Pensions: mobilise now!

Submitted by Anon on 7 October, 2005 - 6:00

by a unison member

The Government, via the local government employers, has put down its new proposals for cutting local government pensions.

They are worse than the proposals on the table earlier this year, when the main local government unions scheduled strike action, only to cancel it when the Government promised further talks. The employers want negotiations completed by 15 October to give the Government time to prepare its distribution of funds to local authorities for the financial year 2006-7.

According to Unison, the biggest local government union, the employers propose to:

• From 1 April 2006, remove the “85 Rule” [which entitles workers to retire on a full pension when their age, plus years of service, add up to 85] and increase the minimum age at which benefits can be taken from 50 to 55;

• offer no protection to existing members of the scheme;

• increase employee contributions by 1% from 1 April 2006 and 2007 and review them in 2008.

UNISON has declared that it will “be pulling out all the stops to change the employers’ minds and organise industrial action if we can’t make them see sense”. Unison general secretary Dave Prentis says: “unless the PM and the Government wake up… they will face the biggest strike since the general strike of 1926 in a matter of months” (26 September).

Getting the Unison leaders to deliver on these promises of militant resistance, however, will require energetic and bold organisation at rank-and-file level.

The Government has been clear at all stages that it plans to cut pension provision, and will negotiate with the unions only over the details of how provision will be cut. An official Government letter setting the terms of the new negotiations in spring this year said flat-out that it would only negotiate within the parameters of no increased cost to Government or employers — which, given retired workers living longer, inescapably means worse pension provision and/or increased contributions.

Instead of fighting for the principle that the rich should be taxed to gain workers a decent pension, Unison and the other unions just reassured their members that they had won a great victory by gaining new negotiations on such terms.

The Government continued to make its plans clear. “Senior civil servants and ministers see an increase in normal pension age in the public sector from 60 to 65 as inevitable”. (Financial Times, 12 July).

“Tony Blair is to press ahead with controversial public sector pension reforms, risking a wave of strikes by government workers, after being told taxpayers will foot a massive £7bn a year bill if his plans are derailed.

“The prime minister is said by Whitehall officials to view as unacceptable trade union demands that there should be no compulsory rise in the normal pension age of public servants”. (FT, 12 September).

“A Whitehall official said: ‘The status quo is not an option. Everybody recognises there has got to be change. The bottom line is that there’s going to be a 65 retirement age’.” (FT, 15 September).

“In the United States, they’ve already committed themselves here to raising, over time, over the next 20 years, the retirement age to 67. That’s the kind of debate we’ll be having.” (David Blunkett, FT, 19 September).

Instead of mobilising all public sector unions to put down a demand to maintain pension provision, and building for industrial action on that demand, the union leaders went off to talk about the details, reassuring their members that they would be informed in due course.

Now, with a feigned air of shock, Prentis notices that the Government means business and wants to impose cuts within weeks — and promises action “in a matter of months”.

At the same time Unison is pitching its case on local government pensions with the plea that talks are “likely to result in very different proposals for other public sector pension schemes”, so it’s a matter of local government being unfairly singled out. This line serves only to deflect moves for joint public-sector workers’ action, and to make it easier for the Government to divide and rule.

Unison members should demand that their leaders declare a dispute now, with the demand for no cuts in pension provision. A campaign leading up to a ballot on strike action — across the whole public sector, not just local government - should start now. The ballot should be for ongoing action (not just a single day’s strike), and on the substantive demand (not just on a demand for more talks, like Unison’s previous pensions action ballot).

The union campaign should also reach out to the wider working class, with a call for an increased non-means-tested basic state pension, restored to the same link to average earning levels that it had before 1979.

It should build up to industrial action with street demonstrations. And Labour-affilated unions like Unison should use their political clout, withdrawing support from Labour MPs who will not stand with the unions.

A serious campaign on these lines, starting in the workplaces, the stewards’ committees, and the union branches, and building up to unstoppable pressure on the union leaderships, is urgent.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.