Speech: Where we are at & where we are heading: Trade union

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Speech: Where we are at & where we are heading: Trade union perspectives http://www.cwu.org/billy-hayes/?p=379" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I’m going to look at Trade Union perspectives covering topics which have been suggested – these are:

the labour market, post recession
Trade Unions in the future partnership working
pay and pensions
and whether we are facing a “winter of discontent”
The first point to make about the future of the labour market is that this is a contested field.

It is clear that the Coalition government wants the labour market, post recession, to be characterised by the removal of employment rights and protective legislation.

The government has announced its intention to undertake a general review of employment legislation.

Alongside this, there have been a large number of specific proposals floated.

Some of these have been specific commitments for an examination by government including:

employment tribunals
health and safety legislation
Equality Act
Others have been floated by government spokes people or by think tanks aligned to the government. These include:

the new Agency Workers Regulations
Maternity Leave
the National Minimum Wage
And, we have regular suggestions that there should be new restrictions upon the right to strike. If the government is allowed to carry through a reduction in protection in these areas, then the labour market, post recession, will be dominated by insecurity and super exploitation.

It is ridiculous to suggest that protective legislation is responsible for the economic problems of the country. Under Osborne’s austerity plan, the economy has grown by just 0.1% in the last nine months.

This is the worst performance of any major economy – apart from Japan which had an earthquake and a tsunami.

Last month 80,000 were added to the dole queue. When we examine that figure we find that one job is being created in the private sector for every 2.7 jobs lost in the public sector.

So much for the public sector crowding out private investment. In September the Institute of Fiscal Studies reported that the government’s deficit reduction programme will lower living standards by more than 10% over the next three years.

The type of labour market reform the government is considering would further reduce living standards.

Given the collapse of effective demand in the economy, a strategy of further cutting wages and benefits will deepen economic stagnation. It will not promote growth.

In these circumstances, the only rational response from the unions is to oppose the government’s deregulation of the labour market.

How the labour market will look, post recession, depends upon how far the labour movement is able to win broader forces to support a programme for economic growth, not austerity.

This brings me on to the role of the unions and the future of partnership working.

Partnership working depends entirely upon how far employers are standing up for the practice.

If they go along with reducing wages, increasing employment insecurity, and removing employee protection, then there is not a future for partnership working.

It takes two to tango – and why should the unions co-operate with employers abusing the workforce?

Let us hope that not all employers are as short sighted as the Coalition government. If that is the case then we can start by discussing how employers can contribute to overcoming the growing inequalities in income in the labour market.

Here I particularly want to focus on the need to address pay differentials between employers and executives.

I think the work of the High Pay Commission has been important. You cannot talk of partnership while one partner is subsidising the other.

The High Pay Commission found that in 2010 the average salary for a CEO is 145 times that of the average salary.

At the current rate of differentiation, by 2020 the CEO will receive 214 times the average salary. This represents not just a return to Victorian values, but Victorian inequality levels. I therefore support the proposal made by Ed Miliband at Labour Party Conference to ensure that workers are placed upon executive remuneration boards. This would represent a modestly democratic encroachment on executive privilege.

If an employer seriously wants to promote a partnership with their workforce then what objections can there be to such elements of restraint? Or are we still facing the old myth that rich people need more money to work hard whereas poor people need less.

This brings me on to the general subject of pay and pensions.

In the US and UK the proportion of GDP being returned in wages has been declining since 1979. It is not a coincidence that this runs parallel to relative weakening of trade unions. A reduction in trade union organisation leads to a rise in poverty and downward pressure upon the labour market.

Similar issues are raised by both pay and pensions. So an examination of the stakes in the dispute around local government and civil services pensions also suggests the general problems on wages.

The current dispute concerning the local government and civil service pension schemes is going to condition the terms of bargaining for the whole movement.

1 in 5 people in the UK are an active, deferred, or pensioner member and dependent upon these schemes. 12 million people are involved. The huge stakes are also reflected in the financial issues in dispute. The local government pension scheme has £155 billion in real assets.

The government wants the workers to pay more, work longer and receive less.

This is after the shareholders of Britain’s banks have received a bale out to the tune of over £1 trillion without a banker losing their bonus.

George Osborne unilaterally announced a 3.2% increase in employer contributions. Danny Alexander announced the increase in retirement age for scheme members from 65 to 68 with no negotiations. The DWP estimates that the change from RPI increases to CPI will reduce the value of the schemes by £73.2 billion over 15 years. In these circumstances, it would be foolish of union members not to make a fight.

It may be argued that things in the private sector are worse. Indeed they are. Only 35% of employees in the private sector have a pension compared to 85% of employers in the public sector.

This is an argument to raise pension provision in the private sector, not to reduce it in the public sector. Or perhaps we believe that the welfare of our society depends upon the growing impoverishment of pensioners?

No one knows the outcome of this struggle – which brings us on to the last issue. Are we facing a “winter of discontent?” The obvious rebuttal is that the evidence of growing social unrest is absolutely clear.

Last winter we saw the mass movement of students and youth.

In March we saw half a million people on the TUC demonstration against austerity.

In the summer we saw the riots – which affected areas which are suffering high unemployment and the removal of social services, especially to young people. I am certain that as the austerity programme sends unemployment higher and higher, so there will unrest.

Perhaps the question about a “winter of discontent” is specifically about a winter of trade union strikes? If so, then that is where we appear to be heading on November 30th. The government may back off, but Osborne insists there is no Plan B.

So it’s natural to assume that the unions will be forced to take action. We are not apologetic about this. Trade unions are organisations which aim to defend the share of national income going to the workers.

For over 200 years we have been doing just that – often in difficult times and difficult circumstances.

These are such times and such circumstances. If we are successful, Britain will be a better place.

Thanks for listening.

[apple]

Billy don't talk about pensions, you have not got a leg to stand on, "i will fight tooth and nail to protect our pensions" more like a whimper, anyway see greggs are opening more stores, thanks for the support on that one

[POSTMAN]

It takes two to tango – and why should the unions co-operate with employers abusing the workforce?

[fishtank]

A little less conversation, a little more action please.

[brothermagrew]

Seeing as you asked

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0vXxH1IEmQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[POSTMAN]

2 Elvis songs in two news items,summin aint right here.

[POSTMAN]

How did we miss this one!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU5G8kr5gdY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[fishtank]

2 Elvis songs in two news items,summin aint right here.

It's just your Suspicious Mind.

[randompostman]

http://networkedblogs.com/opF3e" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;