Longest fall in UK wages since records begain. Another reason to vote no to 1%

Brighton GMB reject the pay proposals

http://gmb-brighton.tumblr.com/

It's not just UNISON activists and branches who are seeing through the shamefully inadequate pay proposals which have emerged from the national pay "negotiations".

The link above is to a temporary blog from Brighton's GMB Branch (a flagship branch for their trade union with a reputation for robust defence of members' interests which has spread far beyond Sussex).

Brighton GMB set out, clearly and coherently, why the pay proposals should be rejected. (I should add that I am quite certain that my friends and comrades in the local UNISON branch agree with them!)

Cross posted from Jon’s Union Blog.

How to support the call for a Special UNISON Local Government Conference

Manchester UNISON have submitted a requisition for a special conference. For the conference to take place it requires branches representing 25% of the Service Group to issue the same or similar requisition. There is a time limit on the process, branches should follow these steps by the end of November.

If your branch want to support Manchester's call for a Special Local Government Service Group Conference, follow these steps.

Pass this motion:

Requisition for a Special Local Government Conference

This Branch [Committee] agrees to call for the requisition of a Special Local Government Service Group Conference to consider the following business:

· The 2014-2016 NJC Pay Proposals.

· The decision to cancel strike action on 14th October.

· The future Pay Consultation protocols in respect of Local Government pay claims.

· The best means to secure a decent pay increase for Local Government members and to receive and consider all motions from Branches and Regions concerning the above.

We instruct Branch officers to submit this requisition appropriately as soon as possible.

Send this email:

If your branch agrees to pass the motion, then send this email to Heather Wakefield, Head of the Local Government Service Group at h.wakefield@unison.co.uk

Dear Heather

I am writing on behalf of our Branch to requisition a Special Local Government Service Group Conference.

In accordance with UNISON Rule D3.4.11 on xx.xx.xx date our Branch / Branch Executive agreed unanimously to call for the requisition of a Special Local Government Service Group Conference to consider the following business:
The 2014-2016 NJC Pay Proposals.
The decision to cancel strike action on 14th October.
The future Pay Consultation protocols in respect of Local Government pay claims.
The best means to secure a decent pay increase for Local Government members and to receive and consider all motions from Branches and Regions concerning the above.



Manchester request you let them know at  unison@manchester.gov.uk telling them your branch name and service group membership as of 1st January 2014.

North West Regional Local Government Service Group Reject The NJC Pay Proposals

MOTION as agreed by the North West Regional Local Government Service Group Meeting 14 October

Reject The NJC Pay Proposals

The North West Regional Local Government Service Group notes with dismay and incredulity the decision of the UNISON NJC Committee on 9 October to call off agreed industrial action and consult members on the‘latest’ proposals from the LGA on the basis they are “the best achievable by negotiation”.

The original offer was made by the LGA on 20 March without any negotiation, as a one-year settlement covering 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015.

The offer was at the minimum government and LGA pay policy of 1% on the pay bill ‘envelope’, which included for some bottom loading(primarily because the National Minimum Wage rate overtook the lowest NJC pay rate on 1 October).

The NJC Committee unequivocally recommended that members reject this offer - which they did, in every Region, leading to the ballot and industrial action on 10 July in pursuit of a ‘significant improvement’.

On 25 September the NJC Committee considered some‘new’ proposals from the LGA (made three weeks before the action agreed for 14 October, but more than two months since the July action). The ‘new’ proposals were for a two-year settlement covering 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2016.

It comprised of a one-off non-consolidated lump sum to be paid (pro rata) in December 2014, followed by a consolidated increase in SCP rates to be paid in January 2015 with no backdating (so effective for 3 months in 14/15 and 12 months in 15/16). SCP 5 would be removed in October 2015.

The NJC Committee rightly rejected these ‘new’proposals on three main grounds:

•      They were not a formal offer and under UNISON’s agreed constitutional procedures in local government we could not put them out to members for consultation.

•      For 2014/15 the total cash value at SCPs 26 and above would be less than the total cash value in 2014/15 under the original offer (the offer we rejected and took strike action to get a significant improvement on).

•      They were insufficient overall; giving little extra cash in 2014/15 below SCP 26 and raising pay rates at SCPs 11 and above by just 2.20% over the full two years,when the minimum government and LGA pay policy would raise pay rates by 2.01%over the same period anyway.

Following rejection of the ‘new’ proposals further‘talks’ were held with the LGA (at which no lay member was present) which produced the ‘latest’ proposal.

The only difference between these “latest” proposals and the previous “new” proposals rejected on 25 September is:

'0.45% of proposed new salaries on SCPs 26-49, of which £100 is to be paid in December 2014 and the remaining balance is to be paid in April 2015.'

An unnecessarily, and perhaps a deliberately,confusing form of words.

1 It means this for members:

For everybody on SCP 5 and right up to SCP 25 there are no “latest” proposals that benefit them whatsoever.

They would get what was in the “new” proposals unchanged.

Everybody on SCP 26 up to SCP 49 will get 0.45% of the proposed January 2015 new SCP rate paid as a non-consolidated lump sum in two parts. The first part is a ￡100 non-consolidated lump sum paid (pro rata) in December 2014, which is exactly the same as in the first “new” proposals rejected on 25 September. The second part is the balance of the 0.45% minus the￡100, and this would be paid as a non-consolidated lump sum (pro rata) in April 2015.

That second non-consolidated lump sum (pro rata and before deductions) would be at each of the SCPs:-

Additional One Off Unconsolidated Lump Sum Paid inApril 2015

SCP 5 to 25 - NIL

26 - £3 27 -£7 28 - £10

29 - £14 30 - £18 30 - £22

31 - £22. 32 -£26 33 - £29

34 - £33 35 - £36 36 - £39

37 - £43 38 - £47 39 - £52

40 - £56 41 - £60 42 -£65

43 - £69. 44 -£73 45 - £77

46 - £81 47 - £85 48 - £89

49 - £93

Nothing more than crumbs glued to the bottom of an already stale, flat and minuscule piece of crust.

In every other respect the ‘latest’ proposals are identical to the ‘new’ proposals that were rejected by the NJC Committee on 25 September.

According to the LGA itself the proposals represent an overall saving on the pay bill increase in 2014/15 compared to the original offer for 2014/15.

To better relate the ‘latest’ proposals for a two-year settlement to the original one-year offer it is necessary to compare the‘latest’ 2014/16 proposal with the original 2014/15 one-year offer that we have already rejected and a realistic assumption for a 2015/16 one-year offer. The original 2014/15 one-year offer was at the minimum government and LGA pay policy of 1% on the pay bill ‘envelope’, with some bottom loading at SCPs 5 to 10.

2 For comparison purposes it is reasonable to assume that if the LGA was to maintain its policy of offering minimum pay awards then in 2015/16 the offer would be the same as 2014/15, a 1% headline increase with the same amount of bottom loading at SCPs 5 to 10.

A more cautious approach would be to assume an offer in 2015/16 that was just 1% on all SCPs with no bottom loading.

The only difference between the two models is at SCPs 5 to 10, as there was no bottom loading in the original offer from SCP 11 and above.

In either case it is important to note that both comparison models would represent a two-year settlement position based on single-year offers we have already rejected, already balloted over, and already taken strike action over to seek a ‘significant improvement’.

The ‘latest’ proposals are little more than are branding of the original offer, extended across two years, and decorated to confuse people they are somehow significantly different and better.

But as close analysis shows, they are neither.

•      The‘latest’ proposals are still not a formal offer. So it’s unclear on what basis we are even able to consult members under our own procedures! But it’s even more bizarre. The letter to members attached to the pay bulletin is very clear- we will be consulting our members on a set of proposals that are not an offer, at the same time as the LGA is consulting every council over whether they agree to turn the proposals into an offer!

•      For 2014/15 the total cash value at SCPs 26 to 49 will still be less than the total cash value in 2014/15 under the original offer (the offer we rejected and took strike action to get a significant improvement on). The additional one-off crumbs in the ‘latest’ proposals - the only “new” thing in them - will only be paid in April 2015.

•      The‘latest’ proposals overall will still be insufficient; they would still be giving little extra cash in 2014/15 below SCP 26 and raising pay rates at SCPs11 and above by just 2.20% over the full two years, when the minimum government and LGA pay policy would raise pay rates by 2.01% over the same period anyway.

•      That’s just 0.19% more after two years than we would get under the minimum government and LGA pay policy.

•      Official  forecasts show inflation will rise by around 4.1% during this time.

•      These‘latest’ proposals will mean that SCPs 5 to 10 will still be less than the Living Wage rate (as a full time equivalent for a 37 hour week). So that part of our claim is not achieved.

•      These‘latest’ proposals will mean that all our members who currently earn less than￡21,000 full time equivalent (the Government definition of low pay) will still be earning less than ￡21,000 full time equivalent in two years time.

•      These‘latest’ proposals will mean that all our members on SCP 9 and above will see their pay fall further beneath inflation over the two year period April 2014 to March 2016 (overall by around 1.5% at SCP 9, 1.75% at SCP 10 and 1.9% at SCP 11 and above).

•      For the vast, vast majority of our members these ‘latest’ proposals would mean a further real term loss of earnings value over the next two tears (at least)with the knock on effects for pensions (way beyond two years). So that part of our claim is not achieved.

3

In fact, not a single part of our pay claim will be achieved or addressed under these ‘latest’ proposals. Not only that, we will beeven further away from halting the massive decline in our living standards,never mind starting to reverse the loss.

We note the latest TUC findings on falling living standards. In particular that UK workers are experiencing the longest and deepest fall in wage values since the 1860’s; and that 6.7 million people are now living in poverty, over half of whom are from working households.

In this context it beggars belief that the NJC Committee on 9 October overturned its own position from 25 September, called off the planned industrial action, and agreed to put these ‘latest’ proposals to our members without even the courage to recommend they should be rejected.

This Regional Service Group believes the implications of this decision could weigh long and heavy on our union in local government.If these pathetic ‘proposals’ are forced through it will, in all likelihood,hasten what increasingly appears to be the possible break-up of the NJC sector pay bargaining machinery.

If agreed these proposals would be a capitulation and a surrender notice to employers that the union will accept further pay cuts in real terms and take no action on behalf of members pay for at least two years,therefore every effort needs to be made to urge members to reject the proposals.

This Regional Service Group agrees:

1.    To send this motion in full to all North West NJC local government branches.

2.    To recommend to all North West NJC local government branches that the proposals  

       should be rejected.

3.    To ensure all North West NJC local government branches are fully aware of what these  

       proposals really mean.

4.    To record our thanks and appreciation to the North West representatives on the NJC

       Committee and Service Group Executive for their consistent efforts to promote and  

       pursue the need for a genuine campaign over pay on behalf of our members.

5.    To utilise a forthcoming Regional Service Group meeting for an honest, frank and

       detailed discussion on future pay bargaining.

How better off you will be in Beans

Someone of our comrades in London, love beans, that's all they can think of and when they heard there was a deal in the offing they wanted to know how they could stack their cupboards with heinz. These very scientific pictures show how well we are doing compared with Richard Branson (who also loves his beans)
 Unfortunately for us we also lost a days pay, Branson probably doesnt really work for his beans, but tuck up, these beans won't be around for ever.

Tower Hamlets and Havering UNISON branches recommend rejection of the proposals and reinstatement of industrial action

Tower Hamlets UNISON and Havering UNISON have passed the following motion to recommend rejection of the proposals and reinstatement of industrial action:

Motion on Local Government NJC dispute

This branch condemns the decision taken by UNISON’s NJC committee to suspend strike action on 14 October and consult on new “proposals”. We believe that this is a profound mistake that leaves Local Government workers facing further real cuts in pay and undermines the battle against government imposed pay restraint.

The proposal, of a 2.2% increase for most workers over two years with more for the very lowest paid, delivers no more than the 1% already offered for most workers in 2014/2015 and slightly less than 1.2% for 2015/16. It effectively accepts pay restraint not only this year but through the first year of the next government.

 We believe that what is proposed cannot be seriously considered as a basis for a settlement:

•             2.2% increase payable from 1/1/2015, covering pay years 2014/15 and 2015/2016.

•             Larger increases for the very lowest paid on Spinal column points 5 – 10 (from 8.56% to 2.32%)

•             No back pay but unconsolidated payments of £100 for most workers, £150 for scp 8-10 and £325 for scp 5-7.

•             Further small unconsolidated payments in April 2015 to bring the amount paid up to the equivalent of 1% for 2014/15

The proposal fails to deliver the Living Wage for the lowest paid – and indeed in those authorities where it has already been achieved the lowest paid could get no increase at all.

Calling off the action just as health workers were set to strike as part of a coordinated week of action leading up to the TUC demonstration “Britain Needs a Pay Rise” on the basis of such a proposal, that the NJC committee themselves could not recommend to members,  makes no sense.

We agree

1)            To recommend rejection of the proposals and reinstatement of industrial action, coordinated with other unions where possible.

2)            To use all the resources of the branch to campaign for this in the consultation process

3)            To urge regions and branches  to exercise their democratic right to recommend and campaign for the same

4)            To continue to build solidarity for health workers, civil servants and others still due to take action on pay and to build for the TUC “Britain Needs a Pay Rise” demonstration on 18 October.

Manchester Unison calls for rejection of NJC Pay Proposals and to work with other branches to call a Special Conference

Motion to Branch Executive 13th October 2014

Reject the NJC Pay Proposals
 
In the absence of any clearer National official information UNISON members and activists are naturally wondering what the radically "new, new" proposals are from the LGA that ‘caused’ the NJC Trade Unions to call off the strike action and move to consult members.
 
National circulars on Friday told us that the only difference between these "new, new" proposals and the previous "new" proposals rejected two weeks ago is:
 
'0.45% of proposed new salaries on SCPs 26-49, of which £100 is to be paid in December 2014 and the remaining balance is to be paid in April 2015.'
 
An unnecessarily, and perhaps a deliberately, confusing form of words.
 
But what it actually means is easy to decipher and calculate.
 
It means this:

For everybody on SCP 5 and right up to SCP 25 there are no "new, new" proposals whatsoever. They would get what was in the "new" proposals unchanged.
Everybody on SCP 26 up to SCP 49 will get 0.45% of the proposed January 2015 new SCP rate paid as a non-consolidated lump sum in two parts. The first part is a £100 non-consolidated lump sum paid in December 2014, which is exactly the same as in the first “new” proposals from a fortnight ago. The second part is the balance of the 0.45% minus the £100, and this would be paid as a non-consolidated lump sum in April 2015.
 
And, trumpets at the ready, here is what that second non-consolidated lump sum would be at each of the SCPs:-   


Additional One Off Unconsolidated Lump Sum Paid in April 2015

SCP 5 to 25 - NIL

26 - £3 27 -£7 28 - £10

29 - £14 30 - £18 30 - £22

31 - £22. 32 -£26 33 - £29

34 - £33 35 - £36 36 - £39

37 - £43 38 - £47 39 - £52

40 - £56 41 - £60 42 -£65

43 - £69. 44 -£73 45 - £77

46 - £81 47 - £85 48 - £89

49 - £93

 
So there it is. Nothing more than crumbs glued to the bottom of an already stale, flat and minuscule piece of crust.
 
Two weeks ago the NJC Committee rightly rejected the "new" proposals on three main grounds:

The "new" proposals were not a formal offer and under UNISON’s constitutional procedures we cannot put them out to our members for consultation.

For 2014/15 the total amount gained by those on SCPs 26 and above under the “new” proposals would be less than the total amount they would gain under the original offer ( the one we rejected and voted to take strike action to get a significant improvement).

The "new" proposals overall are insufficient, as they would only raise SCP rates by 2.20% over the two years (compared to 2.01% we would have got anyway without any campaign or even putting a pay claim in).
 
So what’s changed in the two weeks since and under these "new, new" proposals?

The "new, new" proposals are still not a formal offer. So it’s unclear on what basis we are even able to consult members under our own procedures! But it’s even more bizarre. The letter to members attached to the pay bulletin is very clear – we will be consulting our members on a set of proposals that are not an offer, at the same time as the LGA is consulting every council over whether they will agree to turn the proposals into an offer.

It is a farcical position!

For 2014/15 the total amount gained by those on SCPs 26 to 49 will still be less than they would have got under the original offer. The additional crumbs in the table above – the only "new" thing in the "new, new" proposals – will be only be paid in April 2015.

The "new, new" proposals overall will still only raise SCP rates by 2.20% over the full two years. That’s just 0.19% more after two years than we get under the minimum government and LGA pay policy. And official forecasts show inflation will rise by around 4.1% during this time.
 
Recapping to the aims of our pay claim.
These "new, new" proposals will mean that members on SCP 5 to 10 will still be paid less than the Living Wage (as a full time equivalent for the national 37 hour week). So that part of our claim is not achieved.

These "new, new" proposals will mean that all our members who currently earn less than £21,000 full time equivalent (the Government definition of low pay) will still be earning less than £21,000 full time equivalent in two years time.

These "new, new" proposals will mean that all our members on SCP 9 and above (the overwhelming majority) will see their pay fall further beneath inflation over the two year period April 2014 to March 2016 (overall by around 1.5% at SCP 9, 1.75% at SCP 10 and 1.9% at SCP 11 and above).

That's a further real term loss of earnings value with the additional knock on effects for lower pensions.

So that part of our claim is not achieved.
 
And to cap it all, if it wasn’t already staring-us-right-in-the-face bad enough, we will not be able to campaign for a pay rise until 2016/17 at the earliest.

When, by the way, stated government pay policy is for a further 1% limit.  
 
We may never know the true reasons why the majority on the NJC Committee voted to suspend the strike action. Or the real reasons why, in the face of these facts, they believe these "new, new" proposals are different in any meaningful way to the "new" proposals they rejected two weeks ago.

Or, importantly, how they amount to a 'significant improvement' over the original offer rejected by the members that justifies abandoning planned action to consult members on this insult of an 'offer'.

We may never know the real reasons why they weren’t even prepared to recommend that members should reject them in any consultation.
 
What we do know is this.

The decisions of those NJC Committee representatives are nothing short of a capitulation in respect of our members fight for better pay after just one day of action and the biggest sell out of our members in the history of this union.

It is akin to the National union printing tee shirts for members who are encouraged to attend the TUC march on 18th October saying "Britain Needs A Pay Rise" as the slogan. But adding "except for Local Government workers".
 
Our pay cannot be left to the weakness of the majority of the NJC Committee.

Our members must not pay the literal price in further pay cuts of a leadership so timid it calls off strike action due in two working days without any meaningful benefit to members.

If we are to have any hope of resurrecting a real pay campaign then it is down to activists and branches across regions on the front line to mobilise our members for the biggest rejection of these pathetic proposals that we can and get back to demanding a decent pay rise and to ensure the union stands up for our members.

The capitulation of last Thursday must be overturned and challenged at every level within the union including requisitioning a special Local Government Conference by getting support from Branches representing 25% of the national membership.

Manchester UNISON Branch agrees:

- to use all available resources to campaign for members to reject this suicide note in relation to our members continually declining pay levels and the intended surrender notice to the employers about there being any fight whatsoever for fair pay in local government for years to come.

- to promote this position at the Special Regional Local Government meeting on 14th October

- to support the requisitioning of a Special National Local Government Conference and work with other Branches to that end.

Proposed by Manchester Branch Officers.

See there website for more upto date info here

As health workers strike against low pay, local government workers question why arent we?

Rank and file opposition to the employers offer is raising its head more to follow but for now:

What do the proposals mean for Local Government workers? Rubbish now and rubbish in the future!

The pay proposals from the local government employers are rubbish now and rubbish in the future.

Rubbish now

In the current year the new pay proposals from the local government employers offer;

·       No more money  in 2014/15 than if we had accepted the employers’ first offer for everyone who earns more than £430.41 gross a week;

·       A pittance extra in 2014/15 for those earning less – barely enough to buy a round of drinks and much less than has been lost by those who took strike action on 10 July;

·       Coming nowhere near our objective of a flat rate increase of at least one pound an hour;

·       Failing to achieve the living wage for workers up to spine point 10.

Comparing the proposals to the original offer in 2014/15 (national pay spine) at various points demonstrates just how trivial the “gain” for the lowest paid is in these proposals compared to the previous offer;

Spine point	Value of previous offer £pa	Value of “proposal” £pa	Gain £pa	Equivalent gain per month	Equivalent gain per week
5	580	591	+11	92p	21p
10	175	182	+7	58p	13p
21	193	207	+14	£1.17	27p
26	224	224	0	0	0
31	265	265	0	0	0
41	349	349	0	0	0

Even for those who make some gain in 2014/15, this is far less then the cost of having taken a day’s strike action on 10 July (based on the national pay spine);

Spine point	Gain	Deduction at 1/365th	Deduction at 1/260th
5	£11	£34	£48
10	£7	£38	£54
21	£14	£53	£74

Rubbish in the future

The proposal doesn't achieve the living wage or anything like it. 

For the low paid, we sought to achieve the living wage of £7.65 per hour (£14,759 a year, for a full-time worker based upon a 37 hour week). The “proposal” leaves everyone on spine point 10 and below earning less than the living wage (set in October 2014) until at least April 2016.

The proposal does nothing to make up for the decline in our earnings.

The UNISON online pay calculator shows how much worse off we are as a result of the pay freeze. A worker earning £12,435 (well below the living wage) is £2,248 a year worse off but is being offered only £1,065 to make up for this, with nothing more until April 2016. A worker earning £24,982 is £4,905 a year worse off but is being offered only £547.62 to make up for this, with nothing more until April 2016.

The proposal does not break the Government’s 1% pay policy.

The appearance of a 2.2% increase in 2015/16 can only be achieved by sleight of hand, ignoring the fact that this is a two year deal (paid nine months late) and that the very worst we could have expected anyway, without any campaign or industrial action, would have been two successive 1% pay awards, which together would have been worth a combined 2.01% anyway. A settlement on the basis of this “proposal” would be gambling away our opportunity to fight for a decent pay rise in 2015 (a year in which a General Election will be fought in large part on the issue of living standards) in return for an increase 0.19% larger than the worst we could otherwise have expected.

Spine point (national pay spine)	Annual salary in 2015/16 under the “proposal” £pa	Annual salary in 2015/16 based upon two 1% increases £pa	Benefit of the “proposal” £pa in 2015/16	Monthly benefit of the “proposal” in 2015/16	Weekly benefit of the “proposal” in 2015/16
11	15,207.36	15,179.09	28.27	£2.36	54p
21	19,741.97	19,705.27	36.70	£3.06	70p
26	22,936.75	22,894.10	42.65	£3.55	82p
31	27,122.86	27,072.43	50.43	£4.20	97p
41	35,661.67	35,595.37	68.30	£5.69	£1.31

Preparing to build a campaign to reject the offer

More will be discussed in the next few days as the unions havent yet formally shared the details of the offer with all members. But it is clear to many already that we need to use this opportunity to tell our elected representatives of the unions to reject these proposals as they: - fall far short of our claim - mean our members will have actually lost more money this year by taking action than if we had accepted the measily 1% - tie us into a deal for next year when we do not know what inflation will be, and when in the run up to an election our unions may have had more clout (and which no unions had a mandate for) Watch this space for more on this over the next week.

Whats wrong with the October Pay proposals

Thanks to Jon's union blog for this useful explanation here