Britain: Unions call off national strike on March 28th – Where do we go from here?

A few weeks ago, everyone was expecting industrial action on 28 March in the next stage in the pensions’ campaign involving the public sector unions PCS, NUT, and UCU. A section of the RMT was also due to take part, as was the FBU. There were high expectations that up to a million trade unionists would take industrial action to defend workers against the vicious attacks of the Tory-Lib-Dem coalition. In the end, one union after another pulled out.

Despite everything, we ended up with a one-day strike and demonstration of London NUT and London UCU members, with PCS offering support but not striking. This situation has been met with anger and disappointment by many trade unionists, particularly when there was an overwhelming mandate for action from union members.

The campaign against the government’s policies got off to a good start in March of last year when the TUC organised the biggest trade union demonstration in British history. This was followed up by a public sector strike on 30 June and national action by 29 trade unions on 30 November, which mobilised between 2 and 3 million workers. The trade union movement was finally making its voice heard loud and clear.

That was the way to proceed! This government of flint-faced City slickers and their Lib-Dem hangers-on can only understand one language: the language of action. Feeble appeals and moderation will only achieve one thing. It will convince them that the unions are all talk and no fight. It will encourage them to stick the boot in even more, starting with the introduction of regional pay. Weakness invites aggression.

All this is a closed book for the right-wing trade union leaders. The government made a few meagre concessions, and immediately two of the biggest trade unions, Unison and the GMB, together with some smaller unions shamefully signed up to the framework suggested by the government. Prentis and Paul Kenny fell over themselves to sign up to a rotten deal.

It is clear that they were intending to do this all along and only reluctantly agreed to take action because of the intense pressure from their own members. The so-called “concessions” will mean that most workers would be forced to work longer, pay in more and receive less in pension entitlement. Instead of maintaining a united front, some right-wing union leaders were anxious to settle.

The argument of the right-wing union leaders is that we must basically accept the government’s offer. The problem with this argument is that as the crisis deepens, even these “agreements” will not be worth the paper they are written on. Just look at what has happened in Ireland. Under the Croke Park Agreement two years ago the government agreed not to cut wages for four years in exchange for the unions agreeing to public services “reforms”? That agreement is already under attack. The same will happen here. For every step back the union leaders make, the government will demand ten more.

The capitulation of the right wing was a complete sell-out. It has rightly provoked a wave of anger and criticism in the ranks of those unions. UNISON in particular faced internal opposition, reflected in the pressure from the Scottish NHS Service Group Executive which was determined to continue the struggle. Clearly the union tops have not got it all their own way.

The members of Unison will rightly conclude that it is impossible to conduct a serious struggle when the army is led by generals who wave the white flag at the first sound of battle. Either the leaders must give a lead, or else they must be removed and replaced by people who are prepared to do so.

This capitulation by the right wing-led unions clearly created problems for those unions wanting to fight. The government took heart from these divisions and attempted to isolate those who remained firm, such as the PCS. The leading role in the pensions’ dispute has been taken by left-led PCS, with NUT and UCU close behind.

Mark Serwotka, PCS General Secretary, has been the nationally recognised voice in opposing the government’s plans and was in the front line on N30. Following this success, the PCS, along with NUT and UCU, carried out a consultation exercise with their members to try and gauge the level of support for further action, especially strikes.

WHAT WERE THE RESULTS? Each union employed different methods but in every case the results were the same: members gave overwhelming backing for further action. PCS says: "In a consultation ballot with members, 90.5% voted to reject the government's offer and 72.1% voted to support a programme of further action with other unions – the highest vote for action the union has ever had."

In the NUT there was 95% support for the union's campaign. Among UCU members in Further Education, on a 25% turnout, there were 63% for a strike and 37% against. In Higher Education, with a 31% turnout, there were 55.3% for a strike and 44.7% against.

Were these figures not a mandate for action? Clearly they were. So why did the unions not take action as promised? According to the statement from PCS Left Unity, the fault lay with the other unions. After the NUT decided not to strike on 28 March, the PCS executive, which is dominated by the left and in particular by members of the Socialist Party, decided to draw back. The excuse they used was that in the consultation ballot, it stated that the union would strike only if other unions agreed to participate: “If members agree, andif other unions across more than one public sector pensions’ scheme also agree to take action, the campaign will start with a national joint union strike on 28 March.”

Despite the massive vote in favour of continuing the action, the PCS leadership took a step back, with a promise to build for action at some time hopefully before the end of April. However, this is a big gamble. The working class is not a tap that can be turned on and off at will. After taking them this far as this and then drawing back, it will be far more difficult to mobilise the members for action next time.

The Left Unity statement admits shamefacedly: “Clearly PCS reps who have worked so hard to deliver a YES/YES vote and built for March 28^th will be disappointed; it is also entirely understandable there may be even some disagreement with the decision.” But then, incredibly, they argue that “if the NEC decided to press on with action regardless of the issue we balloted them about...”the union “would be treating our members with complete disrespect”.

How could it be disrespectful to ask members to strike, when there was such an overwhelming mandate for action? The consultation was successful in gauging the mood. It was the highest support ever in the history of the union for strike action! There was no question of the members not responding to a call for action. But once the members have spoken, and they have, the response of the leadership must be to lead and not to prevaricate. By refusing to abide by the decision of the members, it is the leadership that is showing “complete disrespect” for the will of the rank and file.

It has an even more demoralising effect because the entire trade union movement was looking to them for a courageous lead. Now Prentis and co will be laughing. They will say to their members: “You see how right we were! All the Left’s talk of action was just hot air!”

The present tactics of those on the Left of the movement needs to be called into question. The capitulation of right wingers like Prentis was no surprise. But we are surely entitled to expect something different from the Left? They were elected to fight and have let the membership down. This is a blow to the entire movement. And it cannot be justified. We must call things by their proper name. This prevarication reflects a lack of confidence in the membership. The momentum that was building up to what would have been a powerful strike against pension cuts has been broken.

Is it true that the PCS would have been completely isolated? No, that is not the case. Despite the capitulation of Unison and the GMB, other unions were prepared to act. The NUT and the UCU were, in any case, striking in London on 28 March, and NIPSA were also prepared to take action. Also, Unite’s NHS members are also taking action after a whopping 94% said they wanted to keep up the fight.

So it is clear that PCS would have taken strike action with other unions if they had gone ahead. During the consultation PCS members knew that they were the only Civil Service union that was taking action on March 28. In short, PCS members were prepared to go on strike regardless of whether other unions were also participating. It now looks as if everyone was looking over their shoulder waiting for someone to blink.

NUT and NASUWT, which have rejected the government’s framework agreement, have unfortunately failed to take action. Union delegates will, however, discuss further strategies at their Easter conferences. Hopefully this will rescue the situation. It will give members another chance to voice their opinions through the elected conference delegates. It could be argued that regional strikes, such as the London action, are ineffective. But one thing is certain: to take no action at all means to throw in the towel altogether.

The task would have been much simpler if the leadership of the PCS, UCU and the NUT had provided a bold lead, based on the feelings of the members. Now it will be more difficult. The present response will unfortunately be seen as a set-back by the members and a sign of weakness by the government. Thus the so-called “realism” turns into its opposite.

The struggle will go on. The education unions involved have promised discussions on strategy and tactics at their Easter conferences and PCS is committed to building for further action in April, with hopes that other unions will join in. But the time has come not only to discuss how we do things but what we ultimately want to achieve.

It is time to work out a programme that will put an end to these attacks on our members, attacks that are designed to save capitalism by boosting profits from the surplus value taken from the labour of the working class. It is time to discuss how we put an end to capitalism and its inherent crises and miseries. And if now is not the time, when will the time be?