24.02.2005

Political fight to defend pensions

The government attack on public sector pensions is the most significant assault on workers' rights and conditions for a decade. It affects the largest section of employees in Britain, who are represented by a swathe of unions, including all the biggest. Theoretically, the ensuing struggle has the potential to unite millions of workers and pensioners in a major class confrontation with the government. However, prospects for a sustained action are fraught with difficulties. The attack is no surprise - it was first raised in a green paper over two years ago. Somewhat slow off the mark, and under pressure from left officials and activists, the leaderships of the big unions finally decided to act - last autumn they had looked the other way on Iraq in return for a few stale crumbs that made up the Warwick agreement. They thought it included an 'understanding' on protecting pensions - but it was all a sop. Weakness breeds contempt and Prescott duly started to put the boot in with a bill that meant the "non-negotiable" imposition of a pension robbery on local government workers from next April. More attacks are to follow. As activists and the left within the unions began exerting pressure for industrial action - and as Mark Serwotka, whose PCS members were also threatened with 100,000 job losses, argued for a coordinated cross-union strategy and strikes - the TUC summoned its troops. It called a day of action (last Friday, February 18) with rallies, meetings, lobbying of MPs, but expressly not industrial action. The calling of a day of 'safe' action instead of gearing up for coordinated strikes was obviously part delaying tactic, part controlling the struggle and part pressure politics on local MPs up and down the country. The TUC and most general secretaries want to talk, not fight. An early day motion to annul the bill imposing a pension cut on local government workers in April has now been signed by 128 MPs: 119 Labour (29% of the party's representation in Westminster), four Conservatives, two Liberal Democrats, two Plaid Cymru and one Respect. On February 12 five public sector unions met with deputy prime minister John Prescott. They wanted the government to withdraw the new regulations and enter into negotiations. Prescott gave no ground and the talks ended in stalemate. As unions began preparing for strike ballots, with Mark Serwotka coordinating joint action, Unison delayed issuing a ballot on the strength of further talks with Prescott. Whilst other unions pursued a coordinated approach to action against the pension proposals, Unison's Dave Prentis seemed to be pursuing a strategy based on negotiations alone. This caused consternation amongst members in PCS, who feared Unison might not go with a proposed strike on March 23, favouring more talks with Prescott instead. The PCS leadership, fearing being left to fight in isolation, temporarily considered deferring strike action to April, when teachers could well join in. There is a rumour that Mark Serwotka phoned Prentis at home and 'persuaded' him to stick to the proposed strike date of March 23. It is expected that all ballots will record strong 'yes' votes and between six and eight unions with 1.25 million members could be out on that date. Teaching unions are set to follow with a one-day strike in April, possibly joined by Unison and PCS, whose ballots allow for a series of strikes. Earlier attempts to get the action brought forward to include teaching unions (teachers are on holiday the week of March 23) were unsuccessful. Even though the Unison ballot is now underway (for discontinuous strike action, "probably starting on March 23"), it is quite possible that Prentis could pull the plug if offered talks or a minor concession. This is possible with several unions - but Unison is the biggest and most immediately affected. With his eye on the forthcoming general secretary election, Prentis is talking tough, but in reality he is trying his damnedest not to be awkward. For the left the main task in the run-up to the TUC February 18 day of 'action' was to try and turn a safe, top-down protest into a militant bottom-up revolt as the first step in a process of building confidence and activating rank and file members for a fight. From this point of view the day was a dismal failure. There were lots of small rallies and meetings, but it turned out to be what the TUC was hoping for - a small-scale protest that gave the impression of something being done, but was hardly noticed, including by members themselves. I have no doubt that many activists were comforted by attending rallies of like-minded people talking about unity whilst those they were aiming to unite stayed in the office or went to lunch. Militants and the left attempted to turn the day into something worthwhile, but, lacking real influence amongst the rank and file, were unable to affect the outcome. For example, Camden Local Government Unison correctly stated what was necessary: "Our resistance can start by turning the TUC day of action into a mass day of defiance"; but its rallying cry, "All out on TUC day of action", sounded more like empty posturing than any genuine attempt to build a real fightback (www.labournet.net/ukunion/0502/pensions3.html). Of course, after major working class defeats and decades of fragmentation and inaction it is very difficult to actively involve rank and file workers - who mostly do not even attend union meetings. Leaflets often go unread or can even be counterproductive. Some issued on the day of action rightly pointed to the scale of the struggle that was needed - a coordinated fight against the government - yet provided no analysis of how victory might be achieved or indeed any hint of a strategy beyond a one-day protest followed by a one-day strike. Unless workers are won to believe they can win - and that can only mean providing an alternative political strategy - the March 23 protest will quickly be followed by demoralisation and despondent resignation to an inevitable defeat. For local government workers there is also the direct experience of two recent disputes. Unfortunately, the lessons were negative and further undermined what little confidence existed in either the national leadership or activists: the local government pay claim that involved a united strike by Unison, TGWU and GMB, but resulted in a quick sellout for a three-year pittance; and, worst of all, Unison's utterly disastrous London weighting dispute. Rank and file members do not want repeat performances. It is true that the TUC day of action and the limited proposals from union leaders for one-day strikes does not amount to a winning strategy to safeguard pensions. However, there is a method in their madness - at least in the dominant group (TUC general secretary Brendon Barber called the day of action, but the TUC is not some disembodied entity - it is dominated by the big three unions: Unison, TGWU and Amicus. These alone can virtually dictate TUC policy, but they also have like-minded friends.) The tactic of tame protest rallies followed by a limited protest strike is not mere weakness (although it is weak). Neither does it signify an incoherent strategy - it is just not the strategy that workers need. The Warwick agreement, the day of action, delaying ballots and futile talks with Prescott all reflect the approach of the dominant Labour-Link group of general secretaries. They will not risk any damage to Labour's election chances, no matter how remote the chance of losing: their long-term strategy is for working within the existing structures to win Labour away from the Blairites and back to the days when ministers at least took note of the trade union bureaucracy's concerns. 'Reclaiming' Labour would mean, in the eyes of these union leaders, more influence for themselves and the possibility of winning concessions through high-level negotiations. In the meantime, the TUC day of action was agreed by those unions directly affected and under pressure to be seen to be doing something. This approach, then, neatly fits in with the historic class collaborationist role of the trade union bureaucracies, allowing general secretaries to wheel and deal in the traditional manner. They must, of course, try to win a better deal on pensions (or go through the motions of doing so). Either that or they risk losing their jobs. But the long-term interests of their members are that way subordinated to their strategic goal of winning back Labour and avoiding a Labour defeat. However, in the absence of any realistic leftwing alternative, or any significant rank and file movement, they can get away with staging token and essentially safe protests. Steam can be let off, but there is no head-on confrontation with the government. The response from Respect is dire. Lashings of liberal sentiment but as yet not even mention of the strikes. There was support for the day of action - we are told that the TUC is "absolutely right to be angry with the government". Hell, the four Conservatives who signed the early day motion could have said that. A strategy for building a genuine alternative is needed. We must go beyond just electing leftwing leaders - what is needed is the right to hold them to account and instantly recall them. Support leftwing leaders only to the extent they genuinely fight for the interests of the membership and the working class as a whole. We need a rank and file movement that cuts across union and sectional divisions and which is determined to organise action not merely campaign in the latest union election. Use every avenue: that includes affiliation to the Labour Party. But more is needed. We require a fighting political alternative that goes beyond the bureaucratic socialist sects. They have had their day. Nor can the Labour Party be reformed into a vehicle for socialism. Act as one, yes, but there must be full democracy and open debate. All economic and political struggles, here in Britain, in Europe and across the world must be coordinated. Capitalism has its state we need our party. In short we need a Communist Party. Unfortunately, though understandably, most union activists have their backs against the wall. They are concerned with being good trade unionists and to that end they rush from one dispute to another with no eye for the bigger picture. There are those, of course, who are members of this or that bureaucratic socialist sect, in local government and the civil service, most notably the Socialist Workers Party and the Socialist Party in England and Wales. However, they have no worthwhile strategic vision for the working class. On the one hand, they offer the paltry option of the Respect popular front; on the other, a Labour Party mark two; and in the meantime the brittle perspective of isolation. Moreover, the undemocratic practices of these sects are carried over into the unions - to the extent that most leftwing activists who win leadership at local level end up constituting themselves as an out of touch and manipulative petty bureaucracy. No real progress in empowering rank and file members can be made until these political problems are addressed and positively resolved. Alan Stevens