British Unions Threaten Biggest Strikes Since 1926

[jimmy olsen]

Brits, what do you think's gonna happen?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/18/biggest-strike-100-years-union

Biggest strike for 100 years – union chief

Pensions revolt won't be like the miners – because we'll win, says Unison general secretary Dave Prentis

    Polly Curtis, Whitehall correspondent
    The Guardian, Saturday 18 June 2011
    Article history

The leader of the largest public sector union promises to mount the most sustained campaign of industrial action the country has seen since the general strike of 1926, vowing not to back down until the government has dropped its controversial pension changes.

Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison – which has 1.4 million members employed by the state – described plans for waves of strike action, with public services shut down on a daily basis, rolling from one region to the next and from sector to sector.

He said there was growing anger over a public sector pay freeze that could trigger more disputes further down the line and that the changes would unfairly penalise women, who form the majority of low-paid public sector workers. "It will be the biggest since the general strike. It won't be the miners' strike. We are going to win."

In an interview with the Guardian, Prentis – who also chairs the public sector group at the TUC – repeatedly insisted that he still hopes to negotiate a settlement with the government through talks that are currently under way.

But the prospect of a resolution looks increasingly remote after the government unilaterally set out details of the new public sector pension scheme on Friday, pre-empting the conclusion of the talks. Brendan Barber, the general secretary of the TUC, called the move "deeply inflammatory".

Prentis said: "I strongly believe that one day of industrial action will not change anyone's mind in government. We want to move towards a settlement. The purpose of industrial action is not industrial action, it is to get an agreement that is acceptable and long-lasting. But we are prepared for rolling action over an indefinite period. This coalition has got to open its eyes and see that in just reacting to a Daily Mail view of the public sector they are walking into a trap of their own making."

Prentis also called on the Labour party to support the unions' battle against the pension changes, saying that remaining silent will "become an issue".

The government has confirmed that it will raise pension contributions by 3.2 percentage points, increase the retirement age to 66 and move to a career average scheme to replace the more generous final salary version. Ministers argue it is unfair for other taxpayers to pay for more generous schemes for public employees than they might get in the private sector.

The unions say it amounts to an additional tax on public sector workers, with their additional contributions – a de facto pay cut – being used to reduce the deficit rather than fund pensions. It comes on top of job cuts, a pay freeze and controversial plans such as those for the NHS.

Prentis said that while pensions were the focus of the unions' industrial dispute – and the only issue that they could legally jointly strike on – his members were equally angry about the coalition's deficit reduction programme and its effects on the public sector.

"You can't just look at what's happening around pensions as a single issue. All our members provide public services. You look at what this coalition has decided to do to reduce the deficit and it's decided that most of the deficit reduction programme will be at the expense of our public services," he said.

"The people that we represent are facing redundancy, a two-year pay freeze, while inflation is 5% and gas prices are going up 20%, and they are desperately worried about privatisation of the services they have committed their working lives to."

He accused the government of trying to "soften up" public sector workers' rights to pave the way to privatising elements of the state. Referring to a consultation that could remove state employees' rights to keep their public sector pensions if their service is outsourced to the private sector, he said: "It means that cowboys that we used to have in the 1980s can put in bids that will always undermine the public service bid and they will get the contract not on the quality of work but because they are cheapest. It's just to soften the way for privatisation."

Turning to Labour, to which Unison is affiliated – individual members have an opt-out – he said: "We want our Labour party to be the voice of opposition. We're worried that some of the senior people in the party still have to make statements as if they are in power, not opposition."

Prentis added: "I've got a lot of time for Ed Miliband. He's new, he's only been there for eight months and he will improve – and we've got to give him time to do that – but the way in which certain elements in the party are not uniting where we need them to be is not helping. If the Labour party stays quiet that will be an issue. This isn't a kneejerk reaction, this will be a long programme of action and we will expect the Labour party to support that."

Unison is one of Labour's largest donors, giving £423,000 in the past year alone.

Prentis said he had full support from his members and they were now recruiting support for the campaign outside the workplace, sending representatives into community groups to garner support. A motion at the union's conference next week would formalise this campaign, recognising that traditional workplace union recruitment is falling.

Angela Eagle, Labour's shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: "What we are seeing today is the latest calamitous episode of this government's completely chaotic way of running the country.

"Today, Danny Alexander [the Treasury chief secretary] has made an announcement about the retirement age whilst they are in the middle of negotiations with the trade unions. If they are serious about reforming public sector pensions and serious about getting this proposal agreed then Danny Alexander has gone about it in the most incompetent way imaginable."

She added: "Strikes are always a failure on both sides. Everyone agrees public sector pensions need to change as people live longer. But the government should be getting round the table and talking changes through. Instead we have got another bout of mismanagement and chaos."

[Richard Hakluyt]

Looks like there are going to be some strikes 



The crucial element is to what extent they can engage the sympathy of the general public.

Personally, I would argue that the left in Britain has gone into self-indulgent mode. This goes down well with the 30% of the population who are inveterate lefties but is not the way to win general elections. So, what I think is going to happen is that the Tories will be in for a generation.

Can't say I'm pleased, this country has been plagued by ineffective oppositions for 30 years now 

[Martinus]

It seems the measures proposed by the government are quite drastic. Is there a popular perception that public employees in the UK are overpaid layabouts?

[Viking]

Hmm.. Royal Wedding, Bombing a poor country, Major Strike.. hey, Britain is back in the 80's!!

[Richard Hakluyt]

It seems the measures proposed by the government are quite drastic. Is there a popular perception that public employees in the UK are overpaid layabouts?

Traditionally they were paid less than the market rates, but this was made up for by job security and very good pension arrangements. The job security is lower than in former times. Pay, however, has improved over the years...........most public sector workers are on national pay rates; so London-based people (such as politicians) often think they are underpaid, but in the provinces they are generally better paid than their private sector counterparts. The pensions are currently (usually) defined benefit pensions, as life expectancy has increased annuity rates have declined and these pensions have become excessively generous.

From the point of view of most private sector workers the public sector has enviable terms and conditions; there are 6m public sector workers and 24m in the private sector, that is why I think the strikers are shooting themselves in the foot.

[Martinus]

These austerity measures seem quite hollow after spending so much on the wedding (including the day off thingie). Tories can't help being evil toffs, can they?

[Faeelin]

These austerity measures seem quite hollow after spending so much on the wedding (including the day off thingie). Tories can't help being evil toffs, can they?

I wasn't aware the wedding was unpopular, or that the Tories had spent the money to buy themselves new cars.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The Queen has her diamond jubilee next year, another extra day off 

[MadImmortalMan]

The crucial element is to what extent they can engage the sympathy of the general public.

The trick as always will be gaining sympathy for the cause to a greater degree than you cause inconvenience for normal people. In modern society that's way harder than it was back in the day.

[Admiral Yi]

Hmm.. Royal Wedding, Bombing a poor country, Major Strike.. hey, Britain is back in the 80's!!

They had a much better sound track the first time around.

[Razgovory]

The Queen has her diamond jubilee next year, another extra day off 

Excuse my ignorance.  Does the government pay for things like that?  Diamond Jubilee and royal wedding and the like?  Or does the royal family pay for it?

[Ed Anger]

Another Q: Why is it hen I read a English news site, it is all about this Cheryl Cole cow? I looked her up and her geordie accent makes me want to see her beaten with a shovel.

Death to all geordies.

[Richard Hakluyt]

The Queen has her diamond jubilee next year, another extra day off 

Excuse my ignorance.  Does the government pay for things like that?  Diamond Jubilee and royal wedding and the like?  Or does the royal family pay for it?

This is rather confusing. The government will normally pay most of the expenses connected with such matters. However, we need to distinguish between the Crown and the Royal family when it comes to finance. The crown has assets in the billions and generates a profit of >£200m per annum, this goes to the government. Meanwhile the Queen and sundry other royals receive money via the Civil List, a substantial but far smaller sum. The royal family is wealthy of course, but only to the tune of some 100s of millions of pounds. The vast wealth sometimes attributed to them is stuff owned by the Crown, ie really owned by the nation. Further confusion is provided by the Duchy of Cornwall, a title and collection of assets that go to the Prince of Wales, it's actually quite a big business.

In the old days the monarch was supposed to run the country and his own household from his own revenues during peacetime. This was getting rather old-fashioned by 1600 and was positively ridiculous by the 18th century. IIRC the current deal was set up during George III's reign, the Commons rather than the King becoming responsible for government expenses, but retaining the bulk of the Crown's revenues as tne King now only needed to cover his personal expenses.

[Razgovory]

Another Q: Why is it hen I read a English news site, it is all about this Cheryl Cole cow? I looked her up and her geordie accent makes me want to see her beaten with a shovel.

Death to all geordies.

I had to look up who that was.  In my brain she was filed under, "People who are famous but I don't know why".  Unfortunately the number of people who are famous for reasons I don't understand has grown exponentially.  I blame reality TV.

[Razgovory]

This is rather confusing. The government will normally pay most of the expenses connected with such matters. However, we need to distinguish between the Crown and the Royal family when it comes to finance. The crown has assets in the billions and generates a profit of >£200m per annum, this goes to the government. Meanwhile the Queen and sundry other royals receive money via the Civil List, a substantial but far smaller sum. The royal family is wealthy of course, but only to the tune of some 100s of millions of pounds. The vast wealth sometimes attributed to them is stuff owned by the Crown, ie really owned by the nation. Further confusion is provided by the Duchy of Cornwall, a title and collection of assets that go to the Prince of Wales, it's actually quite a big business.

In the old days the monarch was supposed to run the country and his own household from his own revenues during peacetime. This was getting rather old-fashioned by 1600 and was positively ridiculous by the 18th century. IIRC the current deal was set up during George III's reign, the Commons rather than the King becoming responsible for government expenses, but retaining the bulk of the Crown's revenues as tne King now only needed to cover his personal expenses.

Ah okay.  One more question:  Are people unhappy when this money gets spent on these big events?  Is this controversial?