John Foster

John Foster is a member of the

Communist Pa rt y ’s economic

c o m m i t t e e. He was a contri b u t o r

to the Red Paper on Scotland

1975 edited by Gordon Brow n

So said the president ofGeneral Motors Euro p eannouncing job losses at

E l l e s m e re Port this May. The previous month

G o rdon Brown published his‘Case for Open Markets’holding up Britain’s flexiblelabour market as a model forE u rope. He called for the

r i g o rous enforcement of theframework for labour marketre f o rm set out in the EU’sLisbon agenda in 2000: ‘TheEU needs a process in whichall sectors which fail toliberalise and open up tocompetition are subject toindependent investigation ande n f o rcement free fro m

national political interf e re n c e . ’What the EU re q u i red tostimulate its economic gro w t hand competitiveness, said MrB rown, was ‘structural re f o rmto strengthen labour marketflexibility rather thanre v e rting to protectionism and s u p p o rt for decliningindustries’. continued overleaf

u nityC o m munist Party T U C d a i l y

Repealing the anti-union laws is only a first stepC a r o lyn Jones

The repeal of anti trade unionl aws has been the agreed policyof the TUC for some ye a rs . I t ’stelling therefore that this ye a r,the FBU feels it’s necessary tocall on the General Council tol o bby the gove rnment toensure that no f u rt h e r a n t i - t ra d eunion laws are placed befo r ePa rl i a m e n t .Their amendment isbased on experiences duri n gthe fi r e fi g h t e rs dispute. And theFBU are not alone in feeling thehard hand of gove rnment and

the courts when in dispute.T h efact that hostile laws are stillbeing introduced reminds usthat repealing the anti unionl aws is only a fi rst step.Tu rn i n gthe tide aw ay from anti unionr h e t o ric and recognising therole unions play in thewo rk p l a c e, the economy andthe wo rld is a much bigger step.

That is why the RMT motionon the Trade Union FreedomBill together with the positiveamendments from FBU, P OAand ASLEF are so we l c o m e. I tr e i t e rates the call for repeal and

updates us on the successfulcampaign over the last ye a r. I talso suggests how to maintainthe momentum by taking thecampaign into Pa rl i a m e n t , i n t ounions and into wo rk p l a c e s .T h eTUFB shouldn’t be seen as aone year wo n d e r.

It is a matter of pri n c i p l e.M a ny of the issues cove r e d

by motions on the TUC agenda– from effe c t i ve org a n i s a t i o nand wo rkplace democracy tothe use of agency wo rke rs andm i g rant labour - depend onfree and effe c t i ve trade unions.

We should learn from our past.In the eight ye a rs after theintroduction of the Tra d eDisputes Act in 1906, t ra d eunion membership doubl e d( m a i n ly amongst women andl ow paid wo rke rs ) . By 1920 ithad doubled again. O n ehundred ye a rs on, wo rke rs andunions need the freedom too p e rate enshrined ini n t e rnational laws and env i s a g e din the proposed Trade UnionFreedom Bill.Carolyn Jones is director of the

Institute of Employment Rights

F rench trade unions have no limitations on their freedom to take any form of strike action.

‘Sack wo r kers in Britain: i t ’s cheaper’

Tuesday 12 September 2006

unity TUC Communist Party daily Tuesday 12 September 20062

M a r tin Levy

E n e rgy is essential to modernindustrial societies. After air,w a t e r, food and shelter, it isv e ry much a basic humanneed – especially withi n c reased reliance on privatemotor transport.

But a double energy crisis isin the making. On the onehand, oil and gas prices arebeing cranked up, as theprivate producers cash in onrising demand and depletingre s e rves. On the other, thestability of global climate andweather patterns is undert h reat from continuedcombustion of such fossilfuels, due to rising levels ofcarbon dioxide in thea t m o s p h e re .

This is the context of theG o v e rn m e n t ’s Energy Review.But the Review has beenflawed from the outset. To n yBlair has already determ i n e dthe outcome, making clear hisposition that nuclear energy isthe way forw a rd. And in anycase the Review will nottackle the root pro b l e m ,

namely the private ownershipof the energy and transportindustries and the consequentdrive to maximise profits, nomatter what the cost toconsumers and thee n v i ro n m e n t .

Global climate change is notjust an issue for the future .Its the effects are already withus, in terms of rising sea-levels and incre a s i n g l yunstable weather pattern s .This is a class issue too. AsNew Orleans showed withH u rricane Katrina, thewealthy will always be able tolook after themselves whilethe poor will carry the cost.

H o w e v e r, nuclear power isnot the answer. In this smallisland, just one accident – oreven a terrorist attack - couldhave devastatingconsequences. Furt h e rm o re ,t h e re are only some 50 years’supply left of high gradeuranium ore, and in any casenuclear power is far fro m‘carbon neutral’, when thewhole nuclear cycle –extraction and processing ofo re, and construction and

c o n t i n u e d

T h e re is no doubt that it is much easier to sackworkers in Britain than in France and other Euro p e a ncountries – as Marks and Spencer found out when theytried to close their French outlets in 2001 and wereo rd e red by the Courts to stop.

In France all workers must have written contracts andemployers are not allowed to hire workers on fixed termcontracts except in exceptional circumstances such asm a t e rnity leave. To make workers redundant a firm has tosupply legal proof of economic distress to the re l e v a n tg o v e rnment ministries and to their employees, employeeshave the automatic and free right of legal appeal toindependent tribunals with trade union re p resentation. Andthese tribunals have powers either to reinstate or force theemployer to pay substantial financial compensation. Inaddition, of course, French trade unions have no limitationson their freedom to take any form of strike action.

It was these rights which the French trade unions andstudents successfully defended earlier this year.

A re these rights economically damaging – as Gordon Bro w nclaimed – or just bad for unscrupulous and incompetentemployers ?

In 2005 the ILO published a major comparative studywhich predictably found Britain near the bottom of the list forjob security and length of tenure. Did this mean that thislabour market flexibility made Britain more competitive ?Not at all. There were seven countries ahead of Britain int e rms of the pro p o rtion of high quality jobs. France alsoenjoyed very significantly higher levels of productivity – part l yderiving from its investment in labour training and a stablelabour force. And while Britain has lost a third of itsmanufacturing labour force since 1997, France and Germ a n ystill employ virtually the same number of workers as they didten years ago. (Peter Auer, Labour Market Security in aGlobalised World, ILO 2005 and Stephen Bro a d b e rry andM a ry O’Mahony, ‘Britain’s Productivity Gap’, NIESR, July2004)

The unpleasant truth is that the present New Labourg o v e rnment is fronting a EU policy ramp in the interests ofmultinational employers, particularly US companies, who wantto squeeze higher profits out of labour. They have alre a d ydone this in Britain. Now they desperately want to do so on ab roader front and end ‘national political interf e rence’ acro s sthe EU. All the more reason, there f o re, to strengthen lawson job security and trade union freedom in Britain ands u p p o rt the campaign against the Services Directive and theE U ’s Lisbon agenda across Europe.

For renewable energy not a flawed re v i e w

T U C s o c i a l8pm-1am TONIGHT Tuesday 12 SeptemberMidnight Blues Club, Grand HotelLate bar Special Guests DJTickets £3 from Morning Star sellers or on the door

Tuesday 12 September 2006 TUC Communist Party daily unity

To ny Conway

New Labour claims that itdoes not have an incomespolicy – apart from in thepublic sector that is!

As late as July, in re s p o n s eto the rise in inflation to 3.3per cent, the Tre a s u ry wro t eto public sector pay re v i e wbodies stating that the incre a s ein fuel and heating bills was ablip and that, as far as theTre a s u ry was concerned, re a linflation remained at 2 percent and would continue assuch for the next period.

T h e re f o re pay could noti n c rease by more than 2 percent. There was a get-outclause that pay in, say, Londoncould be increased pro v i d e dpay in, say, Scotland was helddown.

This then is the reality ofB ro w n ’s statement to the CBIin June. It was to furt h e rembed poverty pay into thepublic sector.

Of course, regional pay isdesigned to break up nationalt e rms and conditions and payb a rgaining, thereby weakingunions, not only by makingnational action more diff i c u l tbut also by introducing amarket for a small total paypot. It would result insignificant inefficiencies andinequalities. Public serv a n t sworking for the samee m p l o y e r, doing the same jobbut working five miles apart ,would receive diff e rent payrates. More anomalies andm o re equal pay cases wouldbe an inevitable consequence.

S e v e re pay norms and

regional pay are also intendedto cut public sector pay ino rder to make the publics e rvices more attractive toNew Labour’s private sectorb u d d i e s .

The question has to beasked: why doesn’t Brown talkto the public sector unionsabout these issues, before heopens his mouth and sticks hisboot in it! His unwillingness todo so shows that he is nofriend of the staff in the publics e rvices or theirre p resentatives.

We should not forget hisre c o rd over staff cuts and PFIp rojects. We need a re a lLabour government and a re a lLabour prime minister not aBlair Mark 2!Tony Conway is a member of the

PCS executive committee

decommissioning of powerstations – is taken intoaccount.

A case could be made fornuclear power if it were fordisposal of weapons-gradeplutonium and highly-enriched uranium in warh e a d sand military inventories. ButTony Blair wants nuclearpower for quite the opposite –to maintain these warh e a d sand inventories.

A ‘balanced fuel policy’means diff e rent things tod i ff e rent people. Genuinebalance can only be achievedif the profit motive is takenout of energy pro d u c t i o n .That must meannationalisation of the gas andcoal and electric powerindustries, the big oilmonopolies, rail and bust r a n s p o rt and road haulage, sothat there can be a pro p e rp rogramme of energ yc o n s e rvation and planning.

Te c h n o l o g i c a l l y, re n e w a b l ee n e rgy re s o u rces will in thelong run offer both the leastdetrimental impact on thee n v i ronment, and newo p p o rtunities for Britain’sb e l e a g u e red powerengineering industry.H o w e v e r, at present theire fficiency is far too low, theycannot supply power ondemand, and many people arec o n c e rned at the potentialimpact on our country s i d ef rom the massive pro l i f e r a t i o nof wind farm s .

For now, the only wayf o rw a rd is ‘carbon capture andstorage’ – collecting thecarbon dioxide directly fro mthe production process. Wi t hroad transport that is nighimpossible. However, as theNUM and others have shown,c o a l - f i red power stations usingclean coal technology woulddramatically cut carbondioxide emissions whilep roviding a future for Britain’sdeep-mined coal industry.M a rtin Levy is a scientist and

s e c r e t a ry of the Communist Pa rt y

N o rt h e rn distri c t

S t e ve Johnson

Attacks by New Labour onpublic sector pensionshave to be looked at in thecontext of their‘re f o rm ’agenda of privatisation, jobcuts and a fundamentalattack on the whole basisof public sector pro v i s i o n .

Talk of ‘efficiencies’ andbringing in ‘third sector’o rganisations into health,education and pro b a t i o na re part of the pro -privatisation agenda ofNew Labour and can onlylead to furt h e rfragmentation of serv i c e sand the loss ofa c c o u n t a b i l i t y.

But just as theg o v e rnment is waging anattack on public serv i c e sunder the guise of re f o rmwe are also seeing attackson the pension rights ofpublic sector workers. Thisfollows an ideologicalcampaign to convinceworkers that there is a

‘pensions crisis’ and thatthe re t i rement age must beraised and the privatesector be brought in toadminister pensions. Thep rotection for existingpublic sector workerswhich was won in the PSFframework agreement in2005 is under attack.

It is important that theunity amongst publicsector unions which madethat agreement possible bemaintained in re s i s t i n gf u rther attacks and inensuring decent pensionsfor every b o d y. Tr a d eunions must workalongside the NationalPensioners Convention tooppose any increase in there t i rement age and tocampaign for an incre a s ein the state pension and re -establish the link withe a rnings in 2007.

We must combat theview that there is apensions crisis. There is noreason why decent

pensions and dignity inre t i rement cannot bep rovided for everyone ifre s o u rces are prioritisedc o rre c t l y. But this meanstaking on and defeatingthe pro - w a r, pro - b i gbusiness agenda of NewL a b o u r.S t eve Johnson is social worke r

and secretary of London

Communist Pa rt y

Unite to defend public sector pensions

Regional pay means poverty pay

£2 post free from the

Communist Pa rt y

w w w. c o m m u n i s t - p a rt y. o rg . u k

3

unity TUC Communist Party daily Tuesday 12 September 20064

M i ke Wa l ke r

‘Nye Bevan would haveactively supported theprivatisation of the NHS’

He didn’t, of course, butthis and many other untru t h swill be peddled by NewL a b o u r’s spin doctors at thisy e a r’s Labour Part yc o n f e rence in order tor a i l road through their untriedand untested re f o rm s .

T h a t ’s why the NHSmotions at this year's TUC –and the media coverage of

them – provide an excellents p r i n g b o a rd to roll back NewLabour plans.

They spell the actionre q u i red to unify unions,patients and communities indefending the NHS fro mprivatisation and cuts.

As TUC general secre t a ryB rendan Barber stated,‘Health unions support re f o rmthat delivers better patientc a re. But too many curre n tchanges seem to be driven byan ideological pre f e rence forthe private sector and will not

benefit patients’.Ask any healthcare worker

about the state of the NHSand they will tell you:● too much bure a u c r a c y● too much privatisation● too many ill thought outre f o rm s .

G rowing anger amongstNHS staff and the public atcuts and closures have lead tohuge demonstrations.

In the immediate fro n tline of New Labour’s assaulton the NHS are those inp r i m a ry care. It is incre d i b l ebut true that thousands ofdistrict nurses, health visitorsand many other primary careworkers no longer know whothey will be employed byf rom next year, or whetherindeed they will have a job.Meanwhile hundreds ofcommunity hospitals andwalk-in centres face thes p e c t re of being handed overto the private sector.

Labour used to have acommanding lead over the

C o n s e rvatives among theelectorate on the running ofthe NHS, yet New Labourhas squandered its historicalmoral authority as a series ofu n i n t e rested Secre t a ry ofState for Health delegateNHS ‘problems’ to politicaladvisers – many of whom havelinks with private healthc o n c e rm s .

It is a credit to health careworkers that the NHSremains a touchstone issue forthe British people.

Trade unions at Brightonthis week need to be focusedover the coming months onensuring that we are notrobbed of one of our pro u d e s tand most popularachievements – OURNational Health Serv i c e .

Join the ‘NHS Stafftogether lobby’ of Parliamenton October 25 and supportthe national NHSd e m o n s t r a t i o n .M i ke Wa l ker is a Unison officer

w riting in his personal capacity

To m my Morri s o n

New Labour responds toeconomic crisis with policiesthat dispro p o rt i o n a t e l ydamage impact on theworking class. They have nointention of taxing bigbusiness to fund publics e rvices, social benefits andpensions or of halting thedecline in our public serv i c e scaused by privatisation.

The motions on theg o v e rn m e n t ’s so-called ‘publicsector re f o rm’ from Unison,PCS and NAPO win fulls u p p o rt from Congress asthey recognise the re f o rm forwhat it is – an attack on therole of the public sector. Thep roviders and users of publics e rvices should be coreLabour supporters but, as theNAPO motion notes,g o v e rnment policy is

t h reatening the eff e c t i v e n e s sof public services and in somecases the very existence ofthose services there b yalienating workers and users.

All three unions call for acampaign against thed e s t ructive re f o rms, with PCSu rging a nationaldemonstration and a day ofaction and NAPO proposing arally and lobby of Parliament.Unison called for alliances tomaximise political andb a rgaining strength. Tr a d e scouncils could play a key ro l ein winning communities forthe movement against cutsand privatisation.

Some may look to Scotlandfor an alternative way to ru nour public services and theScottish Executive haslaunched a consultation paper,Tr a n s f o rming Public Services.

Some in the movement

a rgue that Scotland has amodel of cooperation notcompetition. But Scottishpublic services are riddledwith PFI projects.

The consultation paperbelieves that who runs as e rvice is not important. It isup to the unions to countersuch nonsense.

Communists argue that theway forw a rd thro u g h o u tBritain is to build a bro a dalliance with the labourmovement at its heart tocampaign against privatisation,defend pensions, oppose the‘marketisation’ of education,social services and health andto project a positivea l t e rnative. Unison’s call for av i g o rous campaign led by theTUC General Council on itsfive points includingp romoting pro g re s s i v ea l t e rnatives 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 swhich does take the role ofthe European Union intoaccount will be unreal – asu n real as some views at thetop of the TUC on the EU.

The peoples of Europe arebeginning to realise the tru en a t u re of the EU as a tool ofbig business, and havedeveloped mass campaignsagainst the Services Dire c t i v eand privatisation.

It is EU directives whicha re accelerating the furt h e ro u t s o u rcing and privatisationof our public services – and itis time the TUC leadershiprecognised the fact.

Tommy Morrison is a Unison

whitecollar convener and member

of the Communist Pa rt y ’s Scottish

and executive committees

Defending public services means opposing EU policies