Report from a meeting of UNISON Branch delegates in the North West Region, representing members who are in the Local Government Pension Scheme.
(This included around 100 delegates from several service groups; mainly Local Government, but also Police and Justice, Environment, Community [voluntary sector] and Transport.)

This meeting took place on Thursday 5th January, and received a presentation from Heather Wakefield (UNISON Head of Local Government.)  Heather made a detailed PowerPoint presentation on the current pension negotiations, explaining why the union negotiators had reached agreement on the Principles for future negotiations with the Government.

Heather stressed that the negotiations were now with the Local Government Association (the national employers organization for Local Government) and stressed that these were much more amenable to negotiation than the Government.  This is probably true because they represent Councillors who – like staff – are members of the Local Government Pension Scheme.  Most Councillors now get a basic allowance of between £6,000 and £12,000 per year, and Council leaders usually get £25 – 30,000 per year on top of this.  Not surprising then that these people are anxious to retain the scheme.
Heather suggested that the LGA was concerned about the low paid in these negotiations,  wanting not to increase their contributions.  However, the fact that reportedly only 4 Councils in England have paid the £250 pay increase promised by the Tory Government to those public sector workers earning less than £21,000 per year, suggests that their concerns don’t run that deep.

Heather explained that the Government was demanding any deal with the LGA involve £900 million savings for the tax payer, but suggested that by working with the LGA this might not mean extra contributions for employees.  However, she accepted that the employers would have upper limits to their contributions.  She stressed that the pension funds were massive contributors to the economy, but that a loss of just 15% of members (through redundancies and opt-outs) could make them cease to be viable.  She high-lighted big increases in the fees for fund management, and stressed the need for schemes to work together to negotiate reductions in these costs.

She said the LGA were committed to retaining “admitted body status”, a mechanism which allows private companies that take over council services to continue to allow their staff to remain in the pension scheme.  However, elsewhere we know that the Government is moving to remove the obligation for such private employers to provide “broadly equivalent” pensions for the staff they take over during privatizations.  This will mean that few will be interested in retaining the right to become admitted bodies.

Heather stressed that negotiations would allow members of the new scheme flexibility in when they retired, and the possibility of contributing less and getting less benefits.  This is not particularly a good thing when the low paid get so little already. 

She claimed that the Government had moved a long way from its original position of wanting to end defined contribution pension schemes in the public sector.    In Local Government staff would not have to pay any higher contributions for 2 years, and possibly not even then.  Those within 10 years of retirement would be largely protected from any losses.   Members were skeptical that increased contributions could be avoided given that the Government was still demanding big savings.  Delegates were also aware that colleagues in the NHS would immediately have to pay more under their proposals, and that they should not be left to fight alone.
Delegates from the floor responded by saying that UNISON had moved a long way from its original assertion that the existing pension scheme was fine and should not be changed.  In agreeing the Government’s principles for negotiations UNISON had largely accepted that we would move to a Career Average Scheme, although we were miles away from agreeing an accrual rate for the scheme, and the basis on which pensions would be revalued each year to account for inflation.  The outcome of the negotiations would determine whether our pension was anything near to what we currently have.  Apart from the fact that union members had never discussed – let alone agreed – the principle of moving to a Career Average scheme, we seemed to have been steam rolled into agreeing the principles for future negotiations.

Despite references from the leadership to how great the action had been on 30th November, members questioned whether we had actually got anything more than had been offered before the strike. Certainly Danny Alexander was clear that no extra money had been offered.  Members pressed to know what had been achieved.  Many felt that most members would still have to “pay more, work longer and get less”.
Members reflected that the union had made clear at the start of the campaign that it would be a tough fight with the need for escalating industrial action.  Had we really made enough gains to stand the troops down after a single day of action?  Why was UNISON leading the rush to a settlement with the Government claiming it had won?

Heather was quick to suggest that the Teacher unions and the PCS were close to deals with the Government, and that if we didn’t do a deal we would be on our own in Local Government.  Instead of unity with other unions the approach seemed to be – better to dump them before they dump us. 
As ever, despite the assertion that the strike was strongly supported, the leadership was again claiming that the mood for more strike action was not there – an argument rejected by many delegates.  One delegate reported how members in their organization, who were not even able to join the pension scheme, had all gone on strike and joined the demonstrations, because they wanted to fight back against Tory / Liberal cuts.    After all, UNISON had refused to fight on Pay, or on Cuts to Terms and Conditions.  It had all been saved for the action on Pensions that would unite use all.  Now even that option was being rejected.  There seemed to be no understanding that refusing to fight had consequences well beyond pensions – like the Government announcement on the eve of the strike that public sector pay increases would be held at 1% for a further 2 years.

While many people were silent in the meeting, speakers were 90% hostile to the proposals, and in favour of pressing for a better deal by taking more action.  One delegate demanded an indicative vote amongst the lay delegates present so that our delegates to a national meeting in London (10th January) would be clear of members’ views, but this was refused.  The Chair explained that this was because there were delegates from several service groups present.  In a clear reversal of democracy she insisted that the democratic process was for Branches to lobby the delegates from their particular service group – a process which is largely secret and leaves them unaccountable to the rank and file of the union.

However, after that meeting it is hard to see how delegates from the North West could go to London and vote to support the leaderships proposals.  No doubt we will see.

I attended the meeting feeling pessimistic that the leadership had a deal sown up, and were just wanting to get that decision rubber stamped by the lay activists.  I left feeling there was a chance that the mood amongst members was so strong that the leadership might yet be stopped from a sell-out.  Hopefully such meetings will be repeated around the country and in the Health Service Group meetings.