19 March 2004
'Insulting' and 'a slap in the face' are not extraordinary comments in the opening rounds of the local government pay talks. But this year is extraordinary. With battle lines tightly drawn, the wish lists of employers and unions couldn't be more polarised. Things look very gloomy indeed for town hall workers.
Last week, employers presented a sophisticated six-point pay and conditions package to counter the unions' ten-point claim. The complexity of both is a major departure from the traditional pay rounds and indicates the depth of what is at stake for all sides, including the government.
On the employers' table is a 7% pay increase over three years, the distribution of which is open to negotiation, but it will not be bottom-loaded.
Controversially, the final stage of the pay award is dependent on councils completing pay and grading reviews in line with the 1997 Single Status agreement.
This, say the employers, will 'concentrate minds'. They also want a joint review of national conditions of service, looking specifically at car allowances, annual leave, maternity and paternity leave and the abolition of premium rates for unsociable shifts in favour of more flexible agreements.
The unions – Unison, the T&G and the GMB – responded with fury and have refused to negotiate on the package. 'This pay offer goes back to the Dark Ages and it is not a starting point for negotiations,' says Heather Wakefield, Unison's head of local government.
The unions, which lodged their claim in January, want a 4% annual pay increase. They also share concerns about maternity, paternity and annual leave but want clear increases in these. They also want the completion of a workforce training and development strategy, but already disagree with employers on the likely content. The abolition of the bottom three pay spines to hike up the wages of the poorest paid, ring-fenced funding to help complete the Single Status pay and grading reviews and a 4% increase on all allowances are also in the union claim.
Union sources say the employers have 'overplayed their hand' and will be forced to back down on several of their proposals. But, at this stage, the employers appear to be sticking by their package, describing it as 'responsible' and making it very clear that there 'won't be anything for nothing' in this or future pay rounds. 'If they want improvements to conditions they have to be self-financing,' says Mike Walker, head of negotiations at the Employers Organisation. 'They want the escalator to go up but nothing to come down.'
The fact that the employers are willing to tackle more controversial issues, such as premium rates for shift work, is already leading to accusations of government interference. 'This is an agenda which is not even an Office of the Deputy Prime Minister agenda,' a union source told Public Finance. 'This smacks of something quite independent of the National Joint Council. I think local government is being used as a test-bed for modernising public sector pay structures.'
But what this does smack of is a firm hand from the Treasury. Employers have been open about the pressure to keep to Treasury inflation targets, even calculating the pay award using the chancellor's preferred Consumer Price Index rather than the traditional Retail Price Index.
There is also a sense that they have a reputation to salvage. Last year's long-running dispute with the firefighters was very damaging and was only settled after the intervention of ministers. They now have to reform pay and conditions, albeit in line with government policy, with minimum cost and with minimum political damage. Last year's Local Government Pay Commission, which ruled that low pay in councils wasn't an issue but equal pay was, has become their legitimate point of reference.
But the unions, with 1.3 million members, will not take these proposals lying down. There was all-out industrial action when a 2.5% pay increase was offered in 2002, and fears over the erosion of members' rights appear much greater this year. They also have their interpretations of the commission's recommendations and accuse employers of disregarding the findings.
'We don't see why members should pay the costs of Single Status. Linking pay to completing reviews in the final year means we have no control over what employers want to do. This is very difficult for us to accept and there is some distance between us,' warns Peter Allenson, T&G national secretary for local government.
The two sides meet again on March 25. But, with no apparent basis to begin talks, the gulf between them looks as if it could be impossible to bridge.
PFmar2004
