Local Govt Unite/Unison Strike 16th 17th July

[exosculate]

Overall a good if tiring two days. My building got about 60% out, which was actually good on previous strikes apparently (about 120 went in out of about 3-350). But a lot of consultants and senior managers in my building so there's always gonna be scabs.

The building over the road only had 12 out of 150 in and 9 of those were managers. The pickets were very good and the local rally on the Thursday of about 100 people got a good response from the public and quite a few tenants on the rally/march.

Don't agree with tbaldwins and poster2437s point about higher paid workers as the reality is that 60% of UNISON members in local government are on 16k a year or less.

The London wide demo was quite small and the union bureaucrats were boring and hypocritical (talking about senior managers earning 50k when they earn far more than that). The only one that got a good response was Mark Serwotka who was saying how important it is to link up different union struggles.

Can't see an all strike but I think there is the spirit for a series of strikes which could put a lot of pressure on Brown.

All in all a positive couple of days.

I'm not sure the support has been that good nationally! London may have been better!

What do you think of selective strike action?

 

[poster342002]

Don't agree with tbaldwins and poster2437s point about higher paid workers as the reality is that 60% of UNISON members in local government are on 16k a year or less.

It's not so much the issue of higher pay - more the issue of boss-powers over other workers.

 

[cockneyrebel]

It's not so much the issue of higher pay - more the issue of boss-powers over other workers.

Hardly any of the managers went on strike, so it's a bit of a non-issue really. More of a problem was bullying managers intimidating people in to not going on strike.

I'm not sure the support has been that good nationally! London may have been better!

What do you think of selective strike action?

Support was the best in the north east and north west of the country. The council I work for was probably about 50/50 as a whole in terms of the strike.

Selective strike action can have a place, but I think it's generally quite a defensive measure when you think you can't get enough workers on side.

The main danger is the bureaucracy just calling everything off like with the pension dispute and the london weighting dispute.

 

[tbaldwin]

So you oppose the strike action?

Hi Matt.
Who was it who said Socialism is the language of priorities?

There is no way that i could give support for somebody on 100k to get an extra 6 grand a year and for somebody on 20 grand to get an £1,200.

The extra £500 a month for somebody already rich is just plain silly. For someone on 20 grand this means just an extra £15 or so a week doesnt it? So i cant really be that enthusiastic about it.

Not saying i oppose it....Just not as enthusiastic as mc5s strasserite columns...

 

[ViolentPanda]

There's about 260 working days in the year so if you go on strike for 2 days you're giving yourself about a 0.8% annual pay cut. The managers must be laughing their bollocks off.

You haven't really thought about this, have you?

 

[cockneyrebel]

Hi Matt.
Who was it who said Socialism is the language of priorities?

There is no way that i could give support for somebody on 100k to get an extra 6 grand a year and for somebody on 20 grand to get an £1,200.

The extra £500 a month for somebody already rich is just plain silly. For someone on 20 grand this means just an extra £15 or so a week doesnt it? So i cant really be that enthusiastic about it.

Not saying i oppose it....Just not as enthusiastic as mc5s strasserite columns...

60% of UNISON members are on less than 6k a year. You are the one who should get your priorities right.

And the people who earn 100k a year have seperate pay negotiations to the rest of us so what you're saying is irrelevant.

 

[Fullyplumped]

There's about 260 working days in the year so if you go on strike for 2 days you're giving yourself about a 0.8% annual pay cut. The managers must be laughing their bollocks off.

losing 0.8% of your pay is no laughing matter whether you're on £16k, £26k, £36k or whatever. And assuming the employers say "well that wasn't so bad" and Unison calls two more days, once or twice or thrice, the amount foregone will be greater than the offer so by striking people will have lost even with an increase.

 

[Fullyplumped]

I think the recent strike was tactically wrong. What the leadership should be doing of all the Unions is to put maximum pressure on the employers.

How do they do this?

They need to ask all union members for a levy on their wages - could be £10 per month as an example.

This money should then be given to workers who will clearly cause a lot of disruption or revenue generation issues in the case of local government, and so forth. So that the bin men could come out for 1/2 weeks at a time if required on full strike pay, or Council Tax workers could screw up revenue generation for 1/2 weeks at a time on full strike pay.

This is the way forward, it will gain maximum support from membership and cause most useful disruption. As such be more likely to be effective, which is surely the main thing.

See that's what I've been saying!!!


S'not fair, people will be nice to exosculate and they've been nasty to Fullyplumped for saying the same thing. [sniff]

 

[DownwardDog]

Local Authorities set there budgets without considering walkouts even though there are considerable amounts of cash stashed away as Prentice pointed out in the news.

The difference is that the LA doesn't have to pay the strikers so it is saving money. However, when LA employees indulge their legendary predilection for going on the long term sick with "stress" or "back pain" they still have to be paid.

The point is that an LA is not like an airline or a car factory or any other real business in that a two day strike doesn't affect in any significant way the income of the organisation. The LA doesn't have "lost production" are still going to get their council tax and government grant income no matter what.

If the unions were smart about this they'd have the other members subsidise the Finance Dept to stay out on strike indefinitely. Once the money tap was turned off the LA would be desperate to settle. Having everybody, including the Old Peoples Arse Wipers and Diversity Coordinators, go on strike for two days only achieves a transfer of money from the strikers to the employers.

 

[Fullyplumped]

If the unions were smart about this they'd have the other members subsidise the Finance Dept to stay out on strike indefinitely. Once the money tap was turned off the LA would be desperate to settle. Having everybody, including the Old Peoples Arse Wipers and Diversity Coordinators, go on strike for two days only achieves a transfer of money from the strikers to the employers.

Exactly. We should all write in and tell them.

 

[bristol_citizen]

60% of UNISON members are on less than 6k a year. You are the one who should get your priorities right.

And the people who earn 100k a year have seperate pay negotiations to the rest of us so what you're saying is irrelevant.

In Bristol 3rd tier (£50k plus) and 4th tier (£35k plus) managers are in UNISON and were out on strike in a few cases.

 

[nightbreed]

The difference is that the LA doesn't have to pay the strikers so it is saving money. However, when LA employees indulge their legendary predilection for going on the long term sick with "stress" or "back pain" they still have to be paid.

The point is that an LA is not like an airline or a car factory or any other real business in that a two day strike doesn't affect in any significant way the income of the organisation. The LA doesn't have "lost production" are still going to get their council tax and government grant income no matter what.

If the unions were smart about this they'd have the other members subsidise the Finance Dept to stay out on strike indefinitely. Once the money tap was turned off the LA would be desperate to settle. Having everybody, including the Old Peoples Arse Wipers and Diversity Coordinators, go on strike for two days only achieves a transfer of money from the strikers to the employers.

When LA staff are on paid sick leave, its stilla cost and therefore the LA are paying double; they are paying for a employee to be at home and paying for a replacement to do his/her job. An LA will make a costing on that but it will be on an average taken from the sickness levels of the previous year.It has been well documented about sickness levels in the public sector with the CBI regularly pocking their noses in to comment.

I take you point at targeting crucial strategic parts of the LAs like finance/refuse/IT workers.

La budgets are forever shrinking with cutbacks/efficiencies being demanded at all time. Its not so much a production issue but as I have put, a costing or budget issue. So while it could be seen that the LAs are saving money due to the strike, they arent exactly shouting about it from the roof tops. If the unions stick with a strategy of consistent united action over a period of time, I think the next action is planned for September and its going to be three days, the cost will mount up for the LA. (BTW even if less than half of the workforc hit the bricks it will hurt the LA more than the workers)

 

[Fullyplumped]

When LA staff are on paid sick leave, its stilla cost and therefore the LA are paying double; they are paying for a employee to be at home and paying for a replacement to do his/her job. An LA will make a costing on that but it will be on an average taken from the sickness levels of the previous year.It has been well documented about sickness levels in the public sector with the CBI regularly pocking their noses in to comment.

LA staff on strike aren't on sick leave. They aren't being paid, and the LA isn't paying for replacement staff or contractors.

LA sick pay provision is extraordinarily generous (up to six months full pay then six months half pay). A consequence is that if a member of LA staff is on sick leave they aren't replaced with another member of staff or a contractor - sometimes a temp is used in the event of long term sick leave, but usually the team carries the work or a person is moved from one team to another temporarily.

I take you point at targeting crucial strategic parts of the LAs like finance/refuse/IT workers.

Exactly - this is much more likely to work than workers making substantial donations to their employers.

La budgets are forever shrinking with cutbacks/efficiencies being demanded at all time. Its not so much a production issue but as I have put, a costing or budget issue. So while it could be seen that the LAs are saving money due to the strike, they aren't exactly shouting about it from the roof tops. If the unions stick with a strategy of consistent united action over a period of time, I think the next action is planned for September and its going to be three days, the cost will mount up for the LA. (BTW even if less than half of the workforc hit the bricks it will hurt the LA more than the workers)

If the unions require their members to sacrifice another three days pay that will mean the workers have given up a week's wages so far this year. Will that persuade the LGA to cave in? No. And I really don't take your point about this causing them a financial headache. This isn't sick leave. Managers are not going to be held accountable for non-delivery of services and they'll have more millions in the bank.

 

[nightbreed]

Why dont employers encourage them to go on strike then?

 

[The39thStep]

Well that's what I was asking.

My own conclusion would be that two days striking would not achieve any gain in salary, so that would be two days pay donated to the Council for no personal gain. And I would have gone on strike on those days but I'd know that I would be showing support for people making a wrong decision.

On the other hand, working and earning and providing a service, but contributing to suppporting a relatively small group of people (not liaison co-ordinators!) to go on permanent strike whose absence wouldn't harm the public but would cause difficulties for my bosses - for as long as it takes - is something I would see a potential benefit from. But nobody here agrees, even though people such as yourself agree that the present tactics are a ritual.

A ritual what? You seem obsessed with wanting to find some group of staff get them on all out strike whilst everyone else goes about their normal business.

Apart from the fact that in some cases income generation has been outsourced and that most finance systems are computerised such a tactic puts inordinate amount of pressure on a small group of staff to prop up a national dispute. Councils would simply get wise to this and go for further outsourcing and actually staff in that section would just get demoralised being out on indefinate strike and being the shock troops of the union and other staff would play no role at all.

Just the sort of tactic that would play into the hands of the LGA.

I am sure there will be more strike action called but I get the sense that the TU leadership will settle for a very small increase providing they get what they see as a more influence with New Labours leadership.

This New Labour govt is no better than a Tory one.

 

[Fullyplumped]

I'm not obsessed, I just think it's an approach with a greater scope for success. As you have pointed out it is a tactic, not a strategy, and there are arguments to be made against it. But it was nice to see I was not the only one to think this - just the first!

 

[durruti02]

I'm not obsessed, I just think it's an approach with a greater scope for success. As you have pointed out it is a tactic, not a strategy, and there are arguments to be made against it. But it was nice to see I was not the only one to think this - just the first!

you really are very arrogent! not only do you think people losing money ( and for many of my colleagues significant money) have not thought about why they are striking now you think you are the first person to think of selective strike action .. LOL .. in local govt selective strike have been used as much as general over the 20 years i have worked here with no more success that i can remember than more general action though i do agree it should be used more often ..

 

[Fullyplumped]

you really are very arrogent! not only do you think people losing money ( and for many of my colleagues significant money) have not thought about why they are striking now you think you are the first person to think of selective strike action .. LOL .. in local govt selective strike have been used as much as general over the 20 years i have worked here with no more success that i can remember than more general action though i do agree it should be used more often ..

You're right, now I think about it. I have been bold and presumptious, venturing opinions and asking naive questions when surrounded by titans of the labour movement like, well, yourself. I should really have known my place, and let wiser heads prevail. There is a place and time for freely expressing such views and asking such questions and this, clearly, is not it. I hear what you are saying - "Be quiet, the men are speaking".

If only I'd followed the advice I'd been given by one of the salty seadogs of the Urban 75 P+P crew when I made my debut here three short years ago - "Keep your head down, don't catch no-ones eye and call em all 'sir', in two weeks, you'll be one of the crew.....".

But I do think I was the first to suggest that there was a place for a more nuanced and considered approach to the industrial scale donation of salaries to local authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that has just taken place. I hope the employers have the good grace to say "thanks".

 

[ViolentPanda]

You're right, now I think about it. I have been bold and presumptious, venturing opinions and asking naive questions when surrounded by titans of the labour movement like, well, yourself. I should really have known my place, and let wiser heads prevail. There is a place and time for freely expressing such views and asking such questions and this, clearly, is not it. I hear what you are saying - "Be quiet, the men are speaking".

That's no man, that's durutti!

If only I'd followed the advice I'd been given by one of the salty seadogs of the Urban 75 P+P crew when I made my debut here three short years ago - "Keep your head down, don't catch no-ones eye and call em all 'sir', in two weeks, you'll be one of the crew.....".

If you called me "sir" I'd be tempted to abuse you in writing quite severely.

But I do think I was the first to suggest that there was a place for a more nuanced and considered approach to the industrial scale donation of salaries to local authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that has just taken place. I hope the employers have the good grace to say "thanks".

It's not exactly a worthwhile suggestion, is it?

 

[durruti02]

You're right, now I think about it. I have been bold and presumptious, venturing opinions and asking naive questions when surrounded by titans of the labour movement like, well, yourself. I should really have known my place, and let wiser heads prevail. There is a place and time for freely expressing such views and asking such questions and this, clearly, is not it. I hear what you are saying - "Be quiet, the men are speaking".

If only I'd followed the advice I'd been given by one of the salty seadogs of the Urban 75 P+P crew when I made my debut here three short years ago - "Keep your head down, don't catch no-ones eye and call em all 'sir', in two weeks, you'll be one of the crew.....".

But I do think I was the first to suggest that there was a place for a more nuanced and considered approach to the industrial scale donation of salaries to local authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that has just taken place. I hope the employers have the good grace to say "thanks".

hey you good a digging holes .. you ever thought of being a grave digger?

look do not make out you are a hard done by saint .. not one has critised you for raising the idea of selective action, BUT for how you did it ..


so btw if you actually engaged you would note i AGREE with you on selective strikes .. my annoyence with what you said comes from being a steward for 20 years in a low paid area of local govt so i found your phrases ...

"..the realisation that the staff members weren't that necessary.."

"The point of my first post in this thread was to ask if anyone has done any assessment or calculation as to what the tipping point would be to make sacrificing pay worth it in terms of pay gains."

were both arrogant and patronising

now you qualified this with

" I know there are serious TU officials and reps who read this forum who must have thought about this, and I would be be very interested to hear their views." and "Just asking people who know about these things about the calculations that people make, and therefore, the wisdom for people in not-for-profit industries of withdrawing labour and sacrificing pay."

well i am saying to you i find what you said patronising and maybe you should take what i (on this) say and what others have said above your " ..deep well of experience of having once worked for a Council.."

and to repeat, i do not, and i doubt anyone would, disagree that selective action has a important place and you were right to raise it but not in the way you did

 

[durruti02]

That's no man, that's durutti!

If you called me "sir" I'd be tempted to abuse you in writing quite severely.

It's not exactly a worthwhile suggestion, is it?

he he

 

[exosculate]

The main argument put forward by union bureaucracies regarding selective striking has been that it will make management etc attack those specific sections of workers with privatisation.(public sector workers obviously). So if rubbish collectors strike they will be targeted for privatisation for example.


The reason this argument is no longer valid and in fact nonsensical is because large sections of Local Government and Health etc are either already privatised /in the process of being privatised/ or planed to be privatised anyway.

In this context the argument for selective strike action has never been more urgent or compelling.

 

[The39thStep]

The main argument put forward by union bureaucracies regarding selective striking has been that it will make management etc attack those specific sections of workers with privatisation.(public sector workers obviously). So if rubbish collectors strike they will be targeted for privatisation for example.


The reason this argument is no longer valid and in fact nonsensical is because large sections of Local Government and Health etc are either already privatised /in the process of being privatised/ or planed to be privatised anyway.

In this context the argument for selective strike action has never been more urgent or compelling.

You have managed to defy logic here. If large sections are privatised where is this selective action going to be targeted?

As a tactic fine, we did it in 1989 after a series of one day two day and three day strikes. But the reason why that selective action was effective was that through the six days of strike involving everyone that we had built up a head of steam that would deliver an all out strike if those members in key areas were dismissed or scabs brought in.

The idea that you start with selective action without that head of steam puts those members at risk. It is also a way of not building union membership. If it is just selected members that are on strike and the entire pay settlement rests on them then bother joining the union?

Fullyplumpeds arguement essentially appeals not to the union as a collective but to individuals ie if you listen to me I can save you money. Does anyone think that a rank and file campaign for selective strike action at this point is a show of strength or a show of weakness? My guess is that it would appeal to those wavering about striking not on the grounds of being the most effective but on the grounds of they will lose less money and someone else can do the striking.

The only time Local Govt pay has bucked the rate of inflation has been in 1989 and 2002 both times through strike action by all sections of the membership.

 

[exosculate]

You have managed to defy logic here. If large sections are privatised where is this selective action going to be targeted?

I think you misunderstand the public sector work force. Plenty of people are still in house but the direction of the wind is changing to privatised. However even the privatised work force are still accountable to the service provider i.e public sector management and they still have very common interests with in house staff still. We need action and linkage before its all privatised and conditions etc are seriously attacked.

As for the rest of your comments - you are talking out ya backside, support could be maximised and politicised by selective action.

Are you a union hack cos you sound like you are?

 

[The39thStep]

I think you misunderstand the public sector work force. Plenty of people are still in house but the direction of the wind is changing to privatised. However even the privatised work force are still accountable to the service provider i.e public sector management and they still have very common interests with in house staff still. We need action and linkage before its all privatised and conditions etc are seriously attacked.

As for the rest of your comments - you are talking out ya backside, support could be maximised and politicised by selective action.

Are you a union hack cos you sound like you are?

Sorry that I misunderstand the public sector workforce .having only worked for councils since 1979 you should appreciate that I am a newbie.

No not a union hack just part of the rank and file.

Support for strikes certaintly isn't maximised by having 90% of the membership going into work. And the idea that people become politicised by being passive is laughable.

The selective action arguement will be popular with anyone and everyone who wants an excuse not to be out on strike, popular with the Unison leadership if they get cold feet about more days all out action and popular with the Local Government Association.

You say 'we' in your post. What was the turnout like at yiour work place? What have you been doing to build for the strike and future action. Have you won your members or colleagues to your position or your branch?

 

[exosculate]

Well

Sorry that I misunderstand the public sector workforce .having only worked for councils since 1979 you should appreciate that I am a newbie.


Support for strikes certaintly isn't maximised by having 90% of the membership going into work. And the idea that people become politicised by being passive is laughable.

It isn't gained by losing which is certainly what will happen.

The selective action arguement will be popular with anyone and everyone who wants an excuse not to be out on strike, popular with the Unison leadership if they get cold feet about more days all out action and popular with the Local Government Association.

No, it will be popular with people who want to win and not just donate their wages to their bosses.

You say 'we' in your post. What was the turnout like at yiour work place? What have you been doing to build for the strike and future action. Have you won your members or colleagues to your position or your branch?

The 'we' in this is the collective good, who I am etc is irrelevant!

p.s Glad you are not a hack, but you are presenting a hack position I think, which I strongly disagree with as I am for the win.

 

[The39thStep]

Well



p.s Glad you are not a hack, but you are presenting a hack position I think, which I strongly disagree with as I am for the win.

Go and argue your point with the pickets.

 

[exosculate]

Go and argue your point with the pickets.

The pickets I'm afraid are not representative of most people on strike, I wish they were but we all know they're not!

 

[The39thStep]

The pickets I'm afraid are not representative of most people on strike, I wish they were but we all know they're not!

so you want to argue your position with those who aren't playing an active role in the strike?

You are proposing ( externally and not even as a striking union member) to try and convince 'key' sections of the workforce to go out on indefinite all out strike action ( and that is where they are unionised and can hold that position) but you don't want to argue that position with those who would have to convince others to come out on all out strike and picket if those sections were suspended or where agency staff are brought in?

Sounds a winner.

I have read your prolific contributions to the Big Brother thread. Take my advice stick to cheering on the contestants in a reality show, the realities of real life hearts and mind industrial action clearly aren't your forte.

 

[exosculate]

You are stupid!

so you want to argue your position with those who aren't playing an active role in the strike?

I will argue what I think is right

You are proposing ( externally and not even as a striking union member)

You know this do you?

to try and convince 'key' sections of the workforce to go out on indefinite all out strike action ( and that is where they are unionised and can hold that position) but you don't want to argue that position with those who would have to convince others to come out on all out strike and picket if those sections were suspended or where agency staff are brought in?

Sounds a winner.

More disruption is a winner, they are privatising anyway, I already said that though.


I have read your prolific contributions to the Big Brother thread. Take my advice stick to cheering on the contestants in a reality show, the realities of real life hearts and mind industrial action clearly aren't your forte.

What the fuck have those silly posts got to do with anything you offensive cunt.

You are an idiot, I do not agree with you, in my view you are wrong and the strike will fail. You have no concept of tactics whatsoever.