Home Westminster UnionsMedia Activism
1SECTION

Daily Telegraph: distorting debate on public sector pay


by Dave Osler    
January 21, 2010 at 3:09 pm

Opportunities to skive, doss, bugger about on Facebook in company time, spend three hour lunches down the pub, take multiple fag breaks and generally put in as little effort as is consistent with not being sacked are not entirely lacking in the private sector.

I make these elementary points after reading the latest bollocks  in the Daily Telegraph on ‘the record gap between public and private sector pay’. The article is shockingly private sector supremacist, and built on the assumption that state and local government employees are labour market Untermenschen poncing off the soul-sustaining largesse of the wealth creation master race.

You know this guff off by heart by now:

Workers in the public sector are now being paid more than £2,000 extra a year compared with employees in the private sector, after public sector pay continued to race ahead of inflation.

The average public sector worker was paid £23,660 a year, compared with private sector workers who were paid £21,528 a year, in the three months to the end of November.

Cue the inevitable whingeing from the sort of people who often pull down 20k a month.

David Frost, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, warns us that public sector pay has “exploded out control”.

John Philpott, the chief economist at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, weighs in with the observation that “everyone knows the public sector gravy train is going to be derailed.”

Doubtless he would argue that the investment banking gravy train – a veritable Train à Grande Vitesse compared to the council white collar employee suburban stopping service – must be allowed to trundle on in the national interest. Perhaps I am missing something here?

Corin Taylor, policy director at the Institute of Directors, adds: “There will have to be a public sector pay freeze or public sector pay cuts. It will be painful but it is necessary.”

And here’s Frost again: “This just isn’t sustainable … The wealth-creating private sector is losing out to the public sector.”

Now that’s what I call a broad spectrum of opinion, ranging all the way from private sector bosses’ organisations to, well … private sector bosses’ organisations. Maybe the reporter didn’t have the number for the Unison press office.

Yes, there is a gap between public and private sector pay. There is also an obvious reason for it. Most unskilled jobs that were once in the public sector – refuse collection, hospital cleaning and that sort of stuff – have long been outsourced to private companies.

Public sectors workers are increasingly likely to be graduate professionals and expect a graduate professional’s wedge. Of course civil engineers get paid more than crew members at Burger King.

Inevitably, then, comparing mean averages is not comparing like with like. Grade for grade, any disparity remains decidedly in favour of forex traders rather than social workers.

Writer Harry Wallop and the Daily Torygraph damn well know this elementary argument. Yet they prefer to slant the debate to suit their small state ideological agenda. Opinion pieces should be labelled accordingly.

Cadbury’s and Kraft: what the left needs to consider now


by Darrell Goodliffe    
January 20, 2010 at 10:54 am

Cadburys has succumbed to the advances of Kraft in a takeover deal worth £11.5bn. Unions have expressed their concern for the future of Cadbury’s workforce.

They are right to be concerned; Kraft financed its takeover by incurring £7bn of debt and that will have to be repaid somehow and already, Cadburys Chairman has said job losses are ‘inevitable’. Plus there is the highly likely chance of asset-stripping.

Both Gordon Brown and Lord Mandleson expressed concern about Kraft’s intentions. Back in December Mandleson said;

If you think that you can come here and make a fast buck, you will find huge opposition from the local population and from the British Government

However, despite this both have been powerless to do anything and Mandleson now has washed his hands of the whole affair saying what happens is a “matter for the shareholders”.

But what happens to Cadbury’s is of concern to both British citizens, especially as we have to deal with the consequences of redundancies and we lose a successful British brand.

So, what can the left do to shape the debate in situations like this?
continue reading… »

The BA court order unfairly targets workers


by David Semple    
December 17, 2009 at 6:54 pm

The High Court ruled today to stop the 12 day strike of BA workers from going ahead. The grounds for this decision were the irregularity of including in the ballot cabin crew members of the union who were set to leave BA anyway prior to the strike itself. However I think there are grounds for viewing the decision by Mrs Justice Laura Cox as a political one.

Firstly, the inclusion of the 800 workers who are leaving (the number provided by BA’s legal team) could not have altered the outcome of the ballot. Unite represents 12,500 staff. On an 80% turnout, with 92.5% voting to strike (figures from BBC), 9,250 workers voted to strike. Even if all 800 of those leaving voted and voted yes to the strike, it would still not have been enough to sway the outcome.

Secondly there are some of the remarks made by Justice Cox herself:

“A strike of this kind over the 12 days of Christmas is fundamentally more damaging to BA and the wider public than a strike taking place at almost any other time of the year,” (BBC)

continue reading… »

Supporting the striking BA workers


by David Semple    
December 16, 2009 at 11:20 am

BA Cabin Crews have voted to go on strike over the Christmas period against the threat of reducing staffing levels through imposed redundancies and changes to staff contracts. 90% of the crews, on an 80% turnout, voted for the action.

There was some fantastic rhetoric flying about yesterday morning on Radio 4. BA Chief Executive Willie Walsh was reported to have said that the union shouldn’t bother going on strike, it should concentrate on helping the company reduce costs.

Of course the union might well have been in the mood to do that, but it wasn’t asked to help out. It was simply bypassed.

And now, though Walsh claims to be available for talks at any time, he has said that the central issue is not up for negotiation. So the union is absolutely correct to go on strike; this is not a case of simple costs it is now an attempt to de-recognize the whole union.
continue reading… »

Saving labour


by Kate Belgrave    
December 7, 2009 at 7:00 am

Tomorrow night, tireless leftie grafter John McDonnell speaks at a London meeting called to kick off a fightback against public sector union Unison’s vicious witchhunting of popular anti-Labour union activists.

Yours truly will be in close attendance, as will everyone who thinks the future should include a representative Labour party and democratically-run trade unions (I trust I won’t be the sole attendee).

Right now, we have neither a representative Labour party, nor democratically-run trade unions – particularly in Unison’s case.

Unison’s New Labour luvvn’ bureaucrats have lined up against shopfloor activists and members who believe that this Labour party has betrayed working people and that the union must stop funding the party as a result. Things ain’t been pretty for a while.

Some of Unison’s unelected officials appear at employment tribunal next week, accused of running a very nasty campaign to remove activists who insist that Unison cuts its links with Labour.

As I wrote earlier this year, these activists:

“have long held that Unison ought to cut the Labour party loose – and that’s a line that is making sense to more union members than Unison cares to see. The government’s war in Iraq, various doomed love-ins with big business, privatising of public services, and failure to repeal this country’s draconian anti trade union laws have stirred a poisonous – and possibly permanent – loathing for this Labour government in the average union member.”

So it is that Unison members are demanding an independent inquiry into allegations that union officials are actively jettisoning people who dare to dump on Labour’s record.

I will report back from tomorrow’s event. Suffice to say for now that Labour party members dying for reelection should take note. Unison has a million members and they’re very aware that their hardest-working shopfloor representatives are getting the boot for going off New Labour message.

The good people of the grassroots are buzzing with it. Throw them a bone and you might get something back. Do the math, if you will.

Financial solutions to the financial crisis


by Guest    
November 12, 2009 at 1:00 pm

contribution by Riz Din

How should the left respond to the financial crisis? Here are some issues to think about.

Clarity and Transparency
The complete hotch-potch of initiatives earlier in the year pointed to a government scrambling about in the dark. Now, at least, policy measures seem centered on the key prongs of fiscal stimulus, a gigantic asset protection scheme and quantitative easing. However, significant uncertainties remain and the lack of transparency suggests the public may be being hoodwinked at a very basic level.

Let’s take the example of the government’s asset protection scheme, an insurance programme that has so far agreed to underwrite losses on over £600 billion of toxic debt from RBS and Lloyds alone. If the economy stages a sudden recovery the solution could cost the taxpayer almost nothing, but if things go completely belly up it could well be ‘game over’ for the public finances.

Either way, the government surely has a figure for expected losses in mind that it is not revealing, or has it just written hundreds of billions of insurance without understanding the risks involved (can you hear the scary ringing echoes of AIG?). Is the outlook not foggy enough that we must add our own smoke to the mix with unnecessary obfuscation?
continue reading… »

Go and support your postman tomorrow


by David Semple    
October 21, 2009 at 6:12 pm

Early tomorrow morning, I shall be awake and walking down to the local Royal Mail depot to support the postmen and CWU in their dispute.

As Dave Osler points out, the issue has gone far beyond the mere question of who is right and who is wrong over the specific issues of modernisation. The question is now whether or not Royal Mail has the unmitigated right to do what it wants with its business.

Bearing in mind that the business survives on the labour extracted from tens of thousands of postal workers up and down the country, few of whom are paid very well – whilst their bosses enjoy bonuses on a level with parts of the City of London – I’m inclined to say that no, they do not. Modernisation must be agreed with the workers, or it simply should not be permitted to happen. It hasn’t been agreed.

In fact, Royal Mail have now said that they will only take the question to arbitration if the CWU give up their planned strike – which has been endorsed overwhelmingly by CWU members in a national ballot.

This amounts to asking the union to surrender before negotiations begin, and with the leaked Royal Mail policy document indicating that they want nothing less than union derecognition, it would be criminal to concede it.
continue reading… »

Postal workers: right to strike


by Dave Osler    
October 19, 2009 at 2:35 pm

The 48-hour postal strike planned for later this week represents ‘a suicidal move’ for the Communication Workers Union, according to Lord Mandelson. A leader writer on the Financial Times compares the CWU to Turkeys voting not just for Christmas but Thanksgiving as well.

But if any fatalities ensue, they will not be self-inflicted. As a leaked PowerPoint presentation documents, Royal Mail management has already drawn up plans to derecognise the union, and is ready to make good on the threat by recruiting 30,000 strikebreakers.

Meanwhile, TNT – Britain’s largest private mail operator – is also gearing up to handle a slice of the work. Trials have already taken place in several UK cities, according to one leading trade press title.
continue reading… »

Why’s the media giving Dorries an easy ride?


by Sunny Hundal    
September 16, 2009 at 2:05 pm

I pointed out not long ago that the TUC was not looking to ban high heels, only to stop employers forcing women to wear them. The medical evidence is clearly against employers. Now that the TUc conference is taking place, the motion is in the news agenda again.But you can’t even rely on left-wing newspapers to make this clear or call out Nadine Dorries.

Here’s the Tory MP again:

I applaud the society of Chiropodists for pointing out to me the dangers of this; however, having done so I now respectfully ask them to leave it me and every other high heel wearing woman in the land to decide whether or not we wear high heels in the workplace..

Of course this isn’t the first time Nadine Dorries MP has chosen to disregard medical evidence. Now, she wants women to have the choice to wear high heels, but apparently not to avoid wearing them.

The Independent today, while clarifying that the TUC motion is not to ban high heels, still lets her get away with the last word without asking her, who has actually demanded that high heels be banned?

It’s typical of right-wing politicians that when they don’t like a debate they simply change the way they frame it. It’s more annoying to see that left-wing newspapers can’t even bring themselves to call out those Tory MPs.

More reading
Left Outside: High Heels, Low Politics
John Innit: Et tu Konnie? The stilettos go in
Byrne’s Tofferings: TUC, High Heels, and Nadine Dorries

TUC conference: what is trade unionism for?


by Dave Osler    
September 14, 2009 at 2:30 pm

I don’t know if Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson are particularly up on Søren Kierkegaard.  But as the annual Trades Union Congress conference kicks off in Liverpool today, I reckon many union leaders could do worse than dust off their copies of Fear and Trembling.

The labour movement today is clearly facing what the Danish founder of existentialism would recognise as an existential crisis, a process said to occur when someone undergoes a deep questioning of the very foundations of his or her existence.

Now, I’m not sure if organisations as opposed to individuals can be so afflicted. But Britain’s trade union leaders really do need to ponder an obvious conundrum; what is the point of what they are doing? What, in short, is trade unionism for?
continue reading… »

New Labour factionalism raises its head again


by Don Paskini    
September 12, 2009 at 1:30 pm

One of the strangest political trends of the year has been the Blairites, who dominated British politics for many years, carrying out massive unprovoked attacks on their own reputations and doing their best to annoy and alienate people in the Labour Party.

This is in preparation for their total marginalisation and defeat by Neal Lawson and chums in an internal faction fight after the election. I find this for the most part entertaining, but also somewhat baffling.

Over the summer, most of their leaders resigned from government, so it is left to the second string to keep up the fight for the true cause.

This week, Phil ‘not the singer’ Collins, Tony Blair’s former speechwriter and chair of Demos, has a smug article in the Spectator slagging off the trade unions.

I understand that there is probably some personal benefit in slagging off Labour’s main funders for the benefit of a right-wing audience, but surely this sort of behaviour only hurts the faction which Collins supports?
continue reading… »

Different arms of the environmental conspiracy


by Sunny Hundal    
September 2, 2009 at 9:05 am

On Sunday Peter Beaumont wrote this article in the Observer asking: “What is the Climate Camp in London for?”
He goes on to quote approvingly from Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals (one of my favourite books ever) and then says:

I mention Alinsky because he seems to crystallise many of the failings, not just of the Climate Camp, but of significant sectors of the wider anti-war and anti-globalisation movement which have struggled either to articulate precisely what is their message or who have chosen, literally at times, to pitch their tent at the margins of the political debate.

Climate Camp, with its often hazy message and complex inner negotiations, with its indulgent obsession with its own workings, its insularity and the suggestion of elitism of its direct-action hard core, is in danger of becoming about Climate Camp, the institution, rather than about the wider fight to halt global warming. With all its energy and motivation, that would be a shame.

As applicable to Climate Camp itself, those are not criticism that should be dismissed so easily. But I see all this slightly differently. The problem is to assume that Climate Camp is the entirety of the environmentalism movement. It isn’t. It represents an arm of that movement: the more anarchic, activists interested in direct action and publicity stunts.
continue reading… »

The right to criticise union leaders


by Dave Osler    
August 27, 2009 at 8:00 pm

If your boss sacks you for wearing a crucifix to work, you may have a case the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. Clock on clad in a hammer and sickle lapel badge, and she can freely tell you to pick up your P45, you dirty commie bastard. Or so I had assumed, anyway.

But shortly we will find out whether or not Trotskyism is deemed legally equivalent to religion, after the decision of Socialist Party members Brian Debus, Onay Kasab, Glenn Kelly and Suzanne Muna to take one of Britain’s largest trade unions to an employment tribunal under these very regs.

All four have been banned from holding office in Unison for between three and five years. Mabledon Place says that is because they are racists; the four activists say they are being singled out because they are Trots.
continue reading… »

The witchhunt


by Kate Belgrave    
August 9, 2009 at 8:33 pm

Lousy news from the trade union front, people:

The New Labour-loving horrors who run the public sector union Unison have stepped up their campaign to purge their Labour affiliated union of all grassroots socialists and leftwing activists.

We on the left are not pleased.

The union has just banned four of its best grassroots activists – Glenn Kelly (Bromley Unison branch secretary), Suzanne Muna (Unison’s Tenant Services Authority branch secretary), Onay Kasab (Greenwich Unison branch secretary) and Brian Debus (Hackney Unison chair) – from union office for three (Kelly and Kasab), four (Muna) and five (Debus) years.

Their crime? – well, that depends on who you ask, and how highly that person thinks of Labour.

I’m one of the many who believe that Kelly, Kasab, Muna and Debus are being strongarmed out of Unison because they are Socialist party members. They are passionate critics of New Labour, passionately opposed to this government’s privatising of public services, and – and this is doubtless the kicker, as far as Unison’s New Labour lubbers are concerned – galvanising grassroots enthusiasm for Unison to break its formal funding ties with Labour. continue reading… »

No, the TUC is not banning high heels


by Sunny Hundal    
August 8, 2009 at 2:00 am

Nadine Dorries MP says on her blog:

Don’t ya just love the TUC? Apparently, at their forthcoming conference, they want to debate a proposal to ban the wearing of high heels in the office. Can you hear the collective sharp intake of breath and the no noo nooo from all of British office working womankind?

I’m 5ft 3 and need every inch of my Louboutin heels to look my male colleagues in the eye. If high heels were banned in Westminster, no one would be able to find me.

For those subjected to regular uninformed tirades by Dorries, who recently declared that Trident was not a weapon of mass destruction, this may not entirely be a bad thing.

The TUC is not looking to ban high heels in the office.

The news story originated with the Torygraph – which has long had a vendetta against trade unions.
continue reading… »

Welcoming industrial militancy


by Dave Osler    
August 3, 2009 at 12:46 pm

Britain ‘could return to crippling 1970s strikes’, according to a headline in Britain’s biggest-selling rightwing broadsheet on Saturday. And note how the Daily Telegraph says that like it’s a bad thing.

My first response is not to get my hopes up too high. Newspaper commentators have been predicting an imminent rerun of the Winter of Discontent every year for at least the last two decades, and have somehow managed to get it wrong every single sodding time.

Even today, the mere mention of trade unionism can still evoke Dirty Harry-style responses from the Heir to Blair, who only days ago told one interviewer:

Mr Cameron added: “My message to union leaders who think they can take me on is simple: don’t do it.

continue reading… »

Workplace occupations: good for the left


by Dave Osler    
July 28, 2009 at 8:50 am

I am just about old enough to remember the last time the British working class had the self-confidence to occupy workplaces threatened with closure. The Upper Clyde Shipbuilders work-in of 1971 was a major news story at the time, and may have done as much as anything to reverse Ted Heath’s tentative stab at Selsdon Man premature Thatcherism.

It was only later – when I became a Trot – that I learned the history of a tactic that, by definition, challenges the rights of the employing class to ownership and control of the means of production.
continue reading… »

Tory councils: rhetoric versus reality


by Kate Belgrave    
July 22, 2009 at 5:00 pm

Photo from Fremantle careworkers protestThe Tories are decimating local services, even as David Cameron claims he’s a great fan of local power: here’s more on local Tories who see the public spending squeeze as a justification to keep flogging public services off to the voracious private sector.

Another windy night in the Tory borough of Barnet, and your reporter is snuggled in with the crowd at yet another Barnet council cabinet meeting, watching and listening as this council’s rightist zealots pour forth another torrent of pro-privatisation, efficiencies horseshit.

As many good burghers of Barnet already know, Barnet Tories are working up a mad, massive and massively unpopular scheme (tweely dubbed Future Shape) for future public service delivery in lucky North London.
continue reading… »

Union slams BA over free champagne


by Chris Barnyard    
June 21, 2009 at 12:55 pm

British Airways has been sharply criticised for offering free luxury food and drinks while at the same time asking staff to take pay cuts. Unite, the UK’s biggest union, said it was “angered” by news that BA are to provide free champagne and smoked salmon for ‘taste of London week’.
continue reading… »

Lindsey dispute: in defence of wildcat strikes


by Dave Osler    
June 19, 2009 at 3:00 pm

Perhaps the tactic known by the immortal franglais neologism of ‘le bossnapping’ has something to do with it. But fear of the legal consequences alone would surely be enough to stop Total giving the entire workforce of a plant in its home country the boot, with no notice whatsoever at that. So why is it being allowed to get away with it this side of the Channel?

Yet there is no legal obstacle whatsoever to the French oil major sacking at least 700 UK employees at Lindsey Oil Refinery, and then telling them that they have until Monday to reapply for their posts.

The difference is that where continental countries guarantee some form of employment rights, Britain celebrates the hire and fire culture the point where Labour dishes out government roles to the likes of Sir Alan Sugar, in the misguided belief that this somehow sprinkles the Brown administration with some sorely needed showbiz stardust.

continue reading… »

« Older Entries ¦ ¦ Newer Entries »
Liberal Conspiracy is the UK's most popular left-of-centre politics blog. Our aim is to re-vitalise the liberal-left through discussion and action. More about us here.

You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or rss feeds.
RECENT OPINION ARTICLES
TwitterRSS feedsRSS feedsFacebook


25 Comments



21 Comments



35 Comments



15 Comments



33 Comments



11 Comments



19 Comments



13 Comments



7 Comments



138 Comments



LATEST COMMENTS
» TuringMachine posted on Former writer tortured by Belgian police

» Matt Munro posted on Four reasons why we should be defending the middle-classes too

» cyberbint posted on Our priority should be free childcare, not child benefit

» Bob B posted on Former writer tortured by Belgian police

» Matt Munro posted on Four reasons why we should be defending the middle-classes too

» Matt Munro posted on The Tories and the curse of proletarian fecundity

» Bob B posted on Shadow cabinet: why strategy triumphed over necessity

» TuringMachine posted on Former writer tortured by Belgian police

» TuringMachine posted on Shadow cabinet: why strategy triumphed over necessity

» David Wearing posted on Shadow cabinet: why strategy triumphed over necessity

» James Hubbs posted on Why Labour desperately needs Yvette Cooper or Ed Balls as shadow chancellor

» Jonathan posted on Shadow cabinet: why strategy triumphed over necessity

» Katie posted on What are Alan Johnson's views on the economy?

» Brian Vinay posted on What are Alan Johnson's views on the economy?

» Anne Long posted on What are Alan Johnson's views on the economy?