The first round of pay talks is looming, and RMT has announced its claim, as follows:
- A substantial increase in rates of pay for all grades and additional protection for the lowest paid grades in the form of a minimum salary of £26,000
- Improved travel facilities for non-safeguarded employees
- A reduction in working hours without loss of pay
- A ‘London Living Wage’ as a starting wage for all contract staff
- A guaranteed job offer on medical redeployment
- Abolition of performance related pay
- Progressive ‘family-friendly’ policies
The good news is that this claim has been submitted to several employers, so hopefully we will have a co-ordinated campaign and reduce differences between us. It is also good news that the union is demanding bigger rises for lower-paid grades, and that it covers a range of issues that bother staff, such as family-friendly policies.
But there are problems too - most of all, the lack of specific demands. It is a long tradition for our unions to use the vague phrase 'substantial increase' in their pay claims, but it is one of those traditions we should probably break with. Instead, we should demand a definite amount - after all, whenever reps tell members that the union is demanding a 'substantial increase', the members want to know what that means in hard cash.
Moreover, rather than that specific figure being a percentage, it should be a cash sum - say, for example, £3,000. Demanding, or settling for, percentage rises means that we are demanding higher pay rises for grades who are already better paid. That's a nonsense - with a 'flat-rate' claim, we would be calling for the same actual rise for everyone, but it would be a bigger proportion for the people who need it most.
The pay claim that has been
The pay claim that has been submitted notes that the retail price index in September was 5% and that a pay rise of anything less than this would be totally 'unacceptable'. It then goes on to detail many other ways in which the cost of living has gone up more than 5% - food, fuel, etc. It's right to base the argument for a pay rise on what we need to live. But it feels like the pay claim, by spelling out that less than 5% is 'unacceptable', is telling the companies what would be 'acceptable' before negotiations have even started! Surely not the way to go for the most we can get! In reality the RMT has already begun its pay campaign across London by sending out a leaflet to every house in the region in September. This has already made people expect that the RMT is going to really go for a decent pay rise this year, made people prepared to fight for it in defiance of the government telling us to cope with less now the economy is in crisis. The union should not underestimate people's determination to fight for something as important as this: pay.
There is also a bit of a feeling that union members should have had more input into the pay claim that was submitted. After all, it's an important issue for all members. The pay claim has ended up asking for some things that some companies already have, which could have been avoided with more consultation. Branches are already asking for an emergency regional council in December to discuss the pay claim and how we will fight for it. This is a good idea, both to give members an input, and to make sure we're prepared for the fight in the New Year.