spotCampaigns

spotOrganisations

spotArguments for socialism

spotPeople

spotInternational

spotEvents

spotAround the UK


All keywords


All Campaigns subcategories:

Anti-capitalism

Anti-fascist

Anti-racism

Anti-war

Asylum

Black and Asian

Children

CNWP

Corporate crime

Disability

Education

Election campaigns

Environment

EU

Finance

Food

Gender Recognition Act

Health and safety

Health and welfare

Housing

Human Rights

LGBT Pride

Local government

Local services

Low pay

Migration

Nationalisation

New workers party

NHS

Pensions

Post Office

Poverty

Privatisation

Public Services

Socialism

Socialist

Sport

Stop the slaughter of Tamils

Students

The state

Transport

TUSC

Welfare rights

Women

* Workplace and TU campaigns

Youth


Workplace and TU campaigns keywords:

35-hour week (21)

AUT (7)

Aer Lingus (6)

Agency workers (50)

Airport (52)

Amicus (53)

Argos (14)

Aslef (84)

BAA (2)

BBC (167)

BMW (26)

BT (50)

Besna (18)

Bin workers (74)

Blacklisting (105)

Bloc (3)

Bosch (2)

British Airways (76)

British Airways (76)

Burslem 12 (9)

Bus workers (75)

CWU (329)

Cadbury (7)

Cadbury-Schweppes (3)

Call Centres (18)

Car workers (42)

Care worker (12)

Care workers (72)

Civil Service (218)

Classroom assistants (8)

Cleaners (125)

Clyde (6)

Coastguards (7)

Compulsory redundancy (9)

Construction (247)

Construction workers (160)

Corus (37)

Council workers (146)

Crossrail (12)

DVLA (15)

DWP (173)

Dockers (23)

Docks (8)

Drivers (203)

EPIU (4)

Electricians (70)

FBU (228)

Firefighters (221)

Ford (104)

Fujitsu (15)

GMB (239)

Gate Gourmet (7)

General Motors (11)

Glaxo Smith Kline (1)

Health and safety (80)

Heinz (6)

Honda (19)

JCB (14)

JIB (7)

JJB Sports (4)

Jaguar (16)

Jane Norman (1)

Jarvis (9)

Jobcentre (50)

Jobs (1413)

Journalists (74)

LOR (15)

Lecturers (94)

Linamar (40)

Lindsey (41)

Lindsey Oil Refinery (29)

Local government (245)

London underground (144)

Lucas Aerospace (5)

Manufacturing (56)

Metro (36)

Metronet (13)

Milford Haven (8)

Miners (173)

NASUWT (53)

NUJ (64)

NUT (357)

Natfhe (10)

Nurses (131)

Oilc (4)

Outsourcing (61)

PCS (899)

POA (87)

People's Charter (1)

Peugeot (8)

Pfizer (8)

Port workers (4)

Postal dispute (27)

Postal workers (139)

Printers (2)

Prison officers (53)

RCN (25)

RMT (729)

Railworkers (10)

Redundancies (119)

Redundancy (34)

Refinery (36)

Remploy (51)

Reps (52)

Rover (31)

Saltend (20)

Seafarers (9)

Shelter (42)

Shipyard (9)

Shop Stewards (244)

Siemens (3)

Single status (30)

Sita (6)

Social workers (16)

Sodexo (9)

Stagecoach (26)

Staythorpe (1)

Steel (91)

Strike (3069)

Sunday trading (1)

Supermarket (35)

TGWU (59)

TSSA (47)

Teachers (477)

Textile (8)

Thomas Cook (3)

Total (16)

Toyota (1)

Trade Union Freedom Bill (4)

Trade union (586)

Trade unions (395)

Train drivers (31)

Tube Lines (5)

Tube workers (49)

Tubelines (3)

Twinings (2)

UCATT (29)

UCU (212)

Unfair dismissal (15)

Unions (950)

Unison (972)

Unison witchhunt (5)

Unite (838)

Usdaw (134)

Vauxhall (48)

Vestas (26)

Visteon (92)

Volkswagen (7)

Waterford Crystal (1)

Wedgwood (1)

Whipps Cross (61)

facility time (9)

Natfhe


Highlight keywords  |Print this articlePrint this article
From: The Socialist issue 420, 15 December 2005: NHS in crisis

Search site for keywords: Pensions - Natfhe - NUT - PCS - Public-sector

Confusion over pensions at NATFHE executive

NATFHE, THE college lecturers' union, voted at its December national executive to reject the public-sector pensions framework agreement, which has been agreed by other unions including NUT, UNISON and PCS.

At present, it is hard to assess what impact this will have, if any, on the negotiations in the education pension scheme. It will have no effect on the negotiations taking place in health or civil service.

However, the NATFHE decision taken by 24 votes to 16 to reject the deal has been taken up by a small but vocal layer of activists in some unions who are using it to claim that the PCS and NUT should withdraw from the framework agreement and further, that they should never have signed up to the deal in the first place.

The call for the NUT leadership to withdraw is likely to fall on stony ground. Indeed, NATFHE general secretary Paul Mackney who opposed the rejection of the deal, pointedly said that he had already consulted Steve Sinnott general secretary of the NUT if he would do this and was told to go away, in two words.

Mackney, like other Lefts at the meeting, no doubt felt that the opposition against the framework agreement was a reckless gesture, with no real recognition of what sort of consequences it would have or the serious struggle the union would have to conduct to carry it out.

And, PCS leaders, while prepared to fight in both their own members' interests and the interests of the wider working class, have recognised that at this stage in the pensions struggle, they have to defend what they have achieved and fight for the best deal for new entrants.

At the same time, PCS leaders are ready to authorise further action should it be necessary, should the sector negotiations break down or if the government launches a further generalised attack on the public-sector framework agreement - as Gordon Brown has hinted at.

Also, the PCS has said it will "continue to build campaigning links especially with local government unions and support their campaigning initiatives aimed at securing an acceptable deal in that sector."

The NATFHE decision was also mired in confusion, with four resolutions on the table of which three were passed.

New entrants

One of the resolutions which was passed was seconded by Socialist Party member Andrew Price, who made it clear that it condemned "the government's proposed changes to the public-sector pension schemes that involve new starters and the weakness of the union's response".

Nevertheless, it had been passed at the NATFHE further education committee in the context that the union would accept the public-sector pensions framework agreement and work within it to get the best deal for new entrants.

However, this did not stop those who were to later vote for rejection of the framework agreement from supporting it. And, when the motion rejecting the framework agreement was moved, it did not stop supporters of it from trying to face both ways and claim that the successful defence of existing members' conditions was a "partial victory".

The movers of the motion seem oblivious to the contradiction in their statements that if it was a partial victory then why give it away and start from scratch. This is comparable to a general on a battlefield winning half a mile of territory and giving it back to the enemy because he felt he should have won a few more miles.

Also, the movers of the motion to reject the agreement did not suggest the obvious conclusion from the resolution that they should go back to NATFHE members and ballot them for industrial action to protect new members' conditions. This is probably because they realised that NATFHE members, like members in the other unions affected, would very likely accept the partial progress made so far in defending existing pensions and try and build on that in the sector-by-sector negotiations.

Instead, those who moved the resolution sought to get the NUT and PCS to reconsider their signing of the framework agreement. This was after some nasty personal attacks made by the movers of the motion at NATFHE's NEC on PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka.

He was mainly responsible for pushing other public-sector unions to agree a united stand that forced the government to retreat much further than it wanted on two occasions.

One immediate consequence of NATFHE's vote is that they will have no representative in the sector negotiations and will have no impact of possibly winning a better deal for new entrants than the government is envisaging at present. Instead, they will have to rely on the negotiating skills of NUT general secretary Steve Sinnott to advance NATFHE members' best interests.

As many NUT activists and members would warn them, they'd better not hold their breath in anticipation of winning much. The record of Sinnott and his NUT leadership group is not one covered in glory when it comes to conducting struggle for NUT members, let alone other workers in education.







Join the Socialist Party
Subscribe to Socialist Party publications
Donate to the Socialist Party
Socialist Party Facebook page
Socialist Party on Twitter
Visit us on Youtube

LATEST POSTS

CONTACT US

Phone our national office on 020 8988 8777

Email: info@socialistparty.org.uk

Locate your nearest Socialist Party branch Text your name and postcode to 07761 818 206

Regional Socialist Party organisers:

Eastern: 0798 202 1969

East Mids: 0773 797 8057

London: 020 8988 8786

North East: 0784 114 4890

North West 07954 376 096

South East: 020 8988 8777

South West: 07759 796 478

Southern: 07833 681910

Wales: 07935 391 947

West Mids: 02476 555 620

Yorkshire: 0114 264 6551

ABOUT US

ARCHIVE

Alphabetical listing


August 2019

July 2019

June 2019

May 2019

April 2019

March 2019

February 2019

January 2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999