pay | ukwatch.net

Left talk but no fight against Labour government

tim — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:45:49 +0000

At the beginning of the week, the reports of what to expect at the Trades Union Congress (TUC) at Brighton were apocalyptic.

Amidst what is almost universally acknowledged as the worst economic situation for decades—and possibly since the 1930s—there was talk in the media of a new “Winter of Discontent”, or the conflict between the trade unions and the Labour government of James Callaghan that ended with the Conservatives coming to power under Margaret Thatcher in 1979.

Ballots are planned for protest strikes in November against the government’s below-inflation 2.45 percent wage ceiling by the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) civil service union, the National Union of Teachers, the local government union UNISON and the UCU college lecturers union, which involve up to one million workers. In addition, the Prison Officers Association (POA) called for a general strike against the government’s failure to rescind the anti-union laws. It also moved an amendment to add the word “strike” to demands for action against the government-imposed wage cap.

Prior to the congress, the TUC issued a series of reports highlighting the bitterness felt by many of its affiliate’s members, and called for the government to change course. A survey found that 13 percent of respondents—equivalent to three million workers—are not confident they will be in their job in a year’s time. Another found growing disenchantment in the workplace, with 42 percent of workers questioned believing their pay has not kept pace with inflation and 46 percent saying the amount of work asked of them has increased.

Another report, “Do the super rich matter?” pointed to the growth of a fabulously wealthy elite under the Labour Party governments. While one needed at least £50 million to be among the UK’s 200 wealthiest people in 1990, one would now need £400 million to be included. The report urged the government to raise taxes on those earning more than £100,000 a year.

The TUC also criticised the “big six” energy firms for making £1.6 billion last year, while raising prices by 42 percent, and called for a windfall tax on power companies to fund a rebate for poor households.

As the congress events unfolded, the unions’ threats were exposed as largely empty bluster, meant to mollify and deceive their own discontented membership.

Delegates backed the idea of some sort of “coordinated action, a national demonstration and joint days of action” against the government’s pay policy, but voted down the strike call demanded by the POA. Its call for a general strike over the anti-union laws was also rejected, supported only by the RMT transport union.

Writing in the pro-Labour New Statesman, Jeremy Dear, the nominally “left” national secretary of the National Union of Journalists, commented cynically, “So we’re ready to threaten the government with a series of leaflets and angry newspaper articles—but no TUC-led industrial action.”

The TUC, far from seeking a confrontation with the government, is doing everything possible to avoid one. Labour is heading towards electoral disaster, with the Independent newspaper’s “poll of polls” showing its support “flatlining” while the Conservatives are set for “an overall majority of 174 seats”.

Without the support of the trade unions, Labour would be finished. They provide fully £9 out of every £10 received by the party. Yet far from mobilising against Labour, the TUC’s most strenuous efforts were made to oppose any leadership challenge to Prime Minister Gordon Brown. TUC President Dave Prentis said of Brown, “I believe he will continue to be [prime minister] until the next election. Of course we want him to. He is the leader of the Labour Party and he is Prime Minister of this country.”

The most likely leadership challenge to Brown is from the Blairite Foreign Secretary David Miliband. This prompted one of the few genuinely angry reactions from a leading union bureaucrat. Interviewed by the Observer on the eve of the TUC congress, Derek Simpson, joint general secretary of UNITE, “accused Miliband, in a stream of swearwords, of being ‘smug’ and ‘arrogant’,” the paper reports.

“In terms that caused fury on the right of the party, he also said Miliband would take the country back to the ‘failings of Blairism’ and could be a worse choice as Prime Minister than the Tory leader David Cameron.”

Simpson may as well have saved his breath, as Miliband and the rest of Labour’s cabinet took part in a series of high-profile media events to make clear their support for Brown. The foreign secretary said Brown would “prove people wrong” by winning the next general election.

At a private dinner with the TUC leaders Wednesday, Brown was able to give what was reported as “relaxed, 20-minute speech” during which he “cracked jokes” and was “was warmly received”. More than a dozen cabinet members joined him, including Miliband.

Brown did not deign to address the TUC conference, left instead to Chancellor Alistair Darling. Before this appearance, the TUC had officially backed calls for a rather paltry £1 billion windfall tax on the energy companies. To put this tax in perspective, Blair and Brown levied a much larger £4.5 billion surcharge on the privatized utilities in 1997.

Again conflict was predicted as Brown had already rejected the windfall tax in favour of a scheme to provide some aid for loft insulation. Gerry Doherty, general secretary of transport union TSSA, said, “Darling will get a tough time from the public sector unions. There is bound to be some sort of demonstration.”

At the event, only a small number of UCU college lecturers held up banners saying that food, housing and education were “not an additional extra”.

Darling took the occasion to call for pay restraint and to reject calls for a windfall tax on the energy companies. Michael White of the Guardian summed up the response of delegates as, “They didn’t dance in the aisles, but they didn’t riot either”.

To complete this somewhat pathetic picture, Deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman’s speech was supposed to be a sop to workers’ anger at growing social inequality, and provide something the trade unions could cite approvingly.

Though she stated that the inequality of opportunity between “the rich and poor” and “the north and the south” must be overcome, she dropped references to “socioeconomic class” in her published speech.

The TUC bureaucrats gathered at Brighton are fully aware that they are sitting on a powderkeg of social and political discontent. The rhetoric of the lefts and the call for protest strikes are an attempt to provide a safety valve through which to release these tensions, but nothing more. That is why, even now, the only discussion of a break with the Labour Party at the congress was confined to a fringe meeting hosted by the Morning Star, the daily paper of the ever-declining Stalinist Communist Party of Britain. PCS General Secretary Mark Serwotka vaguely called for a new party and Bob Crow of the RMT argued that there would be a need for a new party at some point, while UNITE General Secretary Derek Simpson reportedly argued for changing the Labour Party from within.

The entire union bureaucracy is opposed to any struggle that might threaten the fundamental interests of the major corporations or the Labour government. They are not the representatives of the working class, but social policemen who owe their privileged status to their intimate relations with big business and the state apparatus at municipal and national levels.

Control of union assets is one source of their privileges, but it does not translate into a desire to defend their members. As a definite social layer, their existence is bound up with maintaining a position as valued “social partners” of industry and government.

It was possible for the unions to secure certain gains and social reforms from the employers as long as economic life was largely organised on the basis of national production. But with the development of globalised production, the defence of jobs and living standards now demands a coordinated international struggle of the working class led on the basis of irreconcilable opposition to the profit system. The union bureaucracy has developed in the opposite direction. It has abandoned the struggle for reforms and integrated itself ever more closely into the apparatus of corporate management and the state.

As a result of their repeated betrayals, the unions have lost over half their membership from their post-war peak in the 1970s. The number of employed union members fell to just 28 percent in 2007. But even this is a distorted figure, since union density in the public sector is 59 percent, compared with just 16.1 percent in the private sector.

The full extent of the political decay of the trade unions found its most finished expression in a call meant to coincide with the congress issued by Rory Murphy, the former head of the Amicus union, now part of UNITE.

Writing for Personnel Today, Murphy recommended the TUC change its “outdated” name to something like the “Organisation for Workers’ Rights or The Centre for Improvement” and then seek a merger with the main employers’ organisation, the Confederation of British Industry.

He urged, “If the TUC is unsure of its role, and can’t change, might the unthinkable need contemplating? If we are truly to make progress as a society, should the TUC consider amalgamating with the CBI to fight for fairness and justice for all workers and employers? Are the aims of both organisations so widely apart that such an idea is a non-starter? After all, what is the real difference in seeking ‘to improve the economic or social conditions of workers’ and helping ‘create and sustain conditions for business to compete and prosper for all’.”

There is no way that the unions, organising millions of workers as they still do, will not experience an eruption of opposition to the government within their ranks. The TUC congress confirms, however, that workers within the unions, as well as those who are un-organised, are faced with mounting a combined offensive against the union bureaucracy that is just as fundamental as that they must wage against the government and the employers. This requires the construction of independent rank-and-file workplace organisations to take the struggle out of the hands of the union leaders, as part of a broad political movement for the construction of a genuinely socialist and internationalist leadership.

Collective bargaining is a fundamental right

Ellie Keen — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 23:25:15 +0000

The right of employees to engage in collective bargaining with their employer about the terms and conditions of their employment is a fundamental human right. In the absence of collective bargaining the employment contract between an individual employee and their employer reflects inequality. Predominant strength resides with the employer.

A modem society that does not promote collective bargaining as an essential part of public policy for human rights is democratically defective. The contention that the state should be neutral on whether collective bargaining should be promoted disregards the reality of power. Every step for the improvement of working conditions, for the protection of labour, for adequate occupational pensions, for proper grievance and disciplinary procedures and for occupational health and safety, has been opposed by some employers. Economic power has been used to defer or deny protection to working people.

This is not to deny that that some employers and persons other than workers have made a memorable contribution to the struggle for the rights of working people. Robert Owen, Lord Shaftesbury and Richard Oastler, for example, have an honoured place in British history as campaigners for the protection of labour. Credit is also due to the Liberal Ministers who supported the passing of the historic Trade Disputes Act of 1906. This Act gave rights to trade unionists, some of which, many years later, were withdrawn by the Thatcher government and have not been restored to this day. Today the proportion of the British workforce covered by collective bargaining is much less than it was 30 years ago. And this, after 11 years of Labour government!

In 1975 the then Labour government under Harold Wilson sponsored an Employment Protection Act which in its very first clause established the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service ‘charged with the general duty of promoting the improvement of industrial relations, and in particular of encouraging the extension of collective bargaining and the development and, where necessary, the reform of collective bargaining machinery.’ Unfortunately the duty to encourage collective bargaining no longer exists as a statement of public policy.

Support for collective bargaining as an expression of public policy did not begin with the foundation of ACAS. As long ago as 1894 a Royal Commission on Labour, chaired by the Duke of Devonshire, supported the growth of voluntary organisations for collective bargaining. In 1917and 1918, the Whitley Committee, appointed by the government of the day, urged the development of collective bargaining at workplace, district and national level to cover not only wages and basic conditions of employment but a wide range of other issues of mutual interest to employers and workers.

In the years immediately following the First World War major advances were made in the development of collective bargaining in industries and public services where hitherto it had been very much weaker. There was a simultaneous growth in trade union membership outside the more traditional areas of strength.

With the support of a newly-formed Ministry of Labour no less than 73 national joint industrial councils were established between 1918 and 1921. The general workers’ unions played a major role in this development of collective bargaining. It was not until the depressed economic conditions of the later 1920s that this expansion came temporarily to a halt. Expansion returned in the mid-1930s.

It would, of course, be wrong to argue that the vitality of trade unionism and collective bargaining depends solely on support from public policy. Much always depends on the consciousness of working people. The level of social consciousness is influenced not only by experience at the workplace but also by events at national and even international level.

After the Second World War there was a mood of determination and optimism to build a new social order following the defeat of fascism. Trade unionism was a vital part of this forward-looking movement. Even after the First World War the pressure for social reform stimulated by a stronger labour movement owed something to the international influence of the Russian revolution of November 1917.

The time has surely come when the present Labour government, following the example of earlier governments, should firmly declare for all to hear that public policy is in favour of collective bargaining between employers and workers in all areas of employment.

Pay, the fightback...

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

... and 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.

Tale of two Britains

Ellie Keen — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 22:05:26 +0000

The gap between rich and poor seems to be the only thing that is growing – excepting, of course, company profits – in Britain’s wildly unequal economy.

Take, for example, Marks & Spencer, in popular perception a benevolent and kindly employer. And it’s quite true, if you happen to be on top of the heap.

Our friendly high-street retailer rejigged its non-contributory pension scheme last year by giving its 26,000 current staff the unenviable choice of either starting to put around 7 per cent of their wages as contributions to the kitty or facing a reduced rate of benefits accrual.

On Friday, however, the company reduced the growth target which triggers top executives’ socking great bonuses.

Previously, chief executive Sir Stuart Rose, who collected his knighthood last week, would have had to achieve 12 per cent growth above the rate of inflation over three years in order to trigger his 400 per cent of salary bonus, worth a cool £4.2 million plus.

Now, he only has to achieve 8 per cent to trouser that nice little earner, to add to his £1.13 million annual salary and some rather juicy share options.

Sir Stuart received a £80,000 pay rise in January, taking his base salary to £1.13m.

At the same time, marketing director Steve Sharp has received a £40,000 rise to £565,000 and finance director Ian Dyson saw his salary rise from £525,000 to £675,000. It’s certainly nice at the top in that firm, if a little chilly down below.

And Aviva, the insurance giant which owns Norwich Union, has a fairly similar pot boiling.

On Friday, the bosses announced job losses of around 1,800 out of its 30,000 workforce and that’s just a minimum, with the company expecting hundreds more to up stakes and follow the remaining jobs to wherever they are relocated, a prospect that the Unite union describes as “inconceivable.”

And that’s on top of 4,000 job cuts last year, at a time when the firm raised its interim dividend by 10 per cent. This is the same firm that has recently completed arrangements for a massive payout of “orphan assets” to its policyholders and shareholders. The policyholders are to pocket £2.1 billion and the shareholders £230 million.

Negotiations are continuing on how the remainder of the £5.5 billion “surplus” assets should be divided up, with the company keen on retaining it.

Not so good for the poor old householders who insure with Aviva,however. They swallowed a 10 per cent increase in their premiums last year. Mind you, the company was bit worried, since it only managed to accumulate £3.29 billion in operating profits.

And it’s not only in the private sector. The NHS, which announced a £1.658 billion surplus for this financial year, almost treble last year’s, and a reduction of its cumulative deficit from £917 million to £122 million, is giving over 500,000 health workers the princely rise of 8 per cent over three years.

At a time when the retail prices index shows inflation running at around 4.2 per cent, food and fuel prices are soaring and more rises are expected, it was about as inappropriate as Health Secretary Alan Johnson could get when he gloated that this actual wage cut for all but the lowest paid was “great news.”

Everywhere one looks, the gap continues to widen and, unfortunately, some unions seem resigned to accepting the fact. Happily, however, other unions are not and theirs is the task of spearheading the fight against new Labour until the left manages to inject the will to fight back into their comrades.

NHS strike looms as GMB reject pay deal

tim — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:37:52 +0000

Published online 31/05/08

A threat of industrial action across the NHS intensified yesterday when health workers in the GMB union voted by an overwhelming majority to reject the three-year pay deal offered by the government.

If their decision is confirmed by the 450,000 NHS workers in Unison next week, the government may be forced to abandon its attempt to reach a long-term settlement.

In those circumstances Johnson has warned that he would be obliged by the Treasury to cut the pay increase that staff are banking on getting this year. Such a move would be likely to provoke a wave of hostility across the NHS, including overtime bans that could derail ministers’ plans to cut waiting times for patients.

GMB members, representing 25,000 NHS staff in England and Wales, rejected the deal by more than 96% in a ballot with high turnout. The offer was worth 8% over three years, with 2.75% paid immediately this year – the best terms available in the public sector in the current pay round though still way below inflation, amounting to a cut in real wages. Ambulance workers, porters and cleaners in Unite had already voted to reject the deal by a majority of six to one. This week the Royal College of Midwives said a consultation of members found 99. 7% were opposed.

The GMB, which represents ambulance crews, porters, catering staff, ancillary workers, blood collection, nursing assistants and practitioners, cleaners, laboratory workers, drivers and maintenance staff, said it would seek a meeting with Johnson. Dame Karlene Davis, general secretary of the Royal College of Midwives, said this week: “Given the outlook for the economy in future years, acceptance of the three-year deal would represent a vote for a real terms pay cut.”

Unison and the Royal College of Nursing negotiated the deal on behalf of the smaller NHS unions and were expected to recommend it. But the Unison leadership failed to win a majority on its health executive. The RCN is poised to accept the three-year deal.

This represents the stirring of health workers as part of the wider movement of unrest amongst public sector workers with the threat of strike action also coming from civil servants, refuse collectors, teachers, academic staff, local government and others.

Low pay leads to poverty in British Army

tim — Thu, 29 May 2008 17:56:58 +0000

A report on the state of the British Army released this month revealed considerable resentment amongst ordinary soldiers over low pay, leading many into financial difficulties, under-nourishment and the quitting of the armed forces altogether.

The findings are contained in a briefing team report prepared for the head of the British Army, Chief of the General Staff Richard Dannatt, and are based on months of interviews with thousands of soldiers and their families between July 2007 and January 2008.

Much of the report is concerned with manning levels in the armed forces in light of the increased military engagement, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. But new light is also thrown on the levels of poverty suffered by many frontline soldiers.

In a section entitled Pace of Life, the report says:

“It is viewed that the ‘pace of life’ has been compounded by undermanning, the amount of change being implemented and the lack of support and expertise to deliver that change. COs [Commanding Officers] are concerned at the impact this is having on the moral component.”

The report goes on to say that undermanning is “having a serious impact on the retention in infantry battalions.”

Almost half of all troops are unable to take their entitled annual leave as they are forced to cover gaps.

The brief section on pay then reveals:

“More and more single income soldiers in the UK are now close to the UK Gov’t definition of poverty. Thus many married junior soldiers feel that they are being forced to leave because they cannot afford to raise a family on current pay.”

The study also states:

“A number of soldiers were not eating properly because they had run out of money by the end of the month.”

Army COs now enforce “hungry soldier schemes,” whereby destitute soldiers are loaned money in order to enable them to eat sufficiently.

A scheme known as Pay as You Dine (PAYD) requires soldiers not on active duty to pay for their meals. COs have reported being inundated with angry complaints from soldiers due to the quality of the food and the large amount of paperwork involved. Such schemes are a break from the past when the army provided, as a bare minimum, a staple of three square meals a day, free of charge to all serving soldiers.

According to the Independent newspaper, “Now hard-up soldiers have to fill out a form which entitles them to a voucher. The cost is deducted from their future wages, adding to the problems of soldiers on low pay.”

The report contains warnings from senior officers that “there is a duty of care issue” involved. Also the “core meal” on offer “is often not the healthy option.”

Despite the obvious alarm among senior ranks, General Dannatt has made clear that he intends to persist with the current food schemes. He said recently, “I am determined that PAYD must be made to work to both the financial and physical well-being of those who are fed.”

Along with millions of workers, rising costs have made buying a home impossible for many serving soldiers. “The ability to purchase a property was a major area of concern across all ranks. Discussion included an increase in… Buy to Let legislation and the cost of moving from one private home to another private home near their new appointment.”

Also cited as growing concerns amongst soldiers and their families were children’s school fees and the lack of medical support for families, especially dentists.

Previous studies show that, due to their hours of service, UK soldiers are actually paid well below the national minimum wage. Most serving soldiers earn only £16,000 a year, with a “new entrant rate of pay” of just £13,012.

According to the Armed Forces Pay Review Board, a 2007-08 pay increase of 2.6 percent has to be measured against an estimated net increase in charges of 3.9 percent.

The report also touched on the increasing resentment felt amongst the ranks towards the governments’ cap on the amount of compensation received by the families of wounded soldiers, as well as the growing incidents of “accidental deaths.”

Dannatt said, “I am concerned at the comments from the chain of command, some elements of which clearly believe that they will lose influence over their soldiers and that this will impact on unit cohesion.”

Douglas Young of the British Armed Forces Federation was one of a number of military figures who utilised the report to demand an increase in funding for the Army, in line with the demands of fighting wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.

He told the Independent, “People are leaving the armed forces for financial reasons. There’s no question about it.”

Patrick Mercer, a Conservative MP and former army colonel said, “I’ve been talking to some very senior officers recently, all of whom privately have said to me that the Army is running on empty; the money has run out. The manpower situation is in crisis, and the so-called Military Covenant is abused at every turn. The thing that really worries them is that the MoD [Military of Defence] seems to be in denial about it.”

Colonel Bob Stewart, a former commander of British forces in Bosnia, said that the British Army was “woefully imbalanced, badly equipped, particularly for training, and quite honestly I’m afraid to say it is losing its edge as a top-rate army in the world because it cannot maintain it.”

Major Gen Patrick Cordingley, who led the “Desert Rats” into Iraq during the first Gulf War in 1991, said, “I would be very concerned about the strain on the armed forces remaining at this level of deployment in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It cannot be sustained for longer than perhaps another two years.”

Colonel Clive Fairweather, former deputy commander of the elite SAS, commented, “I really do think the Army is heading for the rocks and I don’t say this lightly.”

There has been a concerted campaign, sanctioned by the government, orchestrated by the military, and aided by the press and the monarchy to “rehabilitate” the British Army which is now associated with the brutal video and photographic images of detainee abuse in Iraq.

The government is, for example, proposing a new law making it a criminal offence to “discriminate” against anyone wearing a military uniform in public. The hostility toward soldiers from members of the public, which the law is supposedly directed against, was largely concocted by the media and the government by amplifying a few isolated cases.

It is one of 40 proposals contained in a report, “National Recognition of Our Armed Forces,” ordered by Prime Minister Gordon Brown and drawn up by Quentin Davies, the former Tory MP who switched to Labour last year. Davies has called for a “new era of greater openness and public involvement of the [armed] services.”

A new Armed Forces and veteran day is under consideration as a public holiday, as well as more media-friendly parades for regiments returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, secondary schools are being strongly urged to set up cadet forces. At present only 260 grammar and independently maintained schools have them.

The current report into the actual conditions faced by soldiers in the British Army goes some way to unmasking this grotesque propaganda campaign, whereby princes and aristocrats born into privilege and plenty parade at the head of an ill-fed, poverty-waged army prosecuting wars of imperialist aggression.

Size of Teachers’ Strike Exceeds Predictions

Ellie Keen — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:35:27 +0000

Teachers voice their anger at government policy

Two hundred thousand teachers organised in the National Union of Teachers came out on strike on Thursday in opposition to the Labour government’s wage-cutting pay deal. NUT members had balloted 3-1 to reject the three-year pay award of 2.45 percent this year, followed by 2.3 percent over the next two years.

Thee teachers were joined by 100,000 civil servants in the Public and Commercial Service Union (PCS), who are opposing a similar cap on their wages imposed by Prime Minister Gordon Brown throughout the public sector.

According to the Guardian, “More than a million pupils at 8,000 schools were expected to miss school … and those predictions may have been exceeded. Several local authorities reported more than twice as many schools closed or partly closed as expected.”

One in three schools in England and Wales were closed, despite the fact that the other two teaching unions, the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT) and the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), refused to support the day of action.

In London, 708 schools shut down completely, and 769 were partially closed. In the South West the strike closed 254 schools, and in Liverpool 187 schools closed their doors, while 213 were only able to operate partially. In the North East 402 schools were shut, 500 were closed in Wales, and 600 in Yorkshire. The West Midlands saw 200 of its schools closed and 264 partially shut.

Teachers held marches and rallies up and down the country, expressing their determination to beat what is being dubbed as Brown’s pay freeze. In London between 6,000 and 10,000 teachers and public sector workers marched together, and rallies were held in Liverpool, Preston, Leeds, Sheffield, Hull, Cardiff and Wrexham. In Birmingham, 1,000 workers took to the streets.

The London march began in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, where singer-songwriter and political activist Billy Bragg played, then walked through the Strand, past Downing Street, and ended in a meeting in the Methodist Central Hall in Westminster. The hall held only 2,600 people, meaning that three-quarters of the marchers, including reporters from the WSWS, were unable to enter.

The World Socialist Web Site spoke to teachers Keith Marsh, Jan Moses, Adeola Oladejo and Sonia Jallone from a north London primary school about why they were striking:

“For more pay, so that we get more teachers in the profession rather than lose them,” said Jan. “I have a 16-year-old daughter who would be a great teacher, but I would never let her do it with the way things are. It’s about respect. Either the government respects us, or they don’t.

“We are fed up with being told that teaching is a vocation and we should be grateful that we get paid anything at all. Why do you have to take on Teaching and Learning Responsibilities just to earn a half-decent wage? Teaching itself is an important enough job.”

“It’s about other issues as well,” Keith added. ”The paperwork: the fact that we are now expected to be psychologists, social workers and nurses as well as teachers.”

“Officially we work 27.5 hours per week, but how is it that I am working 60 hours?” Jan interjected. “Also everything is based on SATs [standardized tests] now, but there is so much more to what we do.”

Keith agreed: “When you are teaching Year Six you have kids crying their eyes out or not coming in because they are so worried about SATs.”

“I am on strike not just over pay but because of stress levels, workload and changing targets,” Sonia said. “PPA [Preparation and Assessment time] has helped, but it is not always kept to. We need to go back to the old methods where we focused on teaching. We don’t have to assess everything all the time.”

“PPA time was the government admitting that the amount of paperwork we have to do is ridiculous,” Keith stated. “Anyway, if they can find £50 billion to bail out the banks, why can’t they pay us what we deserve? Some 50 percent of newly qualified teachers leave the profession within three years. What a waste of talent and training!”

The four agreed that the one-day strike was not enough and thought it was a shame that it had gone ahead without the support of the other unions—particularly those representing caretakers, teaching assistants and learning support assistants who in most cases are paid less than half the salary of teachers. These workers are also expected to do teaching work with groups of children and in some cases take classes while teachers are having PPA time.

Jo Boyle works at a West London primary school that had been closed down by the strike. “I came out because I think it is important to support striking en masse,” she said. “I don’t think it will change anything, but I believe in acting as a group to try and change things. I’ve never been involved with the teaching union before, but I expected people to be in support of the strike because I think of teachers as socialists who support change.

“It is not so much about pay, although it is difficult for teachers in London to get on the property ladder, but we have a reasonable quality of life compared to many people. It is more about the amount we do and how much of ourselves we put into it. We don’t feel we are being valued. We see other people working less, with less responsibility and being paid more.

“The system of pay doesn’t support people who want to just be a good class teacher. People are forced into management because of pay issues. I took on a maths TLR [Teaching and Learning Responsibility] after only one-and-a-half years in teaching because I needed more money to pay my rent and live in London, when it would probably have been better for me to have more teaching experience first.

“The strike would have had much more of an impact if the rest of the unions had come out. I wonder why the other unions accepted the pay deal and why the NUT didn’t work harder to get them out with us.”

Jo agreed that the NUT had not opposed the constant attacks on education: “The union should have raised issues like the National Curriculum, SATs and Performance Related Pay [PRP],” she said. “We didn’t know anything about PRP until it was already accepted and in place and then you don’t feel you can do anything about it.”

Katie Noble said she was on strike because the pay deal was “completely unfair. It is below inflation. We are asked to pay more for various things in daily life, but this is not reflected in our pay.

“We put in extra all the time. We give up weekends and stay late planning, marking, filling in paperwork.”

Gilly Chapman agreed: “People have huge expectations of what new initiatives we will take on.”

“There is always something new,” Katie added, “you think you’ve got your planning sorted and the government brings in a new framework and you have to start all over again.”

Gilly felt that the strike could be the start of more general action. Katie agreed that there was unrest across social services. “I don’t think the government will back down, but I don’t think it will end here,” she said.

A 1,000-strong rally was held in Manchester at Friends Meeting House, which was packed to capacity. After the meeting teachers joined public sector workers organised in UNISON in a march through the city. Marchers were greeted by spontaneous applause from passers-by, in stark contrast to the media barrage claiming widespread opposition to the strike amongst parents.

“I am very surprised at the turnout,” said Lindsey Lenton, who has been teaching for two years. “I thought there might be hostility from the public. But people were clapping. I’ve brought my 10-year-old niece along so she knows why her teachers are on strike. I love teaching, but it is exhausting, and despite the fact that myself and my husband both have decent jobs, we still had a struggle to get on the property ladder.”

A retired nurse joined the Manchester rally in Albert Square and expressed her support for the strike. “When I was working as a nurse we had to come out on strike and I agree with the teachers. Now I’m retired it’s still a struggle, I have a mortgage to pay and all the bills.”

In Sheffield a young teacher from Rotherham told a rally, “I love my job passionately, but it places enormous demands upon me and is very time consuming.

“New teachers like myself have to make large sacrifices and it is an indictment of New Labour that I begin my teaching career with imposing debts from tuition fees and student loans. Many like myself have sickening levels of debt.”

She explained how she cannot afford to run a car, or buy a house, whilst everyday costs are rising too. She expressed her revulsion for New Labour and their reneging on promises, amongst them Tony Blair’s mantra of “education, education, education,” saying, “We deserve a government that puts its money where its mouth is. I’m disgusted that teachers cannot afford an average house in an average city.”

One teacher told the WSWS, “It’s not just about teachers having financial difficulties. Education is being damaged. None of our Year Seven pupils have had an English teacher this year. I was wary about coming out on strike. I don’t take this action lightly.”

Another added, “I never have a weekend free. I cannot really afford to go on strike, but I am now doing the lesson planning for two or three other teachers on a regular basis. We have an excessive workload and it has increased all the time during the last few years. I think the problem is that we should all be taking action and speaking with one voice.”

One teacher had gone for a job interview at school and was asked whether she was going on strike. “There is no department in my school that hasn’t been affected by staff absences,” she said. “People are leaving teaching, they can’t recruit new people and there are those off work with stress.

“It’s got so bad it’s nearly impossible to do the job. This strike is less about pay than it is about conditions. I know newly qualified teachers who can’t afford to miss a day’s pay to go on strike.”

Interviewed on Channel 4, Schools Minister Jim Knight attempted to talk up teachers’ pay by saying that their pay had risen by 19 percent since 1997. That means that on average over 11 years, teachers pay has risen by significantly less that 2 percent a year, a pay cut in effect given the level of inflation now standing at over 4 percent. There has been a huge rise in house prices, as well as burgeoning utility bills.

Newly qualified teachers are particularly hard hit because they start their working lives with debts from student loans averaging £20,000. The government are also claiming that teachers are earning on average £34,000. This is in fact the maximum salary after 10 years service, but only if teachers pass their annual performance management monitoring and reviews, and is wholly dependent on the constraints of the schools budget.

Knight also attempted to hide behind the School Teachers Independent Pay Review body, which recommended the pay deal to the government. This body is independent in name only, its members being hand picked by the government.

Teachers in Further Education colleges also joined schoolteachers in their day of strike action. Despite the fact that these workers teach A Levels and GCSEs [General Certificate of Secondary Education] to students aged 16 and above, they are not paid on a par with the rest of the profession.

At the rallies particular applause was reserved for calls for united action of all public sector workers in opposition to the government. Real unity, however, can only be achieved when working people build their own organisations that have as their aim the utilization of the vast wealth of society for the satisfaction of human need and not the profits of the minority.

The trades unions have proved themselves incapable of defending living conditions. The economic climate today—of banking collapses, the credit crunch and looming recession—means workers must begin to assert their own independent class and social interests.

Media Exploiting Young Workers

Ellie Keen — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:20:09 +0000

A survey of journalism student placements among various media outlets in the UK has found that over 50 per cent of them took place after the students had gained their qualifications. It has prompted the National Union of Journalists – which conducted the survey – to declare that “media companies are breaking the law by using bogus work experience placements to cover full-time jobs”.

The union says it is writing to companies warning them it will name organisations refusing to take action.

The survey also found that one-in-five people who did post-qualification work experience undertook a placement for three months or more, with some working for more than six months unpaid.

And that, of those people who had material published or broadcast, 78 per cent received no payment for their work.

More than half of the survey respondents felt that they didn’t get enough support or guidance during their placements.

Says NUJ General Secretary, Jeremy Dear: “This isn’t work experience, it’s exploitation. We’re all in favour of students getting a feel for life in a newsroom, but in many cases companies are just looking for free labour.

“Demanding that people put in months of work for free doesn’t help companies find the best journalists, it helps them find the ones that can afford to put in the hours without pay.

“Even those able to work for free are often getting poor quality experience. Some are given purely administrative tasks and get no editorial work at all, whilst others are expected to churn out professional material without getting any training from experienced staff.”

The survey is part of a major campaign by the union to tackle the unfair ways in which media businesses are using work experience placements to exploit newly qualified and student journalists.

Jeremy Dear added: “Organisations can’t go on treating newly qualified journalists as a lower class of worker to which they have no responsibilities. We will continue to campaign for employers and government to bring an end to this damaging exploitation.”

Why Pay Matters

Ellie Keen — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 00:01:39 +0000

Pay matters. So do public sector workers. Every paramedic, nurse, school meals worker and teaching assistant is an invaluable thread in the fabric of our society and economy. By setting a 2 per cent limit on public sector pay, the government is inflicting real pay cuts on the very people we all depend upon.

UNISON, with its 1.4 million members, the majority delivering public services, is part of the ‘Speak up for Public Services’ campaign launched by the TUC just a few weeks ago. We are united in our demands for fair pay for the six million public sector workers in the UK. They don’t drive inflation as has been argued in some quarters. Indeed, research by Incomes Data Services (IDS) clearly shows that this is not the case. Public sector workers, just like all other workers, need a living wage and this won’t be delivered through pay cuts. Leading poverty experts estimate that the minimum wage should be £6.75 per hour — a figure UNISON has firmly in its sights.

The Labour government inherited a recruitment and retention crisis in our public services. Cash was tight, morale was low and services suffered. A lot has been achieved since then, but those positive advances are threatened by a squeeze on pay. We must look to the future. Pay cuts put talented graduates off joining the public sector. Already students have complained to us that pay, conditions and bonuses are better in the private sector. We all want quality public services, but they do not come cheap. Staff deserve fair pay and good conditions.

Many public sector workers are low paid women. They often work part time and many are suffering the double whammy of unequal pay and real cuts in pay. When more women find it harder to make ends meet, they will be forced to claim benefits.

Each week new reports emerge of mounting household bills. These reports are a constant reminder that the cost of living is rising fast in the UK. We’ve seen huge hikes in energy costs. Even before these rises, one in six British households was facing fuel poverty — a disgraceful statistic in one of the richest nations. Families are forced to buy fuel through pre-payment meters, costing them an average of £195 per year more. Those who have least are forced to pay more.

Meanwhile, rich fuel companies are building up massive profits, driving inflation and reaping huge rewards. The government should take action against those companies, hold an enquiry into prices and levy a windfall tax.

Food inflation is running at 5.9 per cent — faster than at any time since the 1970s. And housing costs continue to rise — the latest Office of National Statistics figures show that housing costs take up the lion’s share of household expenditure at a massive 20 per cent. Price hikes in these three alone — fuel, food and housing — hit the low paid hardest and form an ever-increasing percentage of their expenditure. That alone should make the case for fair pay for public service workers.

It doesn’t matter how much the government quotes the CPI as a measure of inflation, people know that it does not reflect what is happening to the pound in their pocket. The RPI is a more accurate measure of inflation — it includes housing costs for a start. These factors should not be ignored in determining public sector pay levels.

We know that more cash can be made available to improve pay and conditions for public sector staff. For example, local councils have over-delivered on central government efficiency savings by £1 billion. By March 2008 total savings will be £4.25 billion. Why can’t these savings be invested in the workforce that local authorities and local communities rely on for the delivery of services?

If you want first class public services, if you want the sick and elderly cared for, your children well-educated and protected and your streets clean and safe, you have to invest in the workforce.

And remember, too, that public service workers have always been the Labour Party’s core supporters. They will feel angry and betrayed if they are singled out for such unfair treatment. UNISON is determined to secure decent pay rises for all its members.