'Deep, ideological divide' between government and unions

---

ePolitix.com speaks to Gail Cartmail, assistant general secretary of Unite the Union, about the impact of the government's fiscal policies on the public sector.

The coalition government has been in power for over a year now. What are Unite's reactions to the impact that government policies have had on the public sector?

When government refers to the 'reform agenda' for the public sector, we see this as privatisation. In the recently published white paper Open Public Services we are seeing, in language and emphasis, quite a change from previous announcements.

The green paper talked about reform as 'an economic necessity', whereas in the white paper it is an 'urgent moral purpose'. Looking at an example, we were told that there would be no top-down reorganisation as part of the Health and Social Care Bill, and then there was a public reaction to this, followed by a pause from government. What has ultimately resulted from this is a set of amendments, most of which are well-meaning but incompetent.

In a poll, the NHS Confederation found that 40 per cent of their NHS organisations felt that the current period was the most difficult financial environment that they have experienced. The £20bn efficiency savings are really biting hard.

July 19, when people were on the edge of their seats observing the fall from grace of News International, was the first anniversary of the Big Society. We held an event to mark that anniversary, but it wasn't a celebration. £4.4bn is being taken out of the third sector, which equates to 40 per cent of the workforce.

Services for older people, services for disabled people are suffering. There has been a dramatic cut to information, advice and guidance, which is something that at a time of economic hardship we need more of, not less.

The capacity for the third sector to grow more volunteers is being reduced, as volunteer development budgets are being axed. This all combines to reduce the status of volunteering and to raise the question of what purpose the government intends the voluntary sector to serve.

How have your members been affected by government austerity measures?

There are three key ways in which our members have been affected: job insecurity, stress and standard of living.

In terms of job insecurity, there is, in UK employment law, a provision under Section 118 in the Employment-Trade Union law, for employers to give notice of dismissal and then workers either have the right to accept a new contract, or they don't – and that is not categorised as automatic unfair dismissal.

At Southampton City Council that technique was used and has resulted in ongoing industrial action. This Master-Servant tool has been used increasingly by councils. Rather than negotiate with trade union representatives and seek to find solutions to the 28 per cent front-loaded cuts, these Section 118 dismissals have become a weapon of choice. This inevitably creates real concern about job security.

In Bristol the entire care service is being outsourced, which is why our members there have balloted for industrial action. At Birmingham City Council a new concept called 'lift and shift' has emerged – the lifting and shifting of jobs from Birmingham to India.

As a result we get a lot of stress reported through people having to cover vacant posts that aren't being filled.

The majority of our members in the NHS are educated to graduate or post-graduate level, and the concern that they are experiencing is about the quality and standard of living.

There is also a great amount of reorganisation under way, with qualified posts being replaced by a greater number of jobs, but unqualified ones. This clearly reduces professional input. A good skills mix isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it certainly isn't good if the training budget or the budget for continuing professional development is cut.

We have noticed a lot of concerns amongst our members about this. With inflation at 5 per cent, with increased fuel and food costs, a two year pay freeze and the worsening of terms and conditions, our members are worse off.

These are the three conspicuous areas of concern.

How would you rate the government's relationship with the trade union movement and its willingness to listen to your representations?

Our relationship with the current government is different to our relationship with the previous government, and indeed the previous Conservative administration.

We do have a lot of meetings with ministers and government has retained the established architecture for consultation.

However there is a deep, ideological divide between the trade union movement and the government on how to recover the economy. Our narrative is that the 'medicine is killing the patient'. We want proactive, preventative and empowering public services.

To give you an example, health visitors, who are Unite members, were promised by a minister at the Conservative party conference last year that there would be no transfer of power over health visitors from health organisations to local authorities. This was an important statement because, when local authorities are under such pressure, we worry about the fragmentation of the health visiting service and worry that cuts would be ripe.

Sadly this decision has been changed. We thought that we had been listened to, but the promise was broken.

Trade union voices are being heard, but the government seems to see our role as assisting them in avoiding unintended consequences.

We are being listened to, but it is a long way shy of negotiation, which is what we want.

Public sector pensions have been a huge talking point over the last few months. How has Unite campaigned to raise awareness on this issue?

We have been explaining the government's desire, as set out in the Hutton recommendations on public sector pensions, to link the pension scheme pension age to the state pension age.

In doing this we have found ourselves addressing audiences of hundreds of people who hadn't known previously that if they are under 45 their state pension age will increase to 67; if they are under 35 their state pension age will increase to 68.

The government has reduced the lead time of the pension age increase to 66 by six years, so one can only expect that it will reduce the lead time to 67 and 68 as well.

We are challenging, alongside other unions, by judicial review, the change from Retail Price Index to Consumer Price Index, which reduces pensions over their lifetimes by 15 per cent.

We are campaigning, litigating and raising awareness. We are being honest and trying to avoid hyperbole.

The changes proposed will mean that public sector pensioners will pay twice as much for half the benefit.

Is the government unfairly discriminating against the public sector?

The government is unfairly discriminating against sections of society which should be protected. Policies from the current government seem to have a disproportionate impact on single parents, lone pensioners and public service users and providers.

The majority of all of these groups are women. This is the government that enacted the public sector duty, which aimed to promote equality between groups. I don't feel that making changes that have a disproportionate impact on women is meeting these standards.

The disabled and young people are also being discriminated against.

If you look at the changes to Disability Living Allowance and the reduced access to information, advice and guidance, this obviously impacts heavily on the disabled.

The scrapping of the Education Maintenance Allowance, increased tuition fees, the removal of the programme to get young people into good quality work experience and the increase in joblessness is a real attack on young people.

Additionally, socio-economic groups which rely more on public services are being disadvantaged. There are lots of low-earners working in public service provision, so pay freezes are having an impact. If public services are privatised it will be a race to the bottom in terms of pay and pension provision.

There is a massively unfair and disproportionate impact on people within society who are already disadvantaged. This all adds up to a real widening of economic inequality.

The coalition is indisputably discriminating against public service users and providers.

This government embarked on the economic measures that it is undertaking with the UK already having one of the largest income gaps in the world, according to OECD figures. This gap is only going to widen.

The polls are suggesting that public opinion is shifting towards the idea that there is an alternative to the government's cuts agenda. We believe the British population value our public services.

Throughout recess, ePolitix.com will be focusing on a different policy theme each week. This week we are featuring articles with a focus on the public sector and government cuts.