505 staffing allowance, incidental expenses pay of up to £21,399, and additional cost allowances of up to £23,083), is it? If you see someone begging by the cashpoint over the next few Christmas days, dig deep in your pocket, it could be your local Member of Parliament. Not.

Mind you, the PM pockets three times the pittance of a mere backbencher, trousering £187,000.

According to one report, there is "a cross-party consensus of the Commons that an annual salary of £100,000 would be a fairer reflection of MPs' worth". Yeah, and there is a cross-everybody consensus in my workplace that we all deserve a whacking pay rise - but unlike MPs, we don't get to vote for our own remuneration.

The likelihood is that MPs will vote themselves a 10% pay rise over three years, and Brown, having done precious little to stop them, will hold his hands up and protest that he did not personally support it. But even if they vote against the big rise, they can hardly pretend to be in the same boat as the teaching assistants, nurses, benefits clerks and others whose pay they are insisting on cutting.

And to think, it was the labour movement that originally fought for MPs to receive a salary at all, since the unpaid nature of the position meant that only those rich enough through other means could afford to be elected to Parliament. I hear the hum of grave-turning.

Has Anyone Seen The 'Co-ordinated Industrial Action'?

Earlier this year, Gordon Brown threw down the gauntlet to public sector trade unions by announcing that pay rises would be restricted to 2%. Yes, workers who provide public services would have to swallow a real-terms pay cut. The only thing that could stand in the way of this insult would be an effective trade union fightback. Gauntlet thrown down.

Not only would each union need to fight back, but to maximise their chances of success, their strengths should be combined into a united, coherent resistance. Acknowledging that, there was much talk at TUC Congress of co-ordinated action. More than mere talk, indeed. There were loud demands, hearty applause, and a unanimous resolution (click here and scroll down to Composite 13).

So where are we with this 'co-ordinated industrial action'? The Prison Officers' Association's campaign has gone quiet since its inspiring action in the summer. The CWU is asking posties to abandon their solid strikes and cut the throats of their own working conditions by voting for a deal that gives Royal Mail virtually everything they want. Unison got a narrow Yes vote for industrial action, but decided not to call action because of a low turnout that was easily explained by the postal strike. NUT's Executive decided on a torturously long process creeping towards possible strikes, voting down a proposal for a quicker timescale. The other teaching unions shudder at the very thought of strikes. And now PCS's Executive has decided on no more strikes this year, despite winning a two-thirds membership vote for action, for the sake of talks with the Cabinet Office that will almost certainly prove futile (good job 'the Marxists' are in charge at that union HQ then!).

In summary ... Some unions are doing nothing. Some are moving so slowly a tortoise could overtake them. And others have thrown in the towel already. This 'action' could not be less 'co-ordinated' if the policy was explicitly for 'unco-ordinated action'. Of course there's one very easy route to united action - everyone do nothing. Gordon will be laughing all the way to the bank.

As ever, the only hope lies with the rank-and-file. Which is why it is good to see this website - and this one, too.