4tm on M28

The NEC’s decision not to proceed with strike action on March 28 was the right one, but also the only one that could have been made in the context of the way this dispute has developed. Right from the outset the NEC has been unanimous in the view that the dispute with Government over Public Sector Pensions can only be tackled by way of a united front, as far as is possible. This is the position that 4themembers have adopted within the NEC from the very beginning and it will continue to be the case.

It’s easy to fall into the trap of using a lot of stock phrases about unity but the reality is that when a government targets a sector as a whole then it follows that you need most of that sector to stand together in order to resist. That applies whether the sector is the mining industry or the financial services sector. In the case of the former the failure by the National Union of Mineworkers to maintain a coherent coalition ultimately led to the failure of the collective resistance to Margaret Thatcher’s plans for the mining industry. (This is not the say that the NUM were totally at fault – just that retention of a united front across workers in the mining industry was the only way that resistance might have succeeded.)

The financial services sector has been able to resist many of the calls for tighter regulation, higher tax burdens, enforced splitting of business areas and so on. The main reason for this has been that the various institutions have stuck together to threaten government with a withdrawal of their “labour” (which in their case is a relocation of their business elsewhere). 

And the same is true for us in the Public Sector. The simple fact is that no other unions of significance (no offence to UCU or NIPSA) feel comfortable in taking strike action on 28 March. The reasons why this is the case are less important than that fact. For PCS to call members out on strike would certainly not achieve anything and might indeed risk the chances of success in the event of any future reincarnation of a united resistance.

Where does that leave PCS now? If we accept that the Pensions issue is not one that we can “win” on our own then we also accept that we are dependent upon other (large) unions from other pension schemes re-joining the dispute. That is certainly possible as other unions have yet to ballot their members.

Finally it is worth noting that this same principle should apply to Pay, Privatisation and Job Security. This principle of co-dependency will be an uncomfortable one for those on the far left who are generally unable to work with those who don’t do exactly what those on the far left deem to be “right”. We have seen this with the various failed attempts at political parties and single-issue front organisations, but also by the formation of the Trade Union Coordinating Group (TUCG), set up by non-mainstream trade unions such as PCS and the RMT in (more or less) direct opposition to the TUC General Council because these unions were unable to get their own way within the TUC.

4themembers will continue to argue for a collectivist approach that seeks to draw in as many unions as possible and that we, in PCS, need to recognise that we may have to compromise sometimes in order to help maintain this unity.