TUC:biggest strike since 1926!

[treelover]

At the TUC conference today, Dave Prentis of Unison and Mark Serwotka of the PCS union have warned that they now have 13 unions on board who are prepared to ballot for industrial over the threatened raising of the retirement Has the 'donkey' awoke at last, is it hyperbole or will it fail as usual. For instance, what about young people? will they strike over something that seems so distant



Unions threaten 'biggest strike since 1926'

Matthew Tempest, political correspondent, in Brighton
Wednesday September 14, 2005

Union leaders today warned the government that pushing through a rise in the public sector retirement age to 65 could provoke the biggest industrial action since the General Strike of 1926.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/unions/story/0,12189,1569881,00.html

 

[flimsier]

It's got rank and file support, and there's a lot of pressure....

 

[audiotech]

As Cliff said on many occasions; 'don't trust 'em'.

 

[Pickman's model]

probably be sold out like in '26

 

[Kid_Eternity]

All talk, I don't think it'll come to anything.

 

[exosculate]

I think this could actually materialise - the anger on the ground is strong on this one as I see it.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I think this could actually materialise - the anger on the ground is strong on this one as I see it.

I don't doubt the anger is there (nor justified) but will it translate into anything?

 

[exosculate]

I don't doubt the anger is there (nor justified) but will it translate into anything?

I really think so - its such a major attack which affects so many people. The union bureaucrats are going to have trouble not pushing on this one.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I really think so - its such a major attack which affects so many people. The union bureaucrats are going to have trouble not pushing on this one.

Fair enough, I don't doubt you're sincerety but still can't see rank and file acting defiantly against their leadership.

 

[exosculate]

Fair enough, I don't doubt you're sincerety but still can't see rank and file acting defiantly against their leadership.

Well its the best chance for sometime - time will tell. Its interesting if nothing else.

 

[belboid]

Something almost undoubtedly will happen - may very well only be a one day strike, an hen some shoddy compromise found, but I'll be very surprised if nothing at all happens.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Well its the best chance for sometime - time will tell. Its interesting if nothing else.

Perhaps...but yeah interesting stuff...

 

[sihhi]

Something almost undoubtedly will happen - may very well only be a one day strike, an hen some shoddy compromise found, but I'll be very surprised if nothing at all happens.

My guess is it'll be like the 2002 one-day stoppage but with better support from all branches of the major unions.

 

[William of Walworth]

Please check existing threads!!!! Cheers ....



<edit to add but not to bump>

I think this could actually materialise - the anger on the ground is strong on this one as I see it.

As I was arguing in the other thread ...

 

[treelover]

I did notice it, william, but i thought it merited a whole thread of its own, sorry

 

[Soul On Ice]

I really think so - its such a major attack which affects so many people. The union bureaucrats are going to have trouble not pushing on this one.

As a union bureacrats who is involved in this campaign I can assure you of two things:

1. The membership of most public sector trade unions are very hacked off about the situation with the public sector pension schmes

2. There is no desire on the part of the bureaucrats to "sell anyone out" on the pensions camapign. This view of the the bureaucrats is based upoin my discussions with full time officals in not only my union but other unions too. My union has been doing a lot of work recently organising around pensions and getting ready for a dispute.

To be honest I get fed up of this knee jerk response about "union bureaucrats" being the bad guys and constantly wanting to sell members down the river. What evidence is there that on the pensions issue that the unions are going to do this - other than a knee jerk trot response of "they always do that."

If your union is so crap get involved and change it.

 

[Soul On Ice]

Something almost undoubtedly will happen - may very well only be a one day strike, an hen some shoddy compromise found, but I'll be very surprised if nothing at all happens.

If there is a shoddy compromise as you suggest won't this be put to the members for their approval or rejection. I'm pretty sure it will be in my union and most if not all other unions. That's what being part of a democratic organisation is all about.

Or are you suggesting that the leadership of the union should ignore the wishes of the members? Surely not!

 

[belboid]

leadership of unions being too clsoe to Labour, and wanting to stay that way? Never!

 

[audiotech]

As a union bureacrats who is involved in this campaign I can assure you of two things:

1. The membership of most public sector trade unions are very hacked off about the situation with the public sector pension schmes

2. There is no desire on the part of the bureaucrats to "sell anyone out" on the pensions camapign. This view of the the bureaucrats is based upoin my discussions with full time officals in not only my union but other unions too. My union has been doing a lot of work recently organising around pensions and getting ready for a dispute.

To be honest I get fed up of this knee jerk response about "union bureaucrats" being the bad guys and constantly wanting to sell members down the river. What evidence is there that on the pensions issue that the unions are going to do this - other than a knee jerk trot response of "they always do that."

If your union is so crap get involved and change it.

I'm a rep in UNISON.

I for one don't deny your commitment to this, but the leadership will reach a compromise, if not affecting present public service workers, certainly future public sector workers.

As for the supposed 'knee jerk trot response of "they always do that"'? A quick look at history will confirm that to be the case.

 

[Soul On Ice]

leadership of unions being too clsoe to Labour, and wanting to stay that way? Never!

Maybe the leadership is too close to the Labour Party. But as I said, I would expect that in any pensions dispute the members (and not the bureaucrats like me, or even the elected executive) would decide if any compromise / deal is acceptable.

All I'm saying is that the decision will be a democratic decison of the members.

 

[Soul On Ice]

I'm a rep in UNISON.
I for one don't deny your commitment to this, but the leadership will reach a compromise, if not affecting present public service workers, certainly future public sector workers.

Compromise it may be - but any decison, in any union, to accept it, will be as a result of a democratic decison of the members and not the paid officers like me. Personally I can't see what the problem with this is. If the members don't like it the dispute carry o

As for the supposed 'knee jerk trot response of "they always do that"'? A quick look at history will confirm that to be the case.

Sorry if you took that personally - I think I was riled by the general comments on the thread. I don't even know if you are a trot. To be honest I've no problem with trots in principle - I know and work with quite a few who are good, democratic union reps who work bloody hard. We don't always agree but there mutual respect and trust.

Tho I've come across far more whinging, lazy trots who are happy to moan about FTOs, do little in their branch other than moan, and when they screw things up and then scream for the full time officer to bail them out. I'm happy to help any activist out - that's what I'm paid to do. But sometimes it sticks in my throat when some lazy git who didn't follow my advice and who regularly calls me, personally, a wanker to the members demands that I sort out his/her mess.

Rant over

That all said I really do think we are going to have a big public sector pensions dispute soon. There is much better co-ordination between the unions now than there was at the start of the year.

 

[William of Walworth]

I did notice it, william, but i thought it merited a whole thread of its own, sorry

Can't complain, in fact you're right, but I suppose I was a little bit frustated that hardly anyone was adding to the other ones. But perhaps both threads can be kept going ...

 

[audiotech]

Sorry if you took that personally - I think I was riled by the general comments on the thread. I don't even know if you are a trot.

Didn't take it personally. I'm lapsed.

 

[William of Walworth]

the leadership will reach a compromise, if not affecting present public service workers, certainly future public sector workers.
.

This is pretty likely, and in fact may be the Government's underlying fall back position -- to impose retirement at 65 on NEW staff after a certain date. I get the merest whiff of a hint in what Alan Johnson said today (see links I posted up today in the other thread) that he may accept already that the Government may have bitten off more than they could chew earlier this year in trying to go for the 'year zero affect everyone' strategy.

Sad likelihood is that most non-activist members of (probably) ALL Public Sector unions, who are rightly angry about these proposals, will prefer to protect existing protection for themselves than go for preserving those protections in perpetuity for everyone, which ain't that likely to be achievable, strike or no

 

[Soul On Ice]

Didn't take it personally. I'm lapsed.

A lapsed member? Or a lapsed trot?

 

[audiotech]

This is pretty likely, and in fact may be the Government's underlying fall back position -- to impose retirement at 65 on NEW staff after a certain date. I get the merest whiff of a hint in what Alan Johnson said today (see links I posted up today in the other thread) that he may accept already that the Government may have bitten off more than they could chew earlier this year in trying to go for the 'year zero affect everyone' strategy.

Sad likelihood is that most non-activist members of (probably) ALL Public Sector unions, who are rightly angry about these proposals, will prefer to protect existing protection for themselves than go for preserving those protections in perpetuity for everyone, which ain't that likely to be achievable, strike or no

Sadly, I've heard the; 'well it won't affect me' or; 'I won't be here by then' many times from public sector workers and that attitude is probably widespread.

 

[audiotech]

A lapsed member? Or a lapsed trot?

Both.

 

[Bigdavalad]

What unions are talking about strikes? Any jobs that the Army are going to end up taking over again (ie firemen, binmen etc)?

 

[belboid]

Maybe the leadership is too close to the Labour Party. But as I said, I would expect that in any pensions dispute the members (and not the bureaucrats like me, or even the elected executive) would decide if any compromise / deal is acceptable.

All I'm saying is that the decision will be a democratic decison of the members.

of course ultimately the final decision will be taken by members in a vote and in willingness to take action. but we are both also aware that how and when to call that action is in the hands of the leadership, and that maintaining the momentum of any strike action plays a vital part in convincing members that the union is really behind it, and that it can win.

the leadership do play a very important role in convincing members of what is 'winnable' - but not the only one. it's far too easy to be defeatist and go 'it'll all come to nothing'. Which is only true, if we let it be.

 

[William of Walworth]

I think the Government has been very reckless and overconfident in targetting Public Sector pension rights so unsubtly and indiscriminately. People across the Public Sector and Civil Service are REALLY angry about this, and 'they want to make you work 5 years longer' is quite rightly a prospect that is going to attract nothing but hostility amongst all workers, howver ununionised, unpoliticised, non active.

Once the threat is more widely know, there'll be even more anger I'll bet ...

So I don't think this will all come to nothing. The real danger is that any negotiated compromise will not retain sufficient protection, especially for future joiners. But a deal that doesn't retain a CLEAR right to retire at 60 with at least the same level of pension protection as now, will not be acceptable to existing workers. I think the Government may turn clever/subtle and start working out 'choices' -- multiple options -- you can retire at 60 but only if you increase your contributions, that sort of thing. It would be a marginal improvement over compulsory retirement at 65 but still ...

As I said above though, I suspect the Government may be aware that they've overreached themselves and that ultimately some sort of deal which protects existing people but not new ones, will be forthcoming, and that most TU members will bite the bullet and swallow that ...