UNISON has reacted angrily to COSLA’s decision to impose a three year pay deal, calling it a kick in the teeth to local government workers. http://www.unison-scotland.org.uk/news/2010/julyaug/2708b.htm
"COSLA has misrepresented the unions’ negotiating position and has said they value employees, while kicking them in the teeth. Imposing a deal is not the way to do pay bargaining and is totally unfair to hard working local government workers across Scotland", said Stephanie Herd, Chair of UNISON’s Scottish Local Government Committee.
Justified anger indeed, especially after a ballot of members resoundingly rejected the offer. Albeit it was not reportedly a huge turnout and was not at that stage asking for action, but as UNISONActive asked at the time, "the question arises as to whether this is a tentative beginning of workers reacting against the media's blind acceptance, shared no doubt by many of those same workers, that there is no alternative to cuts and 'we have to be realistic'." http://unisonactive.blogspot.com/2010/08/scotland-local-government-workers.html
Perhaps that is now about to be tested. It is true that there needs to be a level of realism. Despite the fact that there are alternatives to the cuts - and realistic alternatives - the fact remains that local authorities are cash-strapped.
Some of that is of their own doing, of course, by signing up to the 'concordat' with the Scottish Government, freezing the council tax for a third year, with the totally predictable result that they would soon hit a financial brick wall. Surely if there is £70 million available to freeze the council tax, it would be better invested in services and in the people who provide them.
Of course there is a danger of losing public support by seeking realistic council tax rises and that was recognised by the ballot campaign leaflet - "We don't want big increases in council tax, but the effect of this decision puts jobs and services at risk.We know that local councils have saved £258 million in the last two years. That was £83 million more than they were asked to - savings made by our members."
£83 million that would have been better invested in services. Add to that the hugely expensive use of consultants (£42m last year) and the millions put into the drive to outsource and privatise despite example upon example of failure, and the sympathy for councils' financial plight begins to wear very thin.
Yet again local government workers are being asked to subsidise the services they provide. Asked by the local authorities and the government. But what of the joint unions. Have they started asking the same?
It may be realpolitik to seek to 're-shape' a pay offer, especially if that involved moving to a one year deal in the hope that a better fight could be mounted later as public service workers' anger increases when they begin to understand the forces pushing through ideological cuts under the guise of financial necessity. That itself is a risky position given the really big cuts in Scotland will come next year.
It may also be pragmatic to accept that media coverage, forming public opinion (and indeed the opinions of many members) will not be sympathetic to public service workers seeking a fair deal when jobs are being lost and pay repressed both in the public and private sectors.
It may also be right to recognise - and deal with - the political realities. As Stephanie Herd said back in June, it was not acceptable "for these members to have to face a three year pay cut to satisfy political expediency due to Scottish Parliament elections taking place in 2011 and Local Government elections in 2012."
Of course we don't want to go back to the days when activists, wrapped up in socialist purity, unrealistically rejected offers on behalf of members, demonstrating just how out of touch they were by embarking on a charge to the barricades with nobody following - and losing us members along the way.
But when we mount a campaign based on the slogan 'it doesn't add up' - and then trumpet members' rejection - "it is not surprising that our members feel angry and voted no, when chief officials in local authorities were awarded 2.5% and teachers 2.4%" - you would expect the negotiating position would reflect that.
But it appears that the line has moved from a justified pay rise to to looking at 're-shaping' the offer without asking for more money. That may be a realistic reflection of whether workers are ready to take action on pay but, at first sight, it is an odd bargaining position. One that suggests a lack of confidence. One that makes you wonder why we bothered with the ballot.
.And one that delegates will await an explanation for with interest at next week's Scottish Local Government Conference.
JS
