Manchester unionists prepare for June 30 strike

Article published: Tuesday, June 14th 2011

As trade unions ballot their members across the country for authorisation to call a day of coordinated strike action on June 30, unionists in Manchester are urging the public to turn out and support them.

The results of the ballots are due to be released in the next few days, but it is likely that the National Union of Teachers (NUT), the University and College Union (UCU), the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), and the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCU) will all vote in favour, bringing nearly a million workers out on strike.

It will be the first major strike action since the Coalition government entered office, and the first co-ordinated strike action in decades. This and other signs of increased militancy amongst British trade unions prompted the Business Secretary Vince Cable to convey a warning in his speech to the GMB union last week that the government would consider tightening the UK’s already restrictive anti-strike laws.

The primary reason for the strike action is the government’s attempt to make public sector workers contribute more towards a shrinking pension whilst retiring later, in what unions argue amounts to a major pay cut. Recent research by the University of Manchester and the Open University has challenged the findings of Lord Hutton’s Independent Commission on Public Sector Pensions, which the Coalition is using as justification for its reforms, saying that public sector pensions are currently both affordable and fair. The increased burden on public sector workers in terms of their pension contributions comes as their wages remain frozen and inflation creates large increases in the cost of living.

There is however more to the strike than this. Roy Wilks, NUT Rep at Prestwich Arts College, told Mule how “over two years ago a review was suppressed because it made the suggestion that no cuts were needed to pensions for teaching staff.  We know these cuts are not necessary, they are ideological, so these strikes are a reaction to these unnecessary cuts.”

The public sector in Manchester has taken a large hit, with many council workers being made redundant and a range of services being stripped back. Wilks argued that the confrontation between the government and the public sector unions is intentional:

Chris Sheehy, a Salford University UCU branch member, insisted it is important to focus on the wider political debate as well as the economic one.

“Salford University expects around a 20 per cent drop in applications once the new fees come in.  The people who don’t apply are going to people primarily of a similar background to myself – of working class background – with limited to no member’s of the family who have completed a degree.”

It is widely expected that more strike action will be called in the autumn, this time involving bigger unions such as Unison and Unite. Wilks hoped that people in Manchester will be prepared to lent their support:

“We want to see as many anti-cuts groups out on the streets with us as possible, workers taking their lunch breaks to join us, disabled and unemployed workers, and especially students of all ages.  There will be an NUT march to join, picket lines to support, and we hope many other exciting things happening, with live music and stunts.

“Make sure, wherever you are, you support the strikes on the 30th”

Tom Barlow

Tweet

More: Cuts, News, Unions and workplace

Comments

1. The teachers’ pension scheme was renegotiated so that from 2007 it was less generous but affordable and sustainable long-term. Part of that deal was that the scheme was to be valued regularly in order to prevent future crises. The latest valuation was now due a year ago but the governemnt are refusing to do so as it will undermine their insincere ‘unaffordability’ line. A valuation is the first demand in this co-ordianted action.

   The real pensions crisis is in the private sector where there are pitifully low rates of employers offering contributions (many sources cite 15%)into pension schemes. Except John Hutton was specifically forbidden from looking at the private sector and instead restricted to politically motivated attacks on public sector workers, who are losing their jobs by the thousand.

   Decent pension schemes are among the best defence we have against the wholesale privatisation of public services – hence the government’s keenest to wind them down. Companies looking to cash in on the lucrative business of delivering public services are put off by the long term commitment they may have to undertake to their staff by honouring employers’ contributions.

   Therefore defending public sector pensions is tantamount to defending public services.

   Comment by Ben Egan on June 14, 2011 at 2:46 pm

2. Chris Sheehy asks what kind of society we want to live in.

   Well, most of us don’t want to live in a society where those who work for the state have the best wages for a particular job, superb pensions, very good terms and conditions and lots of time of sick too!

   A state apparatus which uses tax income from all private workers to lavishly reward its own employess is downright sinister and is a step along the road to an authoritarian regime. New Labour gave us a glimpse of this awful scenario. A better than average paid and pensioned public workforce distorts democracy by effectively buying votes for the regime which chooses to indulge in such largesse.

   The government should ensure that its employees have broadly the same wages, pensions and terms and conditions of its paymaster, the private sector working population. The proposed pension reforms are a step towards this.

   Comment by simon on June 16, 2011 at 12:59 pm

3. Why is it Simon that you think the ‘fairest’ way forward is to make everyone’s lives as shit as possible? I think most rational people would like better working conditions for everyone…

   Comment by Right to the City on June 16, 2011 at 2:46 pm

4. I’m intruiged by your concept of fairness.

   Do you really want higher taxes for everyone, including millions of low and modestly paid private sector workers in order to pay for superb public sector pensions?

   Why should an admin clerk at a private firm pay higher taxes so an admin clerk at the local council can retire earlier,and on a better pension?

   You seem to want to continue the current unfairness, where for an equal amount of cash contributions to a pension scheme a public sector worker will receive much more back in pension payments when he or she retires – a situation which only exists because the taxpayer guarantees payment levels to public sector pensioners, whereas private sectror pensions can only pay out returns from invested contributions.

   As I said above, government employee pensions should be about the same as private sector ones. That seems fair to me.

   Comment by simon on June 17, 2011 at 11:12 am

5. Simon, when you write fairly long replies it can be difficult to follow them through the fog of bile and irrationality. I can only assume it is the same for you reading pretty much everyone else’s posts. I’ll therefore forgive that you must not have got as far as the bottom of my first comment. Let me reiterate: ‘The real pensions cris is in the private sector’… Decimating the final remaining decent schemes–i.e. in the public sector–will do NOTHING for those in the private sector except remove a centre of gravity from the bargaining range. The private-public dichotomy is false as no-one is proposing moving contributions to private sector schemes.
   We agree on one thing: public sector pensions SHOULD be about the same as private sector ones. However we disagree on the desirability of mass old-age poverty in the interests of ‘fairness’.

   Comment by Ben Egan on June 17, 2011 at 3:56 pm

6. I was simply asking why, if you think people in the private sector and public sector should expect the same conditions (of pay, security, benefits etc.), you argue that everyone should accept the very worst conditions of the private sector? I’m intrigued why your priority is dragging people down rather than pulling them up. What does that say about you?

   Incidentally, if you care to know some of the facts about public sector working conditions, look here: http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/facts-about-civil-and-public-services/

   Comment by Right to the City on June 17, 2011 at 5:23 pm

7. Anyone public employee who wants their super generous pensions to continue while knowing that is only possible if they are heavily subsidised by every working person is not really the kind of person we should be employing in the public service.

   To consider yourself entitled to other peoples money so you can enjoy a much better pension than they can afford themselves is greedy and selfish. Those are not good qualities for nurses, teachers or even town hall pen pushers.

   If public sector workers want fantastically generous pensions plus the right to retire earlier than anyone else they should fund these benefits from contibutions from their wages, not expect everyone else to fund it from theirs.

   A typical 6% pension contribution from wages, plus a similar employer contribution, buys a modest pension at 65 for most people. Why should the same amount of cash buy a bumper, gold-plated pension at 60 for someone who just happens to have the public as their employer?

   Comment by simon on June 18, 2011 at 2:35 pm

8. We are having the same debate over and over and its fruitless, much like the so called negotiations held by the gov. Those who oppose fair pay, a fair pension deal and secure careers for state workers, have been fooled by the gov and the media. If public sector pay goes up (which it has not for some years) then my first thought is, so? I am happy for those who help to make my life better get payed well. But lets not get carried away, in general they are not payed well for the difficult, tiring and socially responsible work they carry out. In terms of pensions, a deal was struck some years ago which is sustainable, so why are we reforming this now? In order to fill a deficit gap, not in a pension scheme, but in the government coffers. Is this fair? The secretary of state cannot even tell teachers and public workers if there is a surplus or deficit in their pension scheme, based on this how can they reform or even negotiate a deal? If the gov want to negotiate then what starting ground do we have? Living longer is touted as the main issue, but working longer (especially in the state sector) is proven to reduce your life expectancy. I cant imagine when I have kids that I want them educated by a 70 year old teacher, or patched up by a 70 year old surgeon. Let’s get this into perpective, the public sector workers are not out for all they can get, they work in the pucblic sector after all! But they do want to be treated fairly and they are not responsible for a governments mess created by the private sector.

   Comment by Ruaidhri on June 21, 2011 at 12:47 pm

9. […] Manchester unionists prepare for June 30 strike | MULE via manchestermule.com […]

   Pingback by Manchester unionists prepare for June 30 strike | MULE | Michelle Tackabery on January 5, 2012 at 2:24 pm

10. […] » Manchester unionists prepare for June 30 strike – MULE. Share this:TwitterFacebookEmailLinkedInLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry […]

    Pingback by » Manchester unionists prepare for June 30 strike – MULE | Thomas Barlow on February 26, 2012 at 2:51 pm

11. […] Topics: clips, Uncategorized  via manchestermule.com […]

    Pingback by Michelle Tackabery » Manchester unionists prepare for June 30 strike | MULE on October 31, 2012 at 6:04 pm

The comments are closed.