Socialist Party Unison

Local Government Pay

Strike Ballot Now!

by Vicky Ingram, National Local Government Committee (personal capacity)

The pay offer must be rejected! 2.75% is not enough for this year nor is 2.95% enough for the next two.

There is no guarantee that the British economy will ‘remain’ stable for the next two years and year 2’s offer is not inflation proofed.

Three-year deals may be good for the employers but they are no good for members.

Poverty pay is a big problem, no matter what the pay commission said. None of us should have to claim benefits to enable us to survive.

Comparing the pay of cleaners, school crossing patrol wardens, midday supervisors with other low-paid workers does not prove they are well-paid – it simply shows many other employers are even more unscrupulous!

Many workers in schools, libraries and social services are not on the bottom of the pay scale but their skills and ‘flexibility’ will continue to go unrewarded.

Our claim was modest – 4% + £200 with the abolition of the lowest 3 points. This offer is unacceptable. £5.80 an hour by 2006 is not a decent wage in the world’s 4th richest economy.

The remainder of the claim - increases in annual, maternity and adoption leave – have not been met and will now come under a joint review of Part 2.

On the back of the Government’s document ‘Pay & Strategy for Local Government’, the employers plan a major assault on our terms and conditions. It starts with this pay offer!

The employers want all premium rates to be agreed locally.

We may have been ‘successful’ in retaining the existing terms if there is no local agreement but everything about Working Arrangements is up for a national joint review to finish in 2007.

The next 36 months will see local authorities bullying and harassing members to accept cuts in premium rates in preparation for a wholesale scrapping of nationally agreed rates in 2007.

The employers’ summary to its own members clearly states this is "a review of national conditions of service"!

The employers say that their offer takes into account the projected costs of local pay reviews and the ‘substantial’ increase in employer pension contributions expected from April 2005. So we lose money up front to get a half-decent pension and a pay review where we might lose out!

They also say:

"This proposal contains within it an explicit expectation that authorities will take the opportunity to modernise their pay and rewards provisions by modifying premium rates, withdrawing spurious bonus schemes, introducing new pay structures and moving away from purely time-served incremental progression."

As with single status, branches will be left to fight alone.

The employers are clear what this deal will mean to them. Our leaders meanwhile have again sat on the fence.

By not calling for a decisive rejection of the offer members are left feeling that their leadership is not prepared to fight. "The members must decide" means "because we’re not prepared to lead".

Desperate, in case conference rejected the offer, our leaders have rushed out a consultative ballot without a recommendation.

Delegates should support emergency motions calling for the consultative ballot to be scrapped and replaced by a national industrial action ballot with a recommendation for a yes vote.

This is the only step we can take to see a decent pay award in 2004 and start fighting against the employers’ assault on all our conditions of service.