The Coalition attack on our jobs, services and communities: The NW TUC Response

The programme set out by the Coalition Government, particularly in its emergency budget is economically reckless and socially divisive. The NW TUC will play its part in defending our jobs, services and communities.

This statement sets out our key responses and outlines our campaign plan.

• Cuts now will make the recession worse. Private sector as well as public sector jobs depend on public spending. Poorer regions are especially dependent on public spending.
• The government sees cuts as the only way we can reduce the deficit. It is not. We should tax those who did well from the boom, not penalise those that did nothing to cause the crisis. Government needs to invest in growth not stifle the recovery.
• The coalition is breaking its promises that the cuts will be fair as they will hit front-line services; the poor and vulnerable; increase inequality; open up a new North/South divide; and let the rich off the hook.
• Some in the coalition have a long-standing political project to slash the state and are using the deficit as an excuse. Right-wing politicians and think tanks called for cuts when the economy was booming. Their agenda is driven by ideology rather than economic reality.
• Tax-payers are right to ask for value for money. Academy and Free schools, increased privatisation and ever more complex internal markets will deliver less for more.

Our campaign web site http://www.proudtoservethepublic.org.uk will carry the latest news, campaign resources and links to other material and nationally the TUC’s “Cuts Watch” is carrying almost daily features - http://www.touchstoneblog.org.uk/category/cuts-watch/

Campaign Plan
Lobbying of MPs and Councillors in their constituencies: Local trade unionists will be lobbying MPs and councillors – particularly Lib Dems in the run up to the Comprehensive Spending Review.

Lib Dem National Conference
Is this year in Liverpool and we will be organising a range of events and activities to particularly challenge rank and file delegates to reject the right wing agenda of the Coalition.

The NW TUC Campaign, Proud to Serve the Public will be holding a march and rally on the 18 September and there will be lobbying and other actions throughout the conference.

No to austerity – Priority for jobs and growth!
The European TUC is calling a European Day of activity on 20 September, unions nationally will be sending delegations to the Euro Demonstration in Brussels demonstrating against the austerity measures adopted recently by many European countries, and to demand recovery plans in favor of quality jobs and growth.

Speak up for Public services – nationwide action
We will be supporting the national rally and lobby of parliament called by the Public Service Liaison Group for the 19 October, the eve of the announcement of the Comprehensive spending review.

As part of that period of activity we will be coordination regional and local activities on the 22 and 23 October.

There is an alternative!
In November we will be holding a major conference for union officers and reps from private and public sector unions, voluntary and community organisations, service users to seek to understand the nature of the attacks and to develop our alternative strategies.

National march and rally
Our plans will be geared towards a massive response from the North West and participation in the planned national march and rally in the spring of 2011.

Controversy Over Fitness to Work Tests

The following article has been supplied by the TUC.

Iain Duncan Smith has denied reports that ministers are considering trebling 'fitness to work' tests on people claiming incapacity benefit. The work and pensions secretary said the government has at the moment 'absolutely no intention' of changing the 10,000 a week rate begun under Labour.

Over 2.5m people are on incapacity benefit or employment support allowance - costing about £12.5bn a year. The Guardian reported that ministers were considering trebling the rate at which 'work capability assessments' of people on employment support allowance from the current 10,000 a week.

Concerns were raised after comments this week from the chancellor, George Osborne, who signalled that efforts to take more of those on incapacity benefit off welfare will form a significant part of plans to cut the deficit. 'Incapacity benefit and employment and support allowance is a very large budget,' he said: 'We have got to look at all these things, make sure we do it in a way that protects those with genuine needs, those with disabilities, protects those who can't work but also encourages those who can work into work.' But Mr Duncan Smith told MPs said he knew there had been 'some speculation in the media' but the government intended to stick with its plan to launch a 'work programme' in 2011. 'We have absolutely no intention of changing this current plan', he said, adding the rate of assessments would remain at '10,000 claimants a week over the period.'

Under assessments carried out under Labour on new employment support allowance claimants between October 2008 and August 2009, 39 per cent were deemed 'fit for work' and a further 37 per cent withdrew their claim before the test was complete. But welfare campaigners say those who have been assessed as fit for work include people with advanced Parkinson's disease or multiple sclerosis, or with severe mental illness, or awaiting open heart surgery.

Unions slam 'work until you drop' move

The following article has been supplied by the TUC.

Unions have condemned government proposals to raise the retirement age, which could leave former workers in some of the poorest parts of the country receiving less than two years pension on average before they die.

Announcing plans to raise the state pension age to 66 and to abolish the default retirement age, work and pensions secretary of Iain Duncan Smith said: 'People are living longer and healthier lives than ever, and the last thing we want is to lose their talent and enthusiasm from the workplace due to an arbitrary age limit. We also need to recognise that to meet the challenge of providing an affordable, stable pensions system in a society with ever increasing life expectancy, people will need to work longer.'

But GMB national pensions officer, Naomi Cooke, said there weren't the jobs for older workers, adding: 'Increasing the pension age to 66 will lead to Glaswegian men living only two years beyond pension age while those in Kensington & Chelsea can still expect a 22 year retirement.

Given those living in areas of the lowest life expectance are most reliant on their state pension it is obvious who is hit hardest by the government's latest regressive announcement.' Construction union UCATT said the majority of construction workers are forced to retire before the age of 65 as they are no longer able to perform their jobs due to ill health or injury.

General secretary Alan Ritchie said: 'By increasing the retirement age the ConDems are effectively forcing many construction workers to work until they drop.' He added: 'Construction workers are particularly vulnerable to premature death, not only does heavy manual labour take a long term toll on the body, but construction workers are now the group most at risk of developing asbestos related diseases such as the incurable lung cancer mesothelioma. Given the long latency period of these diseases, they often manifest themselves when workers near retirement or soon after they retire.'

Dave Prentis, general secretary of UNISON, said: 'It may be a choice for the fit and healthy to keep on going for another year at work, but for some, work takes a terrible toll on their health.

Many workers across the public and private sector do very physically demanding jobs where carrying on until 66 is not a safe or practical option.'

More Myths from Self Appointed Right Wing Bodies Exposed

"Median pay in the Public Sector is higher than that of the Private sector"

While that is true (due to the over-representation of professionals like doctors, teachers etc in the public sector as most semi-skilled roles have been privatised), it is not true of the civil service.

In the civil service, median pay is lower than the private sector:

"The average annual salary in the Civil Service is £22,850. This is based on full-time civil servants as at 31 March 2009. This salary is £2,120 less than the national average for the private sector, which was £24,970 in April 2009.

National average based on median annual earnings for full-time employees, year ending 5 April 2008, ASHE 2009.

Around 63 per cent of civil servants earn less than £25,000 a year"

http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/facts/mythbusters/index.aspx#

...and pay increases since 1997 have been lower than in the private sector:

Page 61 of http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/Assets/21st-Century-Civil-Service-March-2010_tcm6-36188.ppt shows since 1999 average pay increase in the private sector has been 47% versus 39% in the civil service.

A good metaphor: "Today, my insurance company have cancelled my home contents insurance policy, as tomorrow they plan to burgle my house"

Pay Comparators - A Response To Statements From Self Appointed Right Wing Bodies

Members may have seen details in the media from non-elected organizations attacking Public Sector and Civil Service Pay. Most of these articles make false claims and assumptions about Civil Service Pay, incorrectly stating that Civil Servants are well paid in comparison to the private sector and the rest of the public sector.

Pay in the Civil Service (DWP) is lower than that of comparable jobs in the private sector with pay gaps of more than £5,000 between the civil service and private sector. However true like-for-like comparisons between public and private sector jobs are inherently difficult and the ‘average’ figures such stories use are skewed by the fact that many traditionally low-paid public sector jobs have been privatised in recent years.

Also missed is the fact that PCS members are suffering a double whammy. Civil service statistics published on 20th January 2010 show that our members are often paid less than their private sector and other public sector counterparts. This supports the work Income Data Services (IDS) has done for PCS in 2009.

IDS’s comparative study shows that pay awards in the civil service are so different from one Department to another, it colours the reality of low pay and lower pay compared to other employers.

Administrative officers across the civil service (48% of all staff in 2009) delivering a range of services such as getting people back into work, tax credits and passports are paid £4,608 (21%) less than their colleagues doing comparable jobs in the private sector.

Compared to the rest of the public sector the gap is £4,045 (19%) and for the financial sector the figure is £3,330 (16%).

Executive Officers who typically work in a supervisory role or a job which requires a vocational qualification are paid £4,783 (18%) less than the private sector and £3,945 (15%) less than the financial sector.

Compared to rest of the public sector the gap is £4,503 (17%). This is a key grade in the Civil Service and many of our hardworking members at EO are undervalued by comparison to similar roles elsewhere.

Higher executive officers who manage teams of people are paid £5,338 (16%) less than their counterparts in the financial sector and £4,305 (13%) less than those working in the private sector. Compared to rest of the public sector the gap is £1,873 (6%).

Administrative assistants who typically undertake clerical duties such as processing benefit claims, tax credits and self assessment forms earn £979 (6.5%) less than the private sector and £572 (3.6%) less than the rest of the public sector.

The IDS study received a lukewarm reception from the Cabinet Office and Treasury and no serious discussion of the findings has yet taken place.

However, the report does support PCS’s arguments in the 2010 National pay claim, that Civil Servants are not the protected elite of the public sector that the media suggests.

It also shows that the Treasury scrutiny of awards and insistence that pay progression, equal pay and other parts of pay are included in the overall costs, hide the poor increases on basic pay year on year.

This is a robust piece of work. The IDS job evaluation system has been used for comparison with the national statistics figures for roles in the wider economy.

The new civil service statistics for the first time reveal that the lower ‘average’ salary for a civil servant is £22,850 compared to £24,970 in the private sector and £27,686 in the public sector as a whole.

The higher public sector average is partly down to the effect of lower paid jobs, such as security and messaging services, being contracted out.

With 63% of civil servants earning less than £25,000, it is clear that by any comparison our members are poorly paid. And this supports our campaign for national pay bargaining.

Pay in the DWP
The former Chancellor announced a new pay cap of 1 percent pay increases for the next three years in the Public Sector. Pay cuts and pay freezes have been a common feature for civil servants as the Government has sought to drive down pay over the past few years, with all of the DWP staff receiving a 0% pay rise last year and 1% this year.

There has not been a golden decade of pay rises in the DWP with people getting on average a one percent pay rise over the past three years; however we are being asked to pay for the financial crisis none of which was our doing.

In reality, because of the fact that, uniquely in the Public Sector, pay progression in the Civil Service is costed out of Annual Pay rounds, this means negative pay rises, i.e. pay cuts of -1%, or alternatively no pay progression. Pay Progression is the time that it takes to move from scale Minima to scale Maxima. This used to be as little as 4 to 8 years in the 1980’s and is distinct from the Pay Rise element. This is how much the pay scale increases by; it is sometimes also called the "cost of living rise".

To explain this; without pay progression, two people doing the same identical jobs, but one is paid up to £5,000 per annum less than the other, in perpetuity.

A pay freeze as now announced by the new Government for any earning more than £21, 000 (and a measly £250 per annum for those below £21, 000) would therefore be a pay cut in real terms due inflation and also due to pay progression not being funded separately.