Libcom | ukwatch.net

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.

UK teachers set for first national strike in 21 years

tim — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:27:18 +0000

Members of the National Union of Teachers are set to take part in the first national teachers strike in 21 years in response to the government’s failure to keep pay-rises in-line with the rate of inflation.

After four years of below-inflation pay increases, up to 200,000 members of one of the biggest UK teaching unions, the National Union of Teachers (NUT), are set to strike on April 24th. The membership voted for a one-day walkout. 75% of those voting were in favour of a one-day walkout, with 25% against. Turnout for the vote was 32%.

NUT’s last national strike was under Margaret Thatcher’s goverment in 1987. This latest call for industrial action is in response to the proposed 2.45% pay-rise, which, while above the 2% cap prime minister Gordon Brown called-for on public sector pay increases, falls below the current 4.1% rate of inflation. Teachers says the propsed 2.45% increase reflects a siginificant cut in the standard of living for both primary and secondary level teachers.

“NUT members have voted overwhelmingly in favour of the campaign to stop cuts in the real pay of teachers.
The government is wrong to determine a pay increase for teachers below the rate of inflation. The rate of inflation is presently 4.1% and teachers will receive for 2008 2.45%.
The consequences of real term pay cuts are familiar to us. They were a feature of the ‘boom and bust’ years before 1997. In that period schools suffered from recruitment and retention problems – there were teacher shortages and morale was low. The NUT wants no return to those bad old days.
I call on the government to think again and ensure that salaries at least keep pay in line with inflation and that there is a recognition of the continuing workload pressures on teachers.” – Steve Sinnott (NUT general secretary)

The 2% cap urged by Gordon Brown is based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI, 2.1%), while teachers wanted the pay-rises to be matched to the Retail Price Index (RPI, 4.1%), which takes into account prices of housing, mortgage rates and is a more accurate reflection of actual costs of living. Many new teachers are facing student loan repayments, the interest-rates of which were matched to RPI – this has further angered teachers.

Other teaching unions, such as the NASUWT had previously accepted the proposed 2.45% rise, having perceived it as favourable in comparison with other public-sector workers who received a 1.9% rise. NASUWT “leader” Chris Keates suggests a priority for their members is excessive workload, not pay.

SortUSOut Campaign

Alex Doherty — Thu, 11 May 2006 13:05:05 +0000

Today, students at the University of Sussex are occupying a business centre on campus against privatisation and as linked to the wider SortUS(1)Out campaign. We at libcom news spoke to one of the students taking part, and interviewed him about the students’ last occupation of their library in March in protest against cuts.

What happened on the night of the occupation?

In the evening before the occupation, we (Sussex students, many part of the SortUSOut campaign) had organised for people to come and sign in with someone so that we could get a rough idea of how many would be taking part in the action. After this, we would all wander into the library in small groups and then mob up and refuse to leave at 9:30pm, the current closing time, and hold it until 2am, the old closing time. If it looked like wed get any less than 35 then the action wouldve been called off. Luckily on Wednesday March 8th, we saw around 100 students take part in the library occupation and with a lot of support from the library staff. In fact, the library staff were particularly supportive considering that they couldnt leave until we had, so they had to stay at work for an extra four and a half hours! Pissing off the library staff was our biggest fear so it was great to have them on side.

Once we were there we had a lot of things to get going. We held artistic and political theory workshops, film showings and a lot of people just used the library as normal to finish their work. We also had mass meetings every hour to discuss how things were going and what we wanted to do. Generally, there was a very playful atmosphere in the library and some people even wanted to stay all night! However, at one oclock we decided that we would all leave together at two. We still had the support of staff at this point and it seemed silly to piss it away on the whim of pulling an all-nighter. We agreed that this was not the last occupation and that this was only one part of a bigger campaign.

What were the issues behind the occupation?

Well, obviously the reason we occupied the library (as opposed to somewhere else) was because of the many issues connected directly to the library. There is a lack of reading materials (even core reading list books) which forces a lot of us to rely on e-journals and pushing the financial burden onto us through printing. Cuts have also meant a lot of library staff have also been forced to leave meaning that a lot of books are left unshelved even if they are in the library! These staff cuts have been bad for everyone, students and workers. For the staff that lost their jobs, well, theyre out of work. For those still there, theyve found themselves with an extra workload and, in some cases, doing jobs theyre not trained to do like compile reading lists. And the students, we just get an all round worse service. Considering our university has recently declared itself to no longer primarily be a teaching facility but a research facility, youd think wed at least have a good library!

However, the occupation wasnt just about the library. There are many issues here at Sussex. The lack of contact hours on a lot of arts and humanities courses, the lack of food provision on campus, the cuts to interdisciplinary courses and courses advertised in the 2005/06 prospectus, the opposition to rent rises and the privatisation of university housing and, of course, the introduction of top-up fees. We also stood in solidarity with all staff at our university fighting against the Vice-Chancellor and the university council. [University staff themselves struck the previous day]

When and how did the SortUSOut campaign come about? What have you been up to?

The SortUSOut campaign came about at the end of the last students union AGM in November 2005 when a vote of no confidence turned into a ballot for strike action. However, it didnt really get going until after everyone got back from Christmas break. The vote of no confidence was supported and when someone suggested strike action, it was backed almost unanimously by the 500-600 people attending the conference. A group of about 30 people then met up to discuss where to take the campaign. It got a bit depressing after this, with the union largely sitting on its arse and putting together a Student Submission(2) to the university. As good as it was, it clearly wasnt enough and the union was obviously sitting on the responsibility of organising a strike. I had a falling out with a lot of the union full-timers (sabatticals or sabs) at this time and got a little disheartened.

However, there were still a lot of independents involved as were the Socialist Students (essentially a Socialist Party front but full of committed organisers, both SP and non-SP) and a couple of Autonomous Students (umbrella group for anarchists at Sussex). At the beginning of the winter term we produced the first issue of the SortUSOut newsletter, which has seen around 3,500 delivered door-to-door and left in prominent places around campus. 1,311 signatures were also collected for a petition supporting the vote of no confidence in the university council. All this was done to try and bring the campaign back to life after nothing happening for so long. There was also a demonstration of around 60 students where we collected another 300-odd signatures. The demonstration, though small, was a good first step to reviving interest in the campaign. After the demo, there was a meeting of all those who had attended and it was here that it was decided to organise an occupation.

Can you tell us more about the SortUSOut campaign? How many people are involved? How is it organised? What problems have you experienced?

Its difficult to say how many people there are in the SortUSOut campaign. There are probably around 20 regulars, about half of whom are union full-timers, three or four Socialist Students, one or two Autonomous Students and about half a dozen independents. Decisions are made at weekly open meetings and there isnt any kind of formalised hierarchy. However, there are a few problems (as there always are). The union has been very slow moving in a lot of cases and even opposed some moves by the students. One of the union sabs tried to stop the SortUSOut campaign talking to the press as it was scared of tarring the universitys reputation! Surely thats one for the university to worry about! And why shouldnt potential students know about whats going on at Sussex? When this was written about in the Socialist Partys newspaper it led to another full-timer saying that the article was making the campaign look weak and divided.

There is also a slight problem of reaching out to more students. Generally, even though the actions pull out quite a few more, the organising meetings are all the regulars but not many others. Perhaps this will change as the campaign gains momentum but for the moment its still a problem.

Where forward for the SortUSOut campaign?

Well, at the end of last term, after the occupation, things got really interesting. Until now, the campaign had largely been Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities students as we were the students most hit. However, at the end of last term, the university made the shock decision to close down the chemistry department which almost instantly mobilised the entire science departments, both staff and students. I spoke to one chemistry student, while she was doing a door-to-door petition round, and she told me that chemistry students didnt get involved in SortUSOut at first because they didnt want to get involved in politics but that the university had basically forced their hand. As if the Vice-Chancellor didnt have enough enemies, he decides to piss off possibly the only people who werent already gunning for him! Anyway, the speedy reaction of the students and staff meant that the university senate have now decided to review their plans to close down the department so I suppose there was a partial victory there to build from. I think the attempted closing of the chemistry department showed a lot of people that it doesnt matter how respected your department is [the chemistry department at Sussex has produced two Nobel Laureates – libcom], you are still at risk of being closed down to save money while the Vice Chancellor continues giving himself pay rises.

So basically, yeah, the campaign looks like its here for more than a bit and is definitely spreading amongst other students. There will be more demos, more occupations and hopefully well get the strike action which the union failed to provide us with.

Have there been any links with other students, workers’ or local community groups? What are the links with staff like?

We got a lot of support from students across Britain and the world. Within hours of the occupation, wed had a solidarity text message from some students in Stoke and in the next few days wed had messages of support from Lancaster, Dublin and Colombia. There was also some woman at the occupation from the NUS but Im unsure exactly what the point of her being there was as she didnt really do anything – positive or negative. Weve had fairly decent links with the AUT with some of its organisers turning up to a couple of meetings. To be honest though, the links made with other non-students groups have been minimal and this does need to be remedied. There was once an associate tutors group which was a rank and file network fighting the universitys treatment of associate tutors (of which there are currently 1,000 at Sussex). I think its largely wound down now but there is a possibility of linking up with those who were around back when it was still going and seeing if there is scope for helping each other out or even a resurrection!

Do you see your struggle as connected to the AUT strike the day before your occupation?

Oh definately. I mean, were all being messed around by the same people and you cant affect university staff without also affecting the students. The situation with associate tutors is a perfect example. ATs get messed about really badly at Sussex, as theyre mostly graduate students doing research degrees and dont have the time to provide students with much help outside seminars. Theyre also only paid for seminars, their maximum of one office hour a week and their assessed marking. Because of this its difficult to get them to put their research on hold and ask them to help you with your essay coz theyre not getting paid. Its a similar situation with lecturers and library and admin staff. When theyre making cuts in the library or in departments, theyre not just putting the staffs jobs at risk but theyre also putting our education at risk. In my opinion, the struggles of the staff and the students at any university are always linked, after all, we both have the same interest: making the university a better learning environment. In that way, I see the students campaign as opening up a second front in the fight against the university council. By struggling for our own demands we are putting even more pressure on the university council and as such are extending the best form of solidarity to the staff that we can.

*How do you see your struggle connected with the recent university occupations in France? *

I suppose they are quite linked but not nearly as strong as with the university staff. Its always tempting to shout Our struggle is global! and I guess the similarity in tactics and the timing of the occupations make it even more so. But there are very fundamental differences. Over here were fighting for better provision of education and welfare at our university while in France it isnt the universities they were fighting as such (though they did get into conflict with them), they were fighting a new labour law which affected everyone – students and non-students. Id also say the intensity of the struggle was very different. I mean, our occupation wasnt attacked by riot police or fascists armed with iron bars. They were in France. So there are massive differences. However, there are some striking similarities. The fact that we see the occupation as a mass tactic again, not just a few anarchists locking themselves in an office, is very important. Occupations just dont work nearly as well when done by some tiny vanguard of direct action-ists, which is why I was so pleased to see we got well over the 35-person minimum. Also, the fact that direct democracy through mass assemblies of those involved in the occupations sprung up independently is also very important. I suppose you could say that these parallel struggles show the natural inclination of all people in struggle: equality, democracy and co-operation. So yeah, there are massive differences in the struggles in terms of what theyre about but the nature in which theyre carried out is very similar. And of course, those who took part in the occupation at Sussex University, if not the entire student body involved in the SortUSOut campaign, stood in 100% solidarity with the occupation movement in France.

More information:

Picture gallery of the occupation.

11 May 2006 – Sussex students occupy business centre against privatisation

Notes:

(1) US = University of Sussex

(2) To read the submission, go to..

http://www.ussu.net/sortUSout/documents/student_submission.pdf

Tube Strike Interview

Alex Doherty — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:39:08 +0000

With two tube strikes in as many weeks, and more still to come, libcom.org news conducted this interview with a long standing London Underground worker and RMT member on the eve of the second strike. The interview is presented here in full.

Why are station staff striking?

Contrary to public perception, it has nothing to do with greedy drivers!

Most grades within LUL, including operating grades e.g. drivers have already achieved a 35 hour week. The station staff had been promised a 35 hour week for several years, but each year up until 2004 this important item had been overlooked. Eventually the RMT achieved a 35 hour week by a formula of maintaining the established 37.5 hours but banking these hours and achieving 10 extra days leave a year. This was rightly described as ground breaking as it represented quality time off work rather than a 30 minute a day reduction, which is negligible.

It has been the implementation of the new rosters that has caused the current dispute. There is an acceptance by the RMT that the demographics within stations are changing: the success of the Oyster card has meant that fewer passengers are queuing at station windows, especially in central London stations in the morning peak. For this reason it was agreed that 200 multi-functional staff could be displaced to other positions. There was, however, a tacit acceptance that if 4,500 station staff are getting 10 days extra leave (45,000 work days) rosters would need to be re-visited with the likelihood of more staff being required.

LUL resisted this, and even in the aftermath of the terrorist outrages in July, denied the need for more staff. Meanwhile the Government, with the support of LUL, is trying to do away with the fire regulations (section 12 stations) introduced in the wake of the Kings Cross fire. This will result in the wholesale reduction of station staff in safety critical roles, and consequently a greater risk to passengers. None of these proposed rosters has been safety-validated as required by LUL procedures.

What effect will the new rosters have on health and safety?

As a direct result of the imposition of new rosters, LUL are bringing in remote monitoring of the gate line. This means there will be no staff to assist passengers in station ticket halls. Experience has shown that a uniformed staff presence has a beneficial effect in reducing assaults on passengers as well as offering reassurance to vulnerable passengers. Polls have consistently shown that travelers, and women in particular, are more likely to use public transport when there are staff on stations.

From the point of view of staff health and safety, one of our major concerns is that many more stations may be staffed by a lone woman or man until late at night. There is already a serious problem of staff assaults at outlying stations which can only get worse with single person staffing. Also a large number of station assistants with child-care responsibilities are currently offered part-time positions. The new rosters are causing a great deal of anguish to people who may now have to resign because their needs are nor being catered for in the new rosters.

Many outlying stations are already short of staff; but the agreement reached during the OPO negotiations guaranteed all stations to have at least one member of staff or be closed. This is unfortunately being ignored and drivers have no way of knowing if a station is staffed or not. There was a case on the west end of the Central Line this year when a station was not only unstaffed but also unlocked overnight, so any drunken passenger stumbling in after the last train had gone could have been on the tracks until the first train in the morning – and no-one any the wiser.

I understand the stations attacked on 7/7 will be adversely affected by the new rosters as well?

LULs plans mean that those Edgware Road, King’s Cross and Liverpool St. will lose 30%, 75% and 70% respectively of their front line staff. After the attacks on 7/7 Bob Crow predicted that the people the Evening Standard described as heroes would be villains again as soon as we asked for more money / shorter hours. How right he was.

Are there other issues that haven’t been publicised which are causing tension between workers and management on the tube?

Theres a belief that LUL management are taking a far more aggressive approach to industrial relations than previously. Theres an attempt to undermine the trade unions by introducing American-style HR practices of individualisation as opposed to the collective bargaining we are used to. As well as the imposition of rosters which havent been safety validated LUL are seeking to bring in a draconian new attendance at work policy and, despite bullying being rife on the combine, to water down the current harassment policy. There is a pattern developing which shows that senior managers, with the support of Ken Livingstone, are attempting to break the RMT. Conditions and wages within LUL are amongst the best in London; this has been achieved by strong union organisation. If Livingstone can break the unions he can then attack our wages and conditions.

Are you involved with informal or formal organisations independent of the union leadership?

No. There is a publication called Across the Tracks which prints articles by rank and file workers but it is controlled by SWP / Respect, so although Im happy to write for it occasionally I am not involved in any real sense.

Are you able to express the views you’re putting forward here to people you work with?

Yes, of course.

What is the potential for individual workers to influence the action taken?

The RMT is still to a large extent a democratic union. Bob Crow is a very popular General Secretary but he is very much in the Stalinist mould: many of the head office staff recruited since his election have come directly from the Morning Star (which is provided free in the lobby!) and the CPGB. But decisions on industrial action and wage offers are usually made by ballots of workers. I say usually because there have been occasions when Crow has persuaded the National Council of Executives to ignore the wishes of the members, but this is quite rare. All RMT branches in London meet at least monthly, as does the regional council; these meetings are well attended and the debates are always lively. All individual workers are encouraged to attend and speak at branch and regional meetings and are also able to attend the regional EC meeting.

What is the attitude of the union leadership to the strike?

They were slow to mobilise for the NYE strike, and for a while I was concerned that they would only offer token support. However, my concerns have been shown to be completely unfounded. Unity House is now pouring resources into the dispute and national and regional officers have been mobilised to attend meetings and build support. Im now confident were being offered the support necessary to win this dispute.

What is the potential for spreading strikes like this to non-RMT workers or RMT staff elsewhere in the tube service?

All drivers and signal workers are now being balloted for action short of strike action to allow them to refuse to work on strike days on the grounds of safety. Huge numbers of drivers are likely to refuse to drive on future strike days. Small numbers of TSSA members are already joining the RMT and refusing to work on strike days. Unfortunately Aslef, which represents 50% of drivers on LUL, have put out a disgraceful leaflet criticising the strike and RMT encouraging drivers to leave the RMT and not support the strike. As an ex-Aslef member it made me feel sick to my stomach to read such reactionary drivel.

It’s good to see people taking steps like this in order to support the main action. Are there any discussions of action other than strike action by the ticket staff? 15 years ago in Melbourne, tram workers ran the service for free for a while instead of going on strike. Theres been an example of this in France as well. What are the obstacles to this kind of action?

Were always looking for new ways to engage in effective industrial action. It may not seem like it, but the RMT doesnt enjoy inconveniencing the public and if it was possible to pursue a dispute without doing so I for one would be very interested.

Unfortunately, there is established case law which deems it unlawful for members of staff to attend work and perform only part of their duties. So if station staff turned up for work and simply allowed passengers to travel for free they would, initially be unpaid for the whole day and subsequently face disciplinary action for breach of contract. I dont regard this as effective. Also, it is the taking of collective action that strengthens the resolve of individuals in a dispute; standing on a picket line is a great way of building class confidence.

We also have to consider that the vast majority of passengers pay in advance for their tickets and the loss of revenue for one day would be minimal; LUL may even be quids in once you factor in not paying wages for the day. The economic pressure comes from elsewhere. The effectiveness of strike action on the tube is often gauged by the amount of money lost by the city. Many millions of pounds are wiped from the economy each time the tube shuts down for a day; it is the pressure applied on LUL by big business that often causes them to agree to settle. Its a very important weapon in our arsenal.

Has there been much discussion of the New York City transit strike within your workplace or the RMT?

The national union and the regions have sent messages of support to the NYC strikers. One of Bob Crows biggest achievements has been to look outwards to the wider labour movement in order to learn lessons and to offer support.

What measures are management taking to run a scab service, will normal workers be crossing picket lines?

LUL management are behaving disgracefully in trying to break the strike. Many outlying stations were left open but unstaffed over NYE; many others in central London were opened with insufficient numbers of staff to maintain safety and security. London is still on a high security alert after the bombs in July, but you wouldnt think it from LULs attitude. Head office staff are being given one day crash courses and then put to work in section 12 (underground) stations; it usually takes 12 weeks to train a station assistant. Managers and supervisors from TSSA are being encouraged to work 16 hour shifts in order to keep stations open. And, yes, unfortunately a number of so-called normal workers scabbed on NYE and may do so again. There will always be a small number of lumpen workers who lack class consciousness and are willing to betray their colleagues.

Why New Year’s Eve for the last strike?

After talks lasting over 12 months it became clear that LUL were not negotiating with any level of honesty or integrity. Crow wrote to LUL along with all members affected on December 1st announcing the intention to ballot for strike action. With the legal constraints on strike action the date cannot have been insignificant, even to the people in charge of LUL.

New Year’s Eve is the best date for strike action in order to put most pressure on Livingstone and O’Toole. The all-night running on New Year’s Eve was flagged up as one of the most important benefits Ken Livingstone gives to Londoners. He was mad as hell and did all he could to break the strike.

When planning a strike we look at a number of things – legal constraints, maximising impact, maximising levels of support from members, minimising opposition from the public, minimising managements ability to bring in scab labour etc. All these things are important but in the end New Years Eve seemed the best choice for effective action. Massive publicity, hopefully not all bad. Managers don’t want to be standing on stations – fewer scabs.

Unfortunately I believe that whatever date we pick the public will be pissed off. New Year’s Eve pisses off a number of party people, a number of workers (mostly) in the entertainment industry and of the course the entertainment industry itself. Any other working day would piss off a larger number of workers and industrialists and would result in major losses for the city. A great many activists and elected officials (not full time bureaucrats) with a lot of experience in industrial action decided NYE was the best option.

Another reason to pick it – managers on duty that night get a big cash bonus. Station assistants and supervisors rostered to work get the flat rate. Or they would if any of them came in!

How does it compare to the last tube strikes?

Station staff, historically, have been reluctant to enter disputes on their own as they perceive themselves not to have the industrial clout of drivers and signal operators, so theres not much to compare it to. However, the general consensus is that the level of support from workers was phenomenally good and has built their confidence for future disputes. The vast majority of station assistants and supervisors stayed away from work and despite what LUL are saying, this had a big impact. The next one will be a lot more effective because now that drivers realise the extent of the safety breaches theyre likely to refuse to drive on grounds of health and safety.