Charlie Kimber | ukwatch.net

Pay - the Fightback

Ellie Keen — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 23:04:30 +0000

How much do you spend on your horse?

The fallout from the tremendous strikes and rallies on 24 April is continuing. Those who struck then are debating doing it again. Some of those who did not strike are discussing getting involved. And many others look on, wishing their own union leaders could be won to such action.

Gordon Brown’s oft repeated determination to hold pay rises for 6 million public sector workers at half the rate of inflation must have lost Labour piles of votes on 1 May. But Brown shows no signs of backing off. This confrontation is a central economic and political issue. It poses the fundamental question of 2008: will workers agree to let their living standards be cut in order to bail out the bosses, the bankers and capitalism?

Over 400,000 strikers on 24 April gave a resounding message that they won’t see their pay cut without a fight. The strikes reflected feeling over lack of staff, the penetration of private interests into the public sector and the oppressive power of management. But the main unifying issue was pay.

Now the chance exists to recreate that day on a higher level. Around 800,000 local government workers in Unison rejected their 2.45 percent offer and are now voting in a strike ballot. The initial indications are that the first strikes could be in early July. Teachers are discussing a further strike ballot in the autumn.

The 100,000 civil service workers who struck on 24 April could also strike again. July will see the 80,000 workers in the Department for Work and Pensions face the second year of an imposed deal which means 0 percent for 40 percent of the workforce.

At its conference the whole PCS civil service union backed a motion calling for a national strike ballot of 280,000 members over pay and other issues. Further education lecturers have agreed further strikes – in London on 9 June to coincide with the TUC lobby of parliament, and two days nationally in September. And at the CWU conference postal workers are to debate calling a national strike ballot over pensions. And there’s also a fight in the private sector – over pensions at Grangemouth and with Unite promising a real challenge over pay on the London buses.

But for the revolt to come to fruition it will require a political battle at every level. Unfortunately the left lost its move for another ballot for a strike this summer at the NUT executive. After the May elections one section of the trade union leaders will demand that there are no strikes in case the government is weakened and the Tories benefit.

In some unions, especially those affiliated to Labour, there is heavy pressure from the top to damp down any fight. But even here the feeling from below has forced strike ballots.

Those who continue to argue for surrender ignore the fact that workers should only be loyal to a government that is loyal to them, not one that cuts their wages and privatises services. If the left does not give a focus to the anger against Labour then it is precisely the right that gains. This is the lesson from the 1970s.

A union movement that is hobbled and demobilised will be one that is demoralised enough to let the Tories in. Over the next few weeks there needs to be intense rank and file pressure to compel union leaders to call ballots, to win those ballots and, as far as possible, to secure coordinated action between unions.

And inside the unions’ national and section executives the left needs to insist that the members’ interests come first, not the interests of Labour ministers or the career prospects of Gordon Brown.

Fixing the figures

Galloping inflation is the major factor driving the pressure for a fightback over pay. Britain’s rate of inflation rose to 3 percent in April, well above the pay increases offered to millions of workers in both the public and the private sectors. And the real rate of inflation for ordinary people is rising at least twice as fast as the official figures show.

The more accurate Retail Price Index (RPI) rate of inflation rose to 4.2 percent in April, up from 3.8 percent in March. But official figures released on 13 May showed food up 7.2 percent, household energy up 8.3 percent and transport fuel up 18.7 percent.

More detailed analysis shows spaghetti up 59 percent and baguettes up 23 percent. A basket of typical food essentials was up 19.1 percent on a year earlier.

Worse is to come. Wholesale price inflation, which is an indicator of future price rises, was up 6.2 percent in April. Gas and electricity prices are set to go up a further 15 percent this year, another harsh blow for those who are already struggling with the average bill of more than £1,000. No wonder that on 14 May Bank of England governor Mervyn King said, “There will be a squeeze on living standards over the next couple of years.”

One traditional response when the figures look bad is to leave reality untouched, but to try to fix the figures. This is certainly happening. In the spring the Office for National Statistics added fees for stabling horses to the goods whose prices it measures to work out inflation.

Maybe there are millions of workers out there for whom this is a crucial component of their monthly budget. But I reckon it won’t be much consolation as your food bill goes through the roof to know that some chief executive’s dappled grey is still getting its board and lodging at a bargain price.

And while inflation rises, unemployment is also going up. One study in mid-May estimated that 1,200 people will lose their jobs every day over the next 18 months. Unemployment has been rising for the last three months and reached 1.6 million in March.

Meanwhile around 2.5 million credit card customers have had restrictions put on their accounts as part of the fallout from the “credit crunch”. While most banks continue to make record profits, they have cut customers’ spending limits, brought in annual fees and even closed accounts.

Those targeted are not those who use their cards indiscriminately. They are those who don’t bring enough profit. Many use their cards rarely and pay off the balance in full every month.

A uSwitch survey found that 51 percent of the targeted customers were using their cards regularly and making at least minimum repayments. A further 20 percent were using their card regularly and paying their bill in full. Just 16 percent had exceeded their credit limit in the last year or missed more than one monthly repayment.

Pay, the fightback...

Ellie Keen — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0000

... and how much do you spend on your horse?

In some unions, especially those affiliated to Labour, there is heavy pressure from the top to damp down any fight. But even here the feeling from below has forced strike ballots.

Fixing the figures

More detailed analysis shows spaghetti up 59 percent and baguettes up 23 percent. A basket of typical food essentials was up 19.1 percent on a year earlier.

Those targeted are not those who use their cards indiscriminately. They are those who don’t bring enough profit. Many use their cards rarely and pay off the balance in full every month.

The Politics of the Post Strike

Ellie Keen — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 22:17:43 +0000

For the past four months the strikes in Royal Mail have been the central question of working class struggle. It was always going to be a major battle, an important one for every trade unionist.

In early June some 130,000 workers in the CWU union brushed aside the propaganda from their bosses and voted overwhelmingly for action against pay cuts and 21 changes to working conditions – 77 percent voted yes on a 67 percent turnout. The vote was so overwhelming that the majority of workers at every Royal Mail branch in the country voted to strike. A series of one-day and sectional strikes eventually forced the bosses and the government to offer talks, a huge reversal from an employer who had said that “the deal is the deal” and no changes could be made.

Weeks of talks produced no result – and then the employers, backed by Gordon Brown, confronted workers with an even more vicious package. It was designed to break the union in order to impose a total transformation of working conditions. A further series of official and unofficial strikes brought Royal Mail to a crisis, and threatened to destabilise Brown’s strategy towards the public sector.

A new deal emerged, which the union’s postal executive (after a bruising struggle) has recommended subject to the achievement of certain guarantees from Royal Mail. If those assurances are given, workers will vote on whether to accept the offer. There is serious resistance because it gives away crucial concessions on pensions, “flexibility” and jobs as well as pay.

Throughout the dispute CWU members have shown great courage, sacrifice and solidarity. Far from crumbling, the strikes became more solid as they went along. Scabbing was never significant, and the union leaders’ greatest problem was holding back unofficial strikes rather than persuading members to go into battle. During the strikes over 5,000 workers joined the CWU, emphasising that struggle builds the unions. New reps emerged in offices, fresh layers of leadership that could revive the union – if they are not repelled by the result of the strike. Other trade unionists have raised money, come to the picket lines and helped organise joint union meetings.

It is unclear what will happen in the next few weeks, but there are two areas where lessons can be drawn. The first is the question of unity between the postal workers and other groups of workers. Royal Mail workers are a very powerful group. As their strikes showed, they can cause huge backlogs of mail and massive problems for big business. According to Royal Mail, ten customers account for 20 percent of the total market, 100 for 40 percent.

The people who shout loudest during a post strike are the banks and utilities whose cashflow gets hit. In addition the strike underlined that competitors such as TNT, DHL and Business Post have a somewhat crucial defect – they all rely on Royal Mail to deliver the letters they collect and sort. The competitors are also customers of Royal Mail, and rely on its infrastructure and workforce. The private mail firms were hit hard by the strikes because they could not carry out their usual business of doing the relatively easy bit (collecting and sorting mail) and then dumping it on Royal Mail to do the deliveries.

Postal workers have real leverage, and had Brown called an election in early November he would have faced real problems if the strikes had gone ahead. But even postal workers need allies when they are opposing such a central plank of government policy.

Need for reinforcements

The post was the frontline of a wider assault by the government. Brown is trying to hold pay “rises” for six million workers below the rate of inflation – a real pay cut. He wants this not just for this year, but for at least three years. At the same time he wants mass job cuts, and each worker working harder and faster (“modernisation”). This is a strategic project where money is channelled away from areas of public service deemed inefficient in order to create resources to make big businesses more internationally competitive, hold down taxes for the rich and companies, and keep funding war and internal repression.

In 1996 eight days of 24-hour national postal strikes over an extended period eventually forced Royal Mail to back off from a far-reaching transformation of ways of working. But the stakes this time were much higher, and the need for reinforcements correspondingly greater. The success or failure of the post strikes was always going to have important implications for millions of other workers. So every union should have offered solidarity, and any union with disputes at the same time should have attempted to coordinate their action with the CWU.

The charge sheet is damning. The postal workers’ first strike was on 29 June. The last strike during this latest phase of the battle with Royal Mail ended on 18 October. For 110 days the postal dispute was taking place. Of course it was punctuated by long periods without strikes. But, even if we restrict the analysis to the official strikes, there were six days of national strike action involving 130,000 workers, and a further ten days when one or other section of Royal Mail was out. So there were 16 days for another union to get on board and strike alongside the CWU. And yet it did not happen.

Who is to blame? In the early days most CWU leaders were either indifferent or hostile to the idea of striking alongside other unions. Labour loyalists such as CWU general secretary Billy Hayes were fearful that they would be portrayed as launching a “political strike”, and as Gordon Brown has only just come to office a direct confrontation with the government was to be avoided. Others argued that a joint strike would draw attention away from the CWU’s issues. Still others were vaguely in favour, but refused to give more than seven days notice of strikes in case it helped Royal Mail bosses to organise scabbing – and with only seven days notice other unions would find it impossible to come on board.

But gradually the argument inside the union shifted. Delegations from other unions to CWU picket lines helped to make coordinated action seem a possibility rather than just an abstract idea. When CWU members spoke at or attended rallies with other unions they began to feel they were indeed the vanguard of a broader battle, and that others would support them. Petitions began to circulate in July calling for CWU leaders to start urgent negotiations to strike alongside others.

Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of the PCS civil service workers’ union, played a very important role. His speeches calling for coordinated action between the PCS and other unions electrified audiences of postal workers. Here at last a union leader was fighting to get the unity that could beat Brown. The PCS executive confirmed that Serwotka could hold meetings with the CWU to offer full support for its strikes, and coordinated action after the first round of strikes.

By mid-July the pressure from below had caused a shift, and a majority of the CWU’s postal executive were in favour of seeking serious talks with the PCS over a date for action. Serwotka was invited to address the CWU leaders. But at just that point the PCS drew back. The union had started its own consultation on the next steps in its own campaign. The majority on the PCS executive felt nothing could be done until the consultation was over and that decision effectively ended the possibility of a joint strike. Other unions, such as Unison, could have struck with the CWU. But its leaders ran away from a strike in the NHS.

The battle to unite the fightbacks continues (in Unison and the PCS, for example). We need stronger rank and file networks to force union leaders to fight, or to win unofficial solidarity if they won’t. But that can’t be divorced from the question of politics. The central reason why there was no coordinated action is that union leaders were terrified of confronting a Labour government, especially once a November election seemed possible. Building greater workplace strength and building a political alternative to Labour remain inseparable.

And this leads to the second, and probably the most enduring, problem revealed by the dispute – the union’s relationship with Labour. When the strikes began most postal workers saw the struggle as one against the hated Royal Mail bosses Allan Leighton and Adam Crozier. But as it went on, the role of the government became ever clearer. In mid-July Labour MP Emily Thornberry asked Brown if he would “join me in urging Royal Mail to enter into meaningful discussions with the CWU and thus ensure that the jobs, and the good pay and conditions of Royal Mail employees are protected”.

This was a very moderate request. Thornberry was only asking Brown to support genuine negotiations during an important industrial dispute.

But he pointedly refused to do so. Indeed he did not even refer to the question of talks in his reply. Instead he demanded that “all workers should look at pay settlements as a means by which we can conquer inflation over the next few months”. He was instructing the victims of inflation to accept pay cuts in order to hold down inflation!

Outflanked by events

As the strikes continued Brown condemned them as “completely unjustified” and business secretary John Hutton called for the union to accept what the bosses wanted on the grounds that “there is no way Royal Mail is going to be successful unless it reforms and changes and becomes as efficient as some of its competitors” – support for pay cuts and worse conditions.

Inside the union leadership Billy Hayes tried his best to deflect attention away from Brown. But he was steadily outflanked by events. Even before the first strike he faced revolt over his support for Alan Johnson as Labour deputy leader.

In a very prescient contribution to this debate at the CWU conference in June, London delegate Paul O’Donnell said, “In a short time we will be starting a dispute which could determine the future of the Post Office and this union. We need to fight on the industrial and political fronts. Backing Johnson sends out a wrong message. It’s like having a fry up for the bailiffs before they repossess your cooker.”

And during the dispute feeling grew against paying the bailiff’s wages at the same time as he was repossessing you – paying money to Labour while the government was assaulting the union and its members. The idea that the strike “is all about Brown” became common currency on picket lines.

During the second strike, on 13 July, hundreds of postal workers besieged Royal Mail headquarters on Old Street, London. It was a heated occasion with managers quaking in their offices as angry workers hammered on the doors. Outside the biggest cheers were for a speech from the union’s deputy general secretary Dave Ward, who said there was “a heavy responsibility on the people who really run the post office – the government. It’s just not acceptable that we have a bloody Labour government which is doing nothing while Leighton and Crozier get away with wrecking our industry.”

The pressure grew to such an extent that Billy Hayes was forced to attack the government. “If this was Northern Rock they would be pouring money in. There is no indication of their concern in the slightest,” he told a recent rally.

There is now a raging debate about how the union should spend its money. Thousands of CWU members are withdrawing their permission to give part of their subscriptions to Labour, or withdrawing from the political fund entirely.

Following on from the expulsion of the RMT from Labour, and the withdrawal of the FBU, the debates inside the CWU are extremely important. Seven years ago the CWU conference voted to withdraw “all financial and moral support to the Labour Party” if the government privatises any part of the postal industry.

Two years later the conference voted that “donations to the Labour Party should be reduced”, and that “the CWU shall affiliate to the Labour Party on the basis of the minimum amount”. The union members agreed the money saved should be used for “political campaigning around issues of concern to the CWU”.

Every year since there have been discussions about whether or not to break from only supporting Labour. Now the issue cannot be avoided. If the union is to keep members fully on board with paying the political levy, it has to reflect the feeling of deep anger over what the government has done. It has to democratise the fund and allow branches to support left Labour MPs and councillors, and left wingers in other parties, instead of just handing the money over to Labour.

A great industrial battle (which may be far from finished) has emphasised how politics and economics are intertwined, and how workers can be won both to serious struggle and to breaking from Labour.

Pension Strike

Alex Doherty — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:07:44 +0000

The great success of this weeks pension strike rattled Tony Blair and his iron chancellor Gordon Brown. Thats why, hours into the action, they were forced to offer talks to the unions.

We need to ensure that any deal agreed sees no worsening of conditions for present or future workers. And if the talks do not succeed, we need more action and quickly.

That will mean every activist throwing themselves into building the regional days of action, supporting the strikes and protests planned for those days.

We need to help raise money for those sections set to be called out on longer strikes.

But the key to victory is more national action, mobilising the power seen across Britain on Tuesday.

We need a two-day national strike soon, and further escalation if necessary, ratcheting up the pressure on this weak and unpopular government.

Blairs instincts in this dispute will be to side with the rich and powerful against those fighting back.

On the one hand he will seek a consensus with big business and the right as he did when David Camerons Tories helped to pass his education bill.

On the other Blair will try to crush opposition from the trade unions and the left. This will echo the attacks on firefighters during the bitter 2002-3 dispute. Back then Blair and the Sun newspaper worked hand in hand to slander public sector workers.

This time, prime minister in waiting Brown is leading the charge. Senior sources close to the chancellor told the Sun, Our commitment is to deliver savings on public sector pensions and public sector pay, and we will not back down in the face of this action.

But behind their bluster, ministers were terrified by the scale and strength of this weeks strike. That is why they were forced to offer talks with the unions.

The stakes are high. New Labour, and business leaders such as the CBIs Digby Jones, fear that this action can tap a wider mood among other public sector workers and across the private sector.

Argument

The British establishment united on Tuesday to argue that every public sector worker should face the same pensions assault as local government workers.

A defeat for the strikers would open the door for Labour to launch new attacks on the pensions of NHS staff, civil service workers and teachers.

So solidarity is vital. That is why the TUC should call a national demonstration during the next national strike action, and make it a focus for all workers.

This battle is also crucial for workers in the private sector. The right bleat that private sector schemes have been made much worse, so why shouldnt the public sector go the same way?

But our argument is that we should all have decent pensions and retirement at 60, not pit groups of workers against each other in a race to the bottom.

There will be many more lies emanating from the CBI and from Downing Street in the weeks to come. They will claim that the money is not there to fund pensions.

But the government can afford to spend £6 billion on war. It can give out £12 billion each year in tax relief for the pension schemes of the richest 10 percent, and £34 billion a year in tax concessions on the saving schemes of the rich.

The pensions strike has challenged the sense of pessimism and defeatism in the unions. This is not some limited, bureaucratic battle. It touches the lives of millions of workers.

This struggle requires a break from old routines and habits learnt in times of defeat, and during the long years when the unions were held together by a minority of committed individuals.

To discuss the way forward the unions should hold special meetings for reps and members at local, regional and national level. Why wait for the next scheduled branch meeting or the national union conference?

This week has seen fresh forces flood into the unions, with thousands of new members recruited for example, 500 have joined the Unison union in Huddersfield in the last three weeks.

Nationally hundreds of new reps are coming forward. We need the participation and energy of everyone to decide the best tactics to win.

Members must also discuss and control the terms of any settlement. There must be no deal which worsens conditions for present or future workers.

Health Gap Widens

Fri, 02 Sep 2005 11:41:43 +0000

Earlier this month, almost ignored by press and politicians, a detailed official report showed that the health gap between rich and poor is worsening.

The Scientific Reference Group of Health Inequalities study goes against all the rhetoric of how New Labour is creating a more equal, healthier society.

Behind the figures lies the reality that if you are poor your baby is far more likely to be stillborn or to die than if you are rich and this class division of life and death is worsening.

When Labour was in opposition it said it would tackle health inequalities, Danny Dorling, professor of human geography at the University of Sheffield, told Socialist Worker.

It also said it would implement the recommendations of the Black Report that had graphically exposed the health inequalities in 1980 under the Tories.

This did not happen when Labour came to power. Instead the party set up various commissions, created a new public health minister, and set out targets.

This latest report is the first real measure of whether the targets are being met. And the terrible news is that the trend is getting worse, not better, on the two central indicators of infant mortality and life expectancy.

This is especially surprising because under John Majors Tory government from 1992-7 the health gap had been narrowing.

Infant mortality is one of the most tragic and most telling indicators. It has very little lag, by which I mean that babies do not die because they have had 60 years of unhealthy lifestyles, or because they became smokers 20 years ago.

These figures are the first big admission of failure. They are a reflection of growing inequality and the way in which the gaps between areas and groups is growing.

This is the first Labour government that has failed to narrow the health gap. It is astonishing after eight years and making reducing health inequality a key target that we are in this position.

When New Labour said that things can only get better, it meant issues like these. Infant mortality is very clearly about the conditions in which people live during pregnancy and immediately after the birth of their child.

We know that the poverty of people without children has not been tackled by the regime of tax credits and these figures are a reminder of what this means.

The report received very little publicity because it was released in August. The minister was on holiday and her deputy was unavailable.

In fact it should have been released much earlier. In 2003 the government announced that it would produce an annual report. But there wasnt one last year and then this year the report was delayed because of the election.

The clear message is you cannot deal with health inequality without confronting wealth inequality.

In a study we published earlier this year we showed that although life expectancy is rising, the situation for rich and poor is markedly different.

If you live in parts of Glasgow, or parts of Manchester for example, then your life expectancy is pension age. You may do a hard, boring job for 45 years and then die as soon as you retire.

In contrast the richest can expect to live to 85. So after what was probably a good job they will have two decades or more of relaxed life, seeing their grandchildren grow up and so on.

In Britain the gap between the health of the rich and poor is widening, but in the US another study shows the situation is even worse not only is the gap widening but the figures for infant mortality are actually worsening among the poorest, especially black people.

This data demonstrates that the shift dates to 2001 when money was removed from welfare programmes and redirected towards military spending. This should be a warning.

Danny Dorling is not alone in his analysis of these latest figures. Dr Alex Scott-Samuel, co-chair of the Politics of Health Group, wrote recently, How ironic that 25 years after the Black Report slipped reluctantly into the public domain during the August parliamentary recess, after three months in the grasp of the Thatcher government, similar treatment has been accorded to a report documenting the failure of the most neo-liberal government since Thatcher.

Class inequality is on the rise

The government pledged to reduce the health inequality gap measured by infant mortality and life expectancy by 10 percent between 1997 and 2010. But new figures show the gap is widening.

The report, commissioned by the department of health, found that the infant mortality rate in the poorest areas was 19 percent higher than that of average areas in 2001?3, as compared to 13 percent higher in 1997-9.

The gap in life expectancy between the bottom fifth and the population as a whole has also widened, by 2 percent for men and 5 percent for women between 1997-9 and 2001-3.