Public sector pensions: the economic crisis debate in microcosm

It occurred to me today that the debate over public sector pensions is actually the debate about the economic crisis in microcosm.

Few deny we have a large deficit. Few would deny that the UK economy is in its most fragile state for a long time. Fewer still would argue that 'something' needs to be done about it. What that 'something' is the subject of vociferous debate.

For the Conservatives (the right, politically and economically) this is the time to wheel out the classic Friedmanite arguments. The crisis, so they allege, was caused by a 'bloated public sector', us 'living beyond our means', 'maxing out the nation's credit card' and 'not fixing the roof when the sun was shining' - from the ideological to the hokey.

Hence why the government states that public sector pensions must be slashed by £2.8 billion per year to pay for the deficit as they are part of that bloated public sector. They'll tell you that 85% of public sector workers have an occupational pension compared to less than 35% of private sector workers, that pensions are gold-plated, that "the pension system is in danger of going broke".


As we know from the Hutton report, the National Audit Office, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Public Accounts Committee (and this humorous interview with the witless Francis Maude) public sector pension schemes are not on the verge of implosion, and the pensions are not gold-plated, in fact they average about £5,500 per year. But why let the facts get in the way of a good ideological crusade against the public sector.

Next we come to the middle of the road. Some would call this the centre, but that gives it the illusion of reasonableness, careful impartiality and a thought-out position. Whereas the middle of the road is a completely illogical place to stand. Indeed, as Aneurin Bevan once said, "We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run down". In this group we find the hapless Ed Miliband, leader of the Labour Party, who I think it's fair to say bears a certain resemblance to soon-to-be roadkill; that caught in the headlights blank stare reflecting a completely illogical reaction to the current circumstance.


In Ed Miliband's case this is because the last Labour government, of which he and most of his shadow cabinet were members, re-negotiated public sector pensions - and as such made them entirely affordable. In fact as the Hutton report shows, the costs are falling. Nevertheless, Ed Miliband is determined to stand in the middle of the road and look stupid. So he condemns the Tories for not negotiating seriously, and also condemns the unions for striking against the Tories.

Sadly for Labour this same half-arsed mess is mirrored in their economic policy. They too think the public sector got a bit too big, especially on welfare (Byrne, Miliband, Purnell, etc) and there's too much immigration (Glasman, Miliband, Rutherford). What to do then? Well they've moved away a little bit from the clearly right wing response of Alistair 'cuts deeper than Thatcher' Darling, and now think the cuts are too far and too fast. So they would cut less and slower, but nobody likes to mention what (except for welfare and immigration, to triangulate to the Daily Mail because voters will clearly not see the Tories as more active on those issues). Remember, middle of the road = stupid.

Finally, we have the left represented today by only a handful of politicians, but more importantly by the trade unions and a number of other democratic civil society organisations. They, like the right have a narrative. In short, 'the finance sector caused this crisis, those on low and middle incomes shouldn't be made to pay for it'.


On pensions therefore they point out the voluminous evidence produced by mostly centrist organisations (see above) that show public sector pensions are affordable, sustainable and fair - and make reasoned arguments to that effect.

On the wider economic question too, the trade unions have also put forward a clear alternative (see Unite and PCS for example) that also rejects the needs for mass public spending cuts as counter-productive for the economy.

And so the fight to defend public sector pensions is really about who was to blame for the economic crisis and what we do about it. Like 1974, it's the government or the unions. Which side are you on?

Minimum wage 'welcome' and 'an insult' say unions

For the fourth year in succession the national minimum wage will rise below the rate inflation, when it is uprated in October 2011.

LEAP has previously criticised the TUC for submitting below-inflation bids for the minimum wage, and then for welcoming an even lower rate.

This year with RPI at 5.5% and CPI at 4.4%, the national minimum wage rises only by 2.5% - up by 15p to £6.08. For younger people aged 18-20 it rises only by 1.2% and for 16-17 year olds by 1.1%.


Len McCluskey, the general secretary of Unite rightly condemned the rises

This small increase in the minimum wage is completely outstripped by the current rate of inflation. The rise will do little to help the lowest paid in our society keep up with the rising cost of food and fuel.

But he reserved his venom in defence of young workers:

The paltry increase in the minimum wage for the under twenties is an insult. There is no reason why younger workers should be paid less and have to struggle more to keep up with the cost of living - it's tantamount to exploitation. Workers should be paid the rate for the job regardless of age. This is yet another attack on young people by this Tory-led government.

Yet again though the TUC played its usual supine role, with Brendan Barber describing the real terms cut as "a welcome pay boost for around 840,000 low-paid workers in the UK."

Most outrageously though, Barber uses the bosses' arguments to defend below inflation rises:

"The LPC [Low Pay Commission] has taken great care to ensure that the new rates are set at a level that will not damage job creation in these uncertain economic times."

When corporate profitability is at an all-time high, the TUC is asking workers to accept declining pay in order to shore up corporate Britain's profit margins.

But while the TUC's general secretary was speaking for business not workers, this year's TUC President (and Unison general secretary) Dave Prentis set out the reality of what this means for low paid workers and put the economic case for a higher increase:

"This small increase is totally outstripped by the rising cost of essentials like food and fuel. The vast majority of a low paid worker’s pay is eaten up by basic living costs – so increases in inflation hit hard.

“We know that many low paid workers are already struggling with heavy debt. Others are cutting back on food, and what they spend on their children. Not only does this show that many families are really struggling – it’s also bad news for local shops and businesses.

“It’s wrong to suggest that a smaller rise in the young people’s rate is better for businesses. Hitting young people’s spending power is a direct hit on those businesses. We need strong demand in our economy to stimulate growth and recovery. Young people also need a helping hand – they are victims of a recession that they did nothing to cause.

“A bigger rise would have also helped restore the balance of fairness in our country – which is suffering hugely under the Tories. It seems incredible that MPs can claim expenses of £3.2 million in just two months, but young people are fobbed off with an extra 10 pence.”

These are welcome signs of unions shaking off the passivity of the TUC. Labour representation is an industrial issue, not just a political one.

GM wields the big stick

Nick Reilly, head of General Motor's international operations, is touring Europe on a mission. He's been to Poland and Belgium. Yesterday in England he met New Labour's august Lord Mandelson, the UK's First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, President of the Board of Trade and Lord President of the Council, and Tony Woodley, deputy leader of trade union Unite. Today Reilly is in Spain.

Reilly is using the big stick of closure to threaten governments and unions. With massive overcapacity globally and car scrappage schemes ending, production cannot continue without huge additional bail-outs, reduction of capacity equivalent to three of the eight plants in Europe, and up to 10,000 job losses.

Reilly's mission is to extract the best deal he can as part of the restructuring of one of the now bankrupt behemoths of the capitalist system of production and finance. GM was one of the biggest and most powerful of the global corporations that grew to dominate the world economy during the credit-induced boom of the second half of the 20th century.

Together their power grew to the extent that it changed the role of government. To keep itself afloat, the sales of GM the vehicle producer, became increasingly dependent on the success of its own finance company GMAC – a hugely complicated operation providing insurance and mortgage services in around 40 countries as well as loans for vehicles purchased via its network of dealers.

As the 2008 financial crisis swept the world, sending banks into a spiral of decline, GMAC was given permission to join their ranks as a bank holding company so that it could access funds from the US government's Troubled Assets Relief Programme, which it promptly did. In May this year GMAC was rebranded as the Ally Bank, because according to Sanjay Gupta, GMAC's chief marketing officer “it gives the sense of a trusted partner, the attributes we are trying to convey".

Really? Operating in Britain as mortgage lender GMAC-RFC, the company was fined £2.8m by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) last month for mistreating customers who fell into arrears. It has also been told to repay £7.7m, plus interest, to 46,000 of its borrowers.

After setting up as a mortgage business in the UK in 1998, GMAC-RFC grew rapidly to become one of the UK's largest mortgage lenders, but it stopped making new loans last year. The FSA's investigation of the company's lending practices between October 2004 and October 2008 found that charges for dealing with people in arrears were "excessive and unfair"; repossession proceedings were started before all other alternatives had been considered; GMAC staff were not properly trained in dealing with arrears cases and repossessions.

Workers in plants throughout Europe and the rest of the world should not be reassured by the failure of the deal to sell Opel and Vauxhall to the consortium of Canadian parts dealer Magna and Russian finance interests. Neither should they place any faith in the ability of union leaders like Woodley to secure their future.

The logic of capital is ruthless. The downward spiral into recession and slump cannot be reversed by low interest rates or injections of invented cash. GM's 25% production cuts will soon look small. GM workers should be preparing their own plans. They should discuss how to take over their industry, and convert their workplaces to production of zero-carbon vehicles as part of a massive expansion of public transport.

Gerry Gold
Economics editor
18 November 2009
http://www.aworldtowin.net/