Who would have thought it possible? Three years ago Peter Doyle the Regional Officer for UNISON in Carlisle pulled off a huge victory in terms of Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value worth potentially £340 million. The amount was so big partly because the case had dragged on for years and also because the extent to which the 1,500 women had been underpaid.

Far from taking up the cudgels and repeating the process using the “off the peg” comparators that Peter had used UNISON nationally took the view that they would only deal with individual equal pay claims and even then under sufferance. That represents a sell out of hundreds of thousands of low paid women workers.

Kerrrrrching!

Now, the GMB and UNISON are being sued by Stefan Cross the “No win no fee” solicitor or rather the “You win, we take a big cut…….. kerrrrrching” lawyer. The reason behind this being the Union’s “alleged” failure to fight for the “best” outcome on equal pay, in other words, the Carlisle option rather than Agenda for Change or Single Status, (the new pay structures that the national union is supporting). At the moment the legal issues seem to be revolving around whether the union is obliged to offer the equivalent advice that a solicitor would offer or whether its major role is negotiation. The legal wrangles could go on for years.

Equal Pay and particularly Equal Pay for work of Equal Value has been a ticking time bomb ever since it was made into law in 1970. But the full implications of the act were never really tested until the Carlisle case.  Now UNISON has lodged 40,000 claims and Stefan Cross has around 35,000 in the pipeline. But the union isn’t taking the lead on organising the fight for equal pay; it’s been forced into this position on the back of the Carlisle case on one hand and the threat of being sued on the other hand.

Agenda for Change seeks to address equal pay on the cheap. Single status, which has been going since 1997, is ostensibly a process to unify the conditions of manual and administrative, professional, technical and clerical staff. There are big anomalies in both (as the case of the Newham bin men who have lost £4,000 a year indicates).

The terms of the Equal Pay Act however are much broader than that afforded under either scheme and as such “Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value” is potentially a much better deal, i.e. the “best” deal referred to by Stefan Cross.

Rocking the boat

It’s a confusing situation for activists and it’s made much more so because of the position of the UNISON leadership. As we’ve explained on many occasions the current situation – a boom (until recently) and a Labour Government – is effectively the “best of the best in the best of all possible worlds” for the bureaucracy and as such they regard any struggle as rocking the boat. As we’ve also explained this inevitably sells the members short. It also explains the witch hunt against sections of the left (primarily the SWP) in the union.

In this context it’s clear to see through Agenda for Change as a cheap way around Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value in the NHS and single status as broadly similar in local government. In this context surely the Carlisle option is the only way ahead.

Marxist Fighter

As in all situations within the class struggle the role of leadership and even of individuals in crucial. In Carlisle the Equal Pay campaign was lead by an experienced Marxist fighter with a history in the Marxist Tendency going back to the early 1960’s. Peter also had the advantage of being “under the radar” of the bureaucracy in preparing the claim, since he had been sent to Carlisle to “keep him quiet” – which was very unlikely to happen, having said that, he was subjected to a huge amount of personal pressure by the bureaucracy and was hounded for his campaign.

But the huge amount of work that was done around the Carlisle campaign doesn’t need to be repeated in every case. As explained before, it’s an “off the peg” claim that can be applied in any hospital or PCT. The reason for this being that the NHS is fairly homogenous. A cleaner in Brighton does more or less the same as a cleaner in Sunderland. A nurse in Blackpool does more or less the same as a nurse in Colchester. The comparators are relevant to every area, although the bureaucracy’s line is that Stefan Cross is having more success in the acute trusts – but they are the easiest ones to market the claims to.

Political reasons

The UNISON bureaucracy’s reasons for not going hell for leather on this issue are completely political. Basically the view of the bureaucracy is that a domino effect of equal pay claims would put huge strains on the NHS and might affect jobs. But of course, how much has been wasted on bailing out Northern Rock, rather than immediately nationalising it? It’s much more the case that the banking crisis will affect the NHS than equal pay. How many billions are being wasted on PFI which is nothing more than a licence to print money for the capitalist contractors?

There is a degree of support for this line among the activists as well. But the underpaid women in the NHS have a somewhat different view. There are thousands of cases in the system at the moment and people like Stefan Cross are making a fortune out of it. For many low paid women workers equal pay is a way out of the poverty they suffer on a day to day basis.

Fight poverty!

The Marxists have to be absolutely clear in respect to this question. We would have to say that this situation is a product of the bureaucracy trying to arbitrate between the membership and the management, instead of coming down on the side of representing the members properly. It is inconvenient for the Labour Party to have to pay out on Equal Pay, but it’s a lot more inconvenient to live in poverty. Of course we don’t condone the actions of Stefan Cross in taking Unions to the high court, but we can identify many occasions when the bureaucracy have acted like a wet blanket or have attempted to hold back the members.

Collective Struggle

Marxists have to be the best fighters in respect of economic and political demands and on that basis the best option has to be the Carlisle option. This was a united action by 1,500 women a clear example of “collective” struggle. Fair enough once the case had been through tribunal then claiming the money becomes an individual action, but the success of the Carlisle case over 8 years was the unity of the women. Agenda for change and single status are “collective agreements” but they hardly compare in their outcome to the Carlisle case. UNISON nationally came up with the worst possible position when they reacted to the news reports of the Carlisle case and sent out hundreds of thousands of letters telling members that they may have an individual case for an equal pay claim. That turned a collective action into an individual decision for members. In other words it was a cop out and a frantic attempt to cover their backs.

Campaign in the union

Inside UNISON however it is unlikely that the bureaucracy would tolerate an individual branch organising a similar campaign to the Carlisle campaign and would endeavour to smash it up as soon as possible. However it remains an important lesson and an important weapon that Marxists should campaign for wherever possible. The fight needs to be taken into the union as a whole, equal pay is a huge issue. Where it is impossible to take the campaign forward on that basis however it is important to fight for the best outcome in any negotiation and equal pay claims represent an important bargaining weapon as well as being an end in itself.

In some areas however, such as Manchester, the union has agreed that management will buy out the option of making equal pay claims and many workers have taken this up. However attractive this option might seem compared to equal pay it is still only a partial solution.

The class struggle is a battle of living forces and trade union struggles are often complex and difficult. They are made even more difficult by the union bureaucracy cuddling up to the labour leadership, instead of representing the members. UNISON has the potential to become a fighting organisation of the working class, but as the fiasco over last year’s pay and the confusion over equal pay is concerned there is a long way to go.