The Suspension of Local Government Workers’ Strike

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

Workers and Politics:
The Suspension of Local Government Workers’ Strike

Westminster Council Workers Strike

The suspension of the local government workers’ national strike action set for tomorrow, August 14, followed negotiations at ACAS, the advisory and mediation service. The July 17 action, participated in by an estimated 750,000 to 1.2 million workers, coupled with the threat of more strike action, prompted employers to improve their national pay award offer. Local government unions – UNISON, GMB and T&G – and the local government employers accepted ACAS proposals, which are being recommended to their respective memberships over the next six weeks. Proposals include the setting up of an independently chaired Local Government Pay Commission, which will report back within a year, to address low pay and equal pay for men and women workers.

Having rejected a three per cent annual increase and employer calls for a three-year deal, ACAS proposed a two-year national settlement, with increases ranging from 7.7% to 10.9% for the lowest paid workers. All council workers would receive a 3% increase with a new minimum rate of £5 an hour from April 1, 2002, to be followed by a further 1% rise from October 1 this year, plus another 1% for the lowest two grades.

In April 2003, council workers would receive a pay rise of 3.5% and an additional 1% for the lowest paid. On April 1, 2003, the lowest paid worker would receive £5.32 an hour, up from the current £4.80, an increase for 284,000, predominantly women, local government workers.

The London Weighting dispute remains unresolved and all three unions will continue to pursue their claim. During May and June, workers organised in UNISON struck work for three days as part of their campaign for a 4% increase to their London Allowance. This allowance compensates already low paid workers for the high costs of living in the capital city. The necessity for the workers’ campaign was underlined by a recent report of an enquiry commissioned by the Greater London Assembly which found that the city’s public sector workers require a 37% top up to their salaries. The London Weighting dispute remains unresolved.

Regarding the national pay award, Heather Wakefield (UNISON), Mick Graham (GMB) and Jack Dromey (T&G) said: "The ACAS proposals are the result of many hours of tough negotiation. We believe that the proposals represent a fair deal for local government employees and a strong platform to end low pay and unequal pay. We will be taking these proposals to our respective memberships and recommending acceptance. If they are accepted, it will bring an end to this dispute. The unions would like to thank the public for their overwhelming support. There is now strong public recognition of the need to tackle the issue of low pay in local government."

Despite maintaining a detached stance, as if it is not responsible for the effects of the anti-social offensive, Downing Street is reported to have pressured Local Government employers, including Labour leaders, to settle as part of a wider Treasury strategy for three-year deals in the public sector. Such agreements would take the next round of public sector deals past the next election and initiate talks on "modernisation of working practices". The Treasury has already issued guidance to public sector employers stressing the 2002-03 pay round "will present the best opportunity for organisations to put forward multi-year deals", and suggesting such deals will provide "a clear and stable basis for implementing modernisation and reform". The ominous phrases – "modernisation of working practices" and "modernisation and reform" – show the need for workers to remain vigilant. Both recall the imposition of the misnamed flexibility – used to intensify cuts to every sphere of society’s social programmes – in an environment of creeping privatisation, contracting out and increased workloads, which parallel workers worsening conditions, longer hours, with less resources and deteriorating facilities.

Gordon Brown made the trade-off explicit when addressing the Treasury select committee after last month's Comprehensive Spending Review. He told MPs: "There is a choice at the end of the day between the money that goes on pay and the money that can go to employ more people and improve the facilities or services. That is a choice that each local authority and each service is making." This false choice – in which employers work within New Labour imposed financial straitjackets – regards workers’ pay as an incidental cost rather than no more than the workers’ due, and that the essential aim of any enterprise is to cut social spending and divert it to continue paying the rich.

A pay guidance document issued by the Treasury in 2001 for deals covering 2002-03 said that "the 2002-03 pay round will present the best opportunity for organisations to put forward multi-year pay deals for two or more years". The guidance went on: "Multi-year deals present a number of advantages. They extend to pay the benefits of longer term financial planning that forms a key part of this government's approach to public spending. They provide the basis for a more constructive and partnership-based approach between management and unions on pay, focused on reform and modernisation rather than annual pay bargaining. They provide a clear and stable basis for implementing modernisation and reform which include, for example, changes to pay rates."

Local Government workers should beware of ideas about "constructiveness and partnership" between unions and management focused on "reform and modernisation". Both are euphemisms for refusing to invest in social programmes and continued restructuring of public services into sources of profits for the private sector – as local government workers’ experiences confirm.

The need for vigilance was underscored by the comments of Ian Swithenbank, chairman of a group which represents employers, who has reportedly predicted that the proposals could lead to cuts of council budgets, with vacancies unfilled. Such an argument is spurious. The deterioration in the quality of Local Government services does not derive from the already low wages and salaries workers receive, but precisely as a result of the long-term damage caused by cuts and redundancies imposed by central government.

Workers should reject the false choice that their right to a livelihood must be sacrificed to improve the quality of services. No such argument is advanced when guaranteeing payments over many years to the "partners" in PFI schemes, or pledging interest payments to the financiers on whose behalf the state and government works.

The six-week consultation period gives an opportunity for the local government workers to consider their action in defence of their rights, which received the support of the majority of working people, as well as how to ensure these rights are given a guarantee. The proposals give an opportunity to discuss the strategy and tactics used to achieve it, and to assess how workers can build and participate in fighting organisations that defend their interests. Whilst the government continues to pursue its anti-social offensive it is incumbent on the working class to defend its interests as well as to present to the society a pro-social agenda. By summing up in this way a fighting Workers Opposition can be developed.

The Local Government workers’ stand in defence of their interests, together with the actions of teachers, London underground staff and other sections, including the firefighters and postal workers, has shown the importance of workers defending their right to a livelihood whilst also presenting a pro-social programme to society. Summing up the local government workers’ dispute, it will be important to consider the important role workers play in defending social programmes and safeguarding their future.

Westminster city council workers went on strike yesterday, August 12, in protest at privatisation plans. The 24-hour strike took place at the main Westminster council offices.

The council workers took action in protest against, and with the aim of preventing, the forced transfer of staff to a private consortium, Vertex SW1, which is set to take over the running of most of the council's services.

The proposals anger the workers because they will result in:

• the forcible transfer of most staff to a private contractor;
• the forcible withdrawal of those staff from the local government pension scheme;
• the forcible termination of these workers' continuity of service in local government.

"We've had fantastic support from the public, especially Westminster residents," said a spokesperson for UNISON which, along with the GMB, had 300 members on strike. "They are very concerned about losing public services to private companies yet again."

"We don't want forcible transfers with services ending up in call centres in Scotland or Bangladesh," added the spokesperson. "Vertex is only promising to keep services in Westminster for two years. We want a dialogue with the employers and this is the only way to bring attention to our concerns."

A rolling programme of all-out, indefinite strike action will hit departments such as licensing, planning, parking, libraries, trading standards, environmental health and social services.