On June 30th, 2011, 3 teachers unions: National Union of Teachers (NUT), the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), the University and College Lecturers Union (UCU) and one public service workers union, Public and commercial services union (PCS) went out on a one-day strike to fight the Conservative-Liberal Democrat (ConDem) government’s attack on their pensions.
Report on the strike and its impact:
When measuring the impact of a strike, we need to examine not the numbers at demonstrations (as the majority striking are clearly participating in pickets outside their place of work) but rather how many services were affected by these strikes as an example of the power of the unions involved (for information on unions affected by the discussion, their numbers and their position on the strike, see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/...).
A. Schools:
The numbers reported by the BBC were that 12,000 schools in England and Wales were closed or partially shut:
Department for Education data suggests that 11,114 of the 21,500 state schools in England were hit by the walkouts - the department based its calculations on data from 80% of schools.
It said in total, 5,679 schools were shut, and another 4,999 were partially closed. Some 201 academies and city technology colleges were also shut, while 235 remained partially open. In Wales, according to local authority figures, more than 1,000 out of 1,800 schools were either closed or partially closed.
The NUT estimated 85% of schools in England and Wales were affected
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/...).
To understand what this means, in London alone:
Figures collated by BBC London on the capital's schools suggest 1,111 shut out of a total of 2,418, meaning 46% were closed for the day. One of the worst-hit boroughs was Camden, in north London, where only four of the 58 schools fully opened, while in Redbridge, east London, all but five of the borough's 72 schools were disrupted. Fewer than 300 primary and secondary schools and nurseries across London ran classes as usual (http://www.bbc.co.uk/...).”
In terms of the impact of the UCU strike, “350 colleges and 75 universities were affected (http://www.bbc.co.uk/...).
B) Public Sector Services:
In terms of the numbers of civil service workers that participated in the strike, the PCS claims that 200,000 out of the 250,000 called out went out on strike (government claims 105,000) this was the largest number of their members that participated estimating that 1/5 of the all service workers went out on strike.
A Downing Street spokeswoman said: "Our border controls are in place and Jobcentres and pension offices are open for business. Indicative figures from every government department show that as of 12 noon today, over 75% of civil servants were not on strike. Just fewer than 100,000 civil servants were on strike - around one-fifth of the workforce. This shows that less than half of PCS members decided to take strike action today."
Mark Serwotka, leader of the Public and Commercial Services union, said up to four million workers could strike in the autumn if the bitter row is not resolved. He also said 85% of his members had been on strike, MPs had refused to cross picket lines and staff in Downing Street had taken action.
"The government has been rumbled, and ministers are either badly briefed - or they are lying," he said. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/...).
He continued “This is not about pensions, this is about making public sector workers pay for the economic problems, and we are determined to keep going until they change direction." He pointed out that the 100,000 was substantially in excess of the 48,500 who backed the strike in the ballot (http://www.guardian.co.uk/...).
Needless to say, the government has been stating that the impact of the public sector strike was minimal. However, museums, archives, job-centres, 999 emergency services and courts were closed or affected. In fact, newspapers and the BBC are stating different impacts in terms of the impact on customs and immigration at the airport with some reporting long delays at customs while others are saying there were minimal delays (http://www.bbc.co.uk/..., http://www.guardian.co.uk/...). The London Evening Standard (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/...) spoke of serious impact and the harassment of anarchists and the Daily Mirror spoke of the serious strike impact on policing (http://www.mirror.co.uk/...) and courts and job-centres (http://www.mirror.co.uk/...).
While police were banned from participating in the strike, civilian police staff were not and this had an impact on policing as 9 out of 10 people answering 999 emergency calls were out on strike causing 335 police to be taken off the street to cover for them. 75% of police staff at the Houses of Parliament went on strike (http://www.bbc.co.uk/...).
C. Demonstration sizes across the UK were estimated by the group “Right to Work” (http://righttowork.org.uk/.... The demonstrations are secondary compared to the numbers that went out on strike and its impact, but I thought people would be interested.
2) The attack on public sector pensions
Given the fact that people are now living longer and that public sector pensions comprise 1.8% of GDP, the government has used this as an excuse to launch a series of pension reforms. The ConDem government is claiming that this is untenable and that public sector pensions will only increase as percentage of GDP. Hence they have proposed a series of reforms to “ensure the sustainability of the government pension system” as part of their attack on the state sector and state sector workers. The Hutton Report on Pensions (http://cdn.hm-treasury.gov.uk/...) which was a commissioned independent government report has indicated that pensions are sustainable, but stated a so-called compromise to ensure their sustainability. He stated that they will decrease over time and in fact have decreased as percentage of GDP from 1.8% to 1.5%. However, this was demonstrated using the CPI index of inflation which the unions are opposing and taking into account increased retirement age (see http://news.sky.com/...).
The additional argument advanced by the ConDem government has been that public sector pensions are far better than those received by private sector workers. However, private sector workers pensions are inadequate and have been under attack for a while; forcing private sector workers to put aside additional money for a decent retirement (think of 401K’s in the States) and making this money available to finance capital by investing in the financial markets (again this undermines the safety of pensions given an unregulated financial market prone to booms and busts).
The absurdity of the argument that destroying a good pension system to make it commensurate with a bad pension system is not one that has anything to do with a good economic or pension policy; rather it is simply an ideological argument that seeks to undermine the safety and security of government pensions which are part and parcel of the compensation package to state workers. Instead of seeking to destroy a good system, the government should be examining a way to ensure better pensions provision for private sector workers or develop a coherent pay-as-you-go government run pension system rather than let pensions be determined by companies in the private sector.
A) What has caused the strike?
There are several interrelated issues at work. There are 4 policies that the ConDem government has proposed that will affect public sector pensions:
1) using average wages rather than final wages to determine the amount of pension received (thereby undermining seniority and leading to reduced pensions);
2) increasing the retirement age to 66 (one Lib Dem member of parliament Danny Alexander has said that it needs to go to 68; this was in the middle of negotiations, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...; the following link has the various current retirement ages for different public sector workers: http://www.bbc.co.uk/...). The obvious point is that just because people are living 10 years longer it does not mean that they can continue working 10 more years (fireman, police, surgeons cannot continue working into their middle-late 60s);
3) increasing current contributions to pensions (this, one top of a 2 year public sector wage freeze, the increased VAT and rising inflation, means that not only are real wages (w/p) are being squeezed, but money wages are being squeezed as well);
4) To enable pensions to keep pace with inflation, pegging current and future pensions increases to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) rather than Retail price index (RPI) means that instead of increasing by 4.6% under RPI, they would only increase 3.1% using the CPI indexation (see the GMB’s site for a more exact estimation of the impact of this change: http://www.gmb.org.uk/... and for a more detailed explanation, see, https:/www.gmb.org.uk...). This has also been done with benefits; what it means is that you actually get less money as the RPI is an index that is not in tune with the prices of actual commodities and some important variables are absent; specifically housing, mortgages and council taxes. In the last 20 years CPI has been greater than RPI by at least 1%. (http://redington.co.uk/...).
B) Why did all of the teachers’ unions or the public sector workers’ unions not participate and why were only some of the members of these unions called out on strike and not others?
This is due to a combination of things:
1) In the UCU (which is a union representing lecturers from both the old and new universities), the pension packages differed depending upon whether you were lecturing in an old or new university. In the ATL, depending on whether you were teaching at a state or public school, the alterations may or may not affect you. It is possible that those teaching at independent schools (these are the private schools over here; http://en.wikipedia.org/...) may not be facing an attack on their pensions; this is clearly an attempt to split workers (http://www.bbc.co.uk/...). In terms of the public sector workers, pension schemes are often determined at a local level not at the national level; so depending on where you are and the type of pension scheme, these changes may or may not affect some workers.
2) Why did the other public sector workers unions (UNISON, UNITE and GMB) not go out on strike even though their workers are affected? Some members of UNISON did go out on strike (Camden, Doncaster and Birmingham locals went out). Moreover, the general secretary of the union, Dave Prentis put out the following message to membership:
While UNISON members are not taking action over pensions today, we stand shoulder to shoulder with members of PCS, NUT and ATL – their fight is our fight. Up and down the country, many UNISON members will be visiting the picket lines, and taking part in demonstrations to show them support. Our advice to school and college staff is clear – do not cover unless it is part of your job.
I also send my full support to UNISON members in Camden, Doncaster, and Birmingham, taking action today over job cuts. I will be in Southampton, addressing a rally as they go on strike, part of a rolling programme, over cuts.
Our message to the government is clear – put contribution rates, retirement ages and the move from RPI to CPI to calculate pension payments on the agenda when talks reconvene in July. We want to reach a negotiated settlement - avoiding action - but the clock is ticking (http://www.unison.org.uk/).
3) Some of this may be due to the fact that these Unions are part of the Labour Party (and supported Ed over his brother David at the leadership elections) and the Labour Party has opposed the strike as negotiations are ongoing; so why they are very active on supporting an anti-cuts agenda and fight-back, they are still in negotiations (see for UNITE’s update on negotiations,http://www.unitetheunion.org/...) the same is probably the case with NASUWT (the 3rd teacher's union which was not striking).
Chris Keates, the general secretary of the NASUWT union, the only teaching union not to strike, said: "It is important to keep the high moral ground. That has been a key factor in our strategy. We're sticking with the negotiating and responding to what our members tell us." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/... strikes-1980s-doubts-pension-reforms, see also, this report from the NASUWT union leader to members as to the state of negotiations between the government and the unions: hhttp://www.nasuwt.org.uk/....
3) The failure of the Labour Party and who speaks for the working class?
A) Some comments from Labour Leader Ed Miliband:
For those that missed my pre-strike diary (http://www.dailykos.com/...), the Labour Party leader Ed Miliband (whom for some reason that I cannot fathom is called “red” Ed; really we are clearly talking about a man who prefers being dead to being red any day and has abandoned any pretense of solidarity for working people and organised labour) came out against the strikes arguing that they were premature as negotiations were still on-going, that they would inconvenience parents, and that unions should wait for the opposition to fight for them (http://edmiliband.org/...). Here is part of his statement:
Strikes are a sign of failure. They are a sign of failure on both sides and Thursday’s industrial action is a mistake. Even with just hours to go I would urge both the unions and the government to think again.
The Labour Party I lead will always be the party of the parent trying to get their children to school, the mother and father who know the value of a day’s education. On behalf of those people I urge unions and ministers to get back around the negotiating table and sort this out.
I understand why teachers are so angry with the government. But I urge them to think about whether causing disruption in the classroom will help people understand their arguments. You do not win public backing for an argument about pensions by inconveniencing the public – especially not while negotiations are ongoing.
This is not to excuse David Cameron from taking his share of the blame for these strikes. The Conservative-led Government has badly mishandled the whole process.
As we saw on the NHS and sentencing, it is typical of ministers in this government to rush ahead with plans only to find they have got the detail wrong as problems emerge all around them. The same has happened here.
Again, I would strongly encourage people to read this statement; solely because the comments in response to it are wonderful indicating that the Labour Party is not listening to working people. This was confirmed by a left-wing Labour MP, Mr. McDonnell of Hayes and Harlington who argued
"He needs to start meeting a few teachers, lecturers and civil servants. They expected more and are expecting more. They want have an opportunity to explain to him why they feel so strongly about what is happening to their pensions." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/...).”
Certainly the Labour party leader will attempt to dismiss the criticisms as the words of “loony leftists” but that argument is disproved by listening to the words of Mary Bousted, the leader of the ATL (the most moderate teachers union) who gave Mr Miliband a rather stern “talking-to” in a post-demonstration speech at Westminster Central Hall:
"I am pleased we are not affiliated to Labour. […] The response of Ed Miliband has been a disgrace - he should be ashamed of himself. If our strike is a mistake, what has he done to oppose this devastating attack on our pensions? If the opposition will not defend our pensions, we will.”
She later told the BBC that the Labour leader had "not taken any interest" in the fact that the government had never carried out a promise valuation of the teachers' pension scheme. "We haven't been able to negotiate, we haven't had the basic information we need from the government. “[So] to come at this stage, two days before the strike, and say, 'You should negotiate, there's another way round'... is, frankly, unhelpful and ill-informed." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/...).
B) Labour MPs Crossing Picket Lines?
To add insult to injury, some Labour MP’s actually crossed the PCS picket line to enter Parliament (happily some respected the picket line and did not cross it), but the Labour benches supposedly had the usual number in Parliament, which means that some did cross that line including the Labour leader (http://www.bbc.co.uk/...).
Even though the picket line was only on one entrance to Parliament, this is no excuse. Perhaps this irks me more than anything; one of the earliest lessons I learned from my non-socialist mother was never to cross a picket line and to support working people in their struggles. I am wondering how people who claim to be members of a Labour party have not learned this most basic lesson in solidarity that I learned as a child?!
Expressing the dilemma of many working people here in the UK (and I would wager in the US with respect to the Democratic party as well) we have the following statement which more than anything demonstrates that working people know that there is no major UK party that is on their side and represents their interests:
Kevin Smith, a Metropolitan Police civilian security worker, on the picket line outside the St Stephens entrance to Parliament, said his branch members were "angry" and "disappointed" at the Labour leader's stance.
"We are just trying to defend our hard-earned pensions. He should be supporting us."
He said some Labour MPs had crossed the picket line, but others had offered their support. But he added: "I will certainly not be voting Labour again. Then again, who else am I going to vote for? I won't vote Tory or Lib Dem." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/...)
4) The one-day strike as tactic
The final point that I wanted to address and hope that people discuss in detail is the tactic of the one-day strike. The purpose of such a strike is basically to send a warning; specifically, this is our power, ignore us at your peril as we can cripple the country. A one-day strike in and of itself really has no other purpose. It demonstrates power and provides an inconvenience as some things simply cannot get back to normal immediately (this is the case in a situation where rail and transport workers go out or where there is a lot of paperwork that is put on hold for the strike). It is a great way to start a fight-back and it is a legitimate part of a movement against the attack; but it cannot be the fall-back position for organised labour.
The problems arise when this tactic is all there is to the fight-back. Independent of a larger movement and general fight-back and the threat (and actuality) of an extended strike, these one-day strikes are nothing more than a temporary inconvenience to the government. They are essentially ineffectual and if used too often the message gets watered down and becomes a “here we go again” rather than build support for the fight. Yet, this is the predominant tactic in use through-out Europe.
Additionally, public good-will will crumble if there is nothing beyond the periodic one-day strike. Getting non-union labour on your side or at least neutral is essential. With the government and so-called opposition party drumming up opposition to a strike and the mainstream media’s hostility (there is only one daily newspaper not of the Left that has been constantly hostile to the austerity measures and which supports workers and that is the Daily Mirror), public sector workers and teachers are facing a concerted media push-back against their demands. Watching the BBC desperately trying to push the government’s and opposition party’s “inconvenience to parents” argument was rather sad; the vast majority of parents were sympathetic to striking teachers and they were forced to go farther and farther out of London and major cities to find hostile parents.
B) I would argue that an extended strike actually does far more damage and gets the point across far more clearly. However, extended strikes are far more expensive for workers to sustain and they are even more dependent upon public support. Even more so, they are dependent upon the solidarity of other unions and non-union labour to avoid scabs being used against striking workers. Unions are building up strike-funds, but their message must be clearer, they must unite, and they must get the public on their side. Perhaps most importantly, they must be very closely linked with a strong movement fighting against general cut-backs which is based in the grass-roots of communities.
C) This brings us to the question of a general strike and if conditions will allow this to happen. So far, outside of the hard Left (and quasi-mass organisations that are primarily, but not completely composed of the various strands of the Left) itself, I have heard no talk of this. Certainly there are leftist unions that would support or be sympathetic to this notion, but they themselves (and one is the RMT) cannot pull a general strike off on their own. This requires unity amongst organised labour and an orientation beyond that of reformist concerns.
Given that at this time, not all teachers or public sector unions were on board even for a one day strike over the attacks on pensions, I am reluctant to even discuss this type of strike: 1) unions are very weak; 2) the impact of the government’s attack falls on state workers mostly (but the whole working class and poor are affected by the austerity measures); 3) the Labour party is not behind the idea of even striking for pensions (and would essentially be doing a similar thing to the ConDems albeit at a slower pace support); and finally, 4) much of the union movement is still tied to the Labour Party and still has not come to the realisation that the Labour Party is not tied to it or the working class and are still waiting for leadership from them (hope they will not wait too long for this).
Support is there for certain issues, but a general strike which would have to address more than pensions and would need to require an all-out attack on the austerity measures would require far greater coordination between unions and grass-roots anti-cuts activists. Moreover, it would require building support among the general public that is being fed lies and deliberate misinformation by the government and most of the media. It is a long-haul ahead of organisation if this idea is to move beyond the minds of the left and the left of the union movement to the rest of the general public.
We have learned that no major party will stand with unions; we must have the people behind them. Without that, the government’s attack on public sector workers, the state sector and the social welfare state will be successful. The slogan “the people united will never be defeated” is not merely a slogan, it is a call to action to build a movement united against all three main neo-liberal political parties and without that as our foundation, we will assuredly fail.