unity Tuesday 12 September 2006
Communist Party TUC daily
French trade unions have no limitations on their freedom to take any form of strike action.
‘Sack workers in Britain: it’s cheaper’ John Foster
John Foster is a member of the Communist Party’s economic committee. He was a contri b u t o r to the Red Paper on Scotland 1975 edited by Gordon Brow n
S
o said the president of General Motors Euro p e announcing job losses at E l l e s m e re Port this May. The previous month Gordon Brown published his ‘Case for Open Markets’ holding up Britain’s flexible labour market as a model for E u rope. He called for the
r i g o rous enforcement of the framework for labour market re f o rmset out in the EU’s Lisbon agenda in 2000: ‘The EU needs a process in which all sectors which fail to liberalise and open up to competition are subject to independent investigation and e n f o rcement free from
national political interf e re n c e . ’ What the EU re q u i red to stimulate its economic growth and competitiveness, said Mr B rown, was ‘structural reform to strengthen labour market flexibility rather than re v e rting to protectionism and s u p p o rt for declining industries’. continued overleaf
Repealing the anti-union laws is only a first step C a r o lyn Jones The repeal of anti trade union l aws has been the agreed policy of the TUC for some years. It’s telling therefore that this year, the FBU feels it’s necessary to call on the General Council to l o bby the gove rnment to ensure that no further anti-trade union laws are placed before Parliament.Their amendment is based on experiences during the firefighters dispute. And the FBU are not alone in feeling the hard hand of government and
the courts when in dispute.The fact that hostile laws are still being introduced reminds us that repealing the anti union l aws is only a first step.Turning the tide aw ay from anti union rhetoric and recognising the role unions play in the wo rkplace, the economy and the wo rld is a much bigger step. That is why the RMT motion on the Trade Union Freedom Bill together with the positive amendments from FBU, POA and ASLEF are so welcome. It reiterates the call for repeal and
updates us on the successful campaign over the last year. It also suggests how to maintain the momentum by taking the campaign into Parliament, into unions and into workplaces.The TUFB shouldn’t be seen as a one year wo n d e r. It is a matter of principle. Many of the issues covered by motions on the TUC agenda – from effective organisation and wo rkplace democracy to the use of agency worke rs and migrant labour - depend on free and effective trade unions.
We should learn from our past. In the eight years after the introduction of the Trade Disputes Act in 1906, trade union membership doubled ( m a i n ly amongst women and low paid workers). By 1920 it had doubled again. One hundred years on, wo rkers and unions need the freedom to operate enshrined in i n t e rnational laws and envisaged in the proposed Trade Union Freedom Bill. Carolyn Jones is director of the Institute of Employment Rights
2
unity TUC Communist Party daily Tuesday 12 September 2006
continued There is no doubt that it is much easier to sack workers in Britain than in France and other European countries – as Marks and Spencer found out when they tried to close their French outlets in 2001 and were ord e red by the Courts to stop. In France all workers must have written contracts and employers are not allowed to hire workers on fixed term contracts except in exceptional circumstances such as m a t e rnity leave. To make workers redundant a firm has to supply legal proof of economic distress to the relevant g o v e rnment ministries and to their employees, employees have the automatic and free right of legal appeal to independent tribunals with trade union re p resentation. And these tribunals have powers either to reinstate or force the employer to pay substantial financial compensation. In addition, of course, French trade unions have no limitations on their freedom to take any form of strike action. It was these rights which the French trade unions and students successfully defended earlier this year. Are these rights economically damaging – as Gordon Brown claimed – or just bad for unscrupulous and incompetent employers ? In 2005 the ILO published a major comparative study which predictably found Britain near the bottom of the list for job security and length of tenure. Did this mean that this labour market flexibility made Britain more competitive ? Not at all. There were seven countries ahead of Britain in t e rms of the pro p o rtion of high quality jobs. France also enjoyed very significantly higher levels of productivity – partly deriving from its investment in labour training and a stable labour force. And while Britain has lost a third of its manufacturing labour force since 1997, France and Germ a n y still employ virtually the same number of workers as they did ten years ago. (Peter Auer, Labour Market Security in a Globalised World, ILO 2005 and Stephen Bro a d b e rry and M a ry O’Mahony, ‘Britain’s Productivity Gap’, NIESR, July 2004) The unpleasant truth is that the present New Labour g o v e rnment is fronting a EU policy ramp in the interests of multinational employers, particularly US companies, who want to squeeze higher profits out of labour. They have already done this in Britain. Now they desperately want to do so on a b roader front and end ‘national political interf e rence’ acro s s the EU. All the more reason, there f o re, to strengthen laws on job security and trade union freedom in Britain and s u p p o rt the campaign against the Services Directive and the EU’s Lisbon agenda across Europe.
TUC social
8pm-1am TONIGHT Tuesday 12 September Midnight Blues Club, Grand Hotel Late bar Special Guests DJ Tickets £3 from Morning Star sellers or on the door
For renewable energy not a flawed review
Martin Levy E n e rgy is essential to modern industrial societies. After air, water, food and shelter, it is v e ry much a basic human need – especially with i n c reased reliance on private motor transport. But a double energy crisis is in the making. On the one hand, oil and gas prices are being cranked up, as the private producers cash in on rising demand and depleting re s e rves. On the other, the stability of global climate and weather patterns is under threat from continued combustion of such fossil fuels, due to rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is the context of the Government’s Energy Review. But the Review has been flawed from the outset. Tony Blair has already determ i n e d the outcome, making clear his position that nuclear energy is the way forw a rd. And in any case the Review will not tackle the root pro b l e m ,
namely the private ownership of the energy and transport industries and the consequent drive to maximise profits, no matter what the cost to consumers and the environment. Global climate change is not just an issue for the future . Its the effects are already with us, in terms of rising sealevels and increasingly unstable weather pattern s . This is a class issue too. As New Orleans showed with H u rricane Katrina, the wealthy will always be able to look after themselves while the poor will carry the cost. However, nuclear power is not the answer. In this small island, just one accident – or even a terrorist attack - could have devastating consequences. Furthermore, t h e re are only some 50 years’ supply left of high grade uranium ore, and in any case nuclear power is far fro m ‘carbon neutral’, when the whole nuclear cycle – extraction and processing of o re, and construction and
Tuesday 12 September 2006 TUC Communist Party daily unity decommissioning of power stations – is taken into account. A case could be made for nuclear power if it were for disposal of weapons-grade plutonium and highlyenriched uranium in warh e a d s and military inventories. But Tony Blair wants nuclear power for quite the opposite – to maintain these warh e a d s and inventories. A ‘balanced fuel policy’ means diff e rent things to different people. Genuine balance can only be achieved if the profit motive is taken out of energy production. That must mean nationalisation of the gas and coal and electric power industries, the big oil monopolies, rail and bus t r a n s p o rt and road haulage, so that there can be a proper p rogramme of energ y c o n s e rvation and planning. Technologically, renewable energy re s o u rces will in the long run offer both the least detrimental impact on the e n v i ronment, and new o p p o rtunities for Britain’s b e l e a g u e red power engineering industry. However, at present their efficiency is far too low, they cannot supply power on demand, and many people are c o n c e rned at the potential impact on our countryside f rom the massive proliferation of wind farm s . For now, the only way f o rw a rd is ‘carbon capture and storage’ – collecting the carbon dioxide directly fro m the production process. With road transport that is nigh impossible. However, as the NUM and others have shown, c o a l - f i red power stations using clean coal technology would dramatically cut carbon dioxide emissions while p roviding a future for Britain’s deep-mined coal industry. Martin Levy is a scientist and secretary of the Communist Party Northern distri c t
3
Unite to defend public sector pensions S t e ve Johnson Attacks by New Labour on public sector pensions have to be looked at in the context of their‘re f o rm ’ agenda of privatisation, job cuts and a fundamental attack on the whole basis of public sector provision. Talk of ‘efficiencies’ and bringing in ‘third sector’ o rganisations into health, education and probation a re part of the pro privatisation agenda of New Labour and can only lead to furt h e r fragmentation of serv i c e s and the loss of accountability. But just as the g o v e rnment is waging an attack on public serv i c e s under the guise of re f o rm we are also seeing attacks on the pension rights of public sector workers. This follows an ideological campaign to convince workers that there is a
‘pensions crisis’ and that the re t i rement age must be raised and the private sector be brought in to administer pensions. The p rotection for existing public sector workers which was won in the PSF framework agreement in 2005 is under attack. It is important that the unity amongst public sector unions which made that agreement possible be maintained in resisting f u rther attacks and in ensuring decent pensions for every b o d y. Trade unions must work alongside the National Pensioners Convention to oppose any increase in the re t i rement age and to campaign for an increase in the state pension and re establish the link with e a rnings in 2007. We must combat the view that there is a pensions crisis. There is no reason why decent
pensions and dignity in re t i rement cannot be p rovided for everyone if resources are prioritised c o rre c t l y. But this means taking on and defeating the pro - w a r, pro-big business agenda of New Labour. Steve Johnson is social worker and secretary of London Communist Party
£2 post free from the Communist Party www.communist-party.org.uk
Regional pay means poverty pay To ny Conway
This then is the reality of Brown’s statement to the CBI New Labour claims that it in June. It was to further does not have an incomes embed poverty pay into the policy – apart from in the public sector. public sector that is! Of course, regional pay is As late as July, in response designed to break up national to the rise in inflation to 3.3 terms and conditions and pay per cent, the Tre a s u ry wro t e b a rgaining, thereby weaking to public sector pay review unions, not only by making bodies stating that the incre a s e national action more difficult in fuel and heating bills was a but also by introducing a blip and that, as far as the market for a small total pay Tre a s u ry was concerned, re a l pot. It would result in inflation remained at 2 per significant inefficiencies and cent and would continue as inequalities. Public serv a n t s such for the next period. working for the same Therefore pay could not employer, doing the same job i n c rease by more than 2 per but working five miles apart , cent. There was a get-out would receive diff e rent pay clause that pay in, say, London rates. More anomalies and could be increased pro v i d e d more equal pay cases would pay in, say, Scotland was held be an inevitable consequence. down. Severe pay norms and
regional pay are also intended to cut public sector pay in o rder to make the public services more attractive to New Labour’s private sector buddies. The question has to be asked: why doesn’t Brown talk to the public sector unions about these issues, before he opens his mouth and sticks his boot in it! His unwillingness to do so shows that he is no friend of the staff in the public services or their representatives. We should not forget his record over staff cuts and PFI p rojects. We need a re a l Labour government and a real Labour prime minister not a Blair Mark 2! Tony Conway is a member of the PCS executive committee
4
unity TUC Communist Party daily Tuesday 12 September 2006
M i ke Wa l ke r ‘Nye Bevan would have actively supported the privatisation of the NHS’ He didn’t, of course, but this and many other untru t h s will be peddled by New Labour’s spin doctors at this y e a r’s Labour Part y c o n f e rence in order to r a i l road through their untried and untested re f o rm s . That’s why the NHS motions at this year's TUC – and the media coverage of
them – provide an excellent springboard to roll back New Labour plans. They spell the action re q u i red to unify unions, patients and communities in defending the NHS from privatisation and cuts. As TUC general secre t a ry Brendan Barber stated, ‘Health unions support reform that delivers better patient c a re. But too many curre n t changes seem to be driven by an ideological preference for the private sector and will not
benefit patients’. Ask any healthcare worker about the state of the NHS and they will tell you: ● too much bureaucracy ● too much privatisation ● too many ill thought out reforms. G rowing anger amongst NHS staff and the public at cuts and closures have lead to huge demonstrations. In the immediate fro n t line of New Labour’s assault on the NHS are those in primary care. It is incre d i b l e but true that thousands of district nurses, health visitors and many other primary care workers no longer know who they will be employed by f rom next year, or whether indeed they will have a job. Meanwhile hundreds of community hospitals and walk-in centres face the spectre of being handed over to the private sector. Labour used to have a commanding lead over the
C o n s e rvatives among the electorate on the running of the NHS, yet New Labour has squandered its historical moral authority as a series of u n i n t e rested Secre t a ry of State for Health delegate NHS ‘problems’ to political advisers – many of whom have links with private health concerms. It is a credit to health care workers that the NHS remains a touchstone issue for the British people. Trade unions at Brighton this week need to be focused over the coming months on ensuring that we are not robbed of one of our proudest and most popular achievements – OUR National Health Service. Join the ‘NHS Staff together lobby’ of Parliament on October 25 and support the national NHS demonstration. Mike Walker is a Unison officer writing in his personal capacity
Defending public services means opposing EU policies To m my Morrison New Labour responds to economic crisis with policies that disproportionately damage impact on the working class. They have no intention of taxing big business to fund public s e rvices, social benefits and pensions or of halting the decline in our public serv i c e s caused by privatisation. The motions on the government’s so-called ‘public sector reform’ from Unison, PCS and NAPO win full s u p p o rt from Congress as they recognise the reform for what it is – an attack on the role of the public sector. The p roviders and users of public s e rvices should be core Labour supporters but, as the NAPO motion notes, g o v e rnment policy is
threatening the effectiveness of public services and in some cases the very existence of those services thereby alienating workers and users. All three unions call for a campaign against the d e s t ructive reforms, with PCS u rging a national demonstration and a day of action and NAPO proposing a rally and lobby of Parliament. Unison called for alliances to maximise political and b a rgaining strength. Trades councils could play a key ro l e in winning communities for the movement against cuts and privatisation. Some may look to Scotland for an alternative way to ru n our public services and the Scottish Executive has launched a consultation paper, Transforming Public Services. Some in the movement
argue that Scotland has a model of cooperation not competition. But Scottish public services are riddled with PFI projects. The consultation paper believes that who runs a service is not important. It is up to the unions to counter such nonsense. Communists argue that the way forw a rd thro u g h o u t Britain is to build a bro a d alliance with the labour movement at its heart to campaign against privatisation, defend pensions, oppose the ‘marketisation’ of education, social services and health and to project a positive alternative. Unison’s call for a v i g o rous campaign led by the TUC General Council on its five points including p romoting pro g re s s i v e alternatives deserved the
s u p p o rt of Congre s s . But any debate on the attacks on our public serv i c e s which does take the role of the European Union into account will be unreal – as u n real as some views at the top of the TUC on the EU. The peoples of Europe are beginning to realise the true n a t u re of the EU as a tool of big business, and have developed mass campaigns against the Services Dire c t i v e and privatisation. It is EU directives which a re accelerating the furt h e r o u t s o u rcing and privatisation of our public services – and it is time the TUC leadership recognised the fact. Tommy Morrison is a Unison whitecollar convener and member of the Communist Party’s Scottish and executive committees