New STPCD and Toolkit confirm Gove's attacks on teachers' pay and education

Gove’s new Pay and Conditions Document and Toolkit confirm worst fears on Performance Pay

A new 2013 School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document (STPCD), confirming Gove’s divisive performance-pay plans, has been released on the Department for Education website, along with a ‘Toolkit’ of dangerous advice encouraging schools to set teacher against teacher.

A new introductory section to the new STPCD summarises all of the new attacks on teachers – which are also attacks on education - being introduced by Michael Gove.

These include the following key changes:

(1) “the ending of annual incremental pay progression for all pay progression after the September 2013 pay award”
(2) “the introduction of pay progression linked to performance for all pay progression from September 2013 onwards”
(3) “the replacement of the current threshold test for progression from the main to the upper pay range with new ‘simpler’ criteria”
(4) “to remove any obligation on schools when recruiting to match a teacher’s existing salary on either the main, the upper or the unqualified pay scale”
(5) and, although not spelt out in the introduction , the removal of fixed pay points on the main and upper pay scales so that even where pay progression is awarded, schools could choose to award just a few hundred pounds rather than a full pay increment.

Let’s look at those points in more detail:

An end to incremental progression

At present, newer teachers are nearly always able to rely on yearly progression up the pay scale - at least up to M6. Since the 1920s, Governments have agreed, even if only now for those early years of a teacher's career, that a year’s extra teaching experience should be recognised with an extra pay increment – but not this Government.

The new STPCD confirms (paragraph 7) that “pay awards made in September 2013 will be based on the 2012 pay system of incremental pay”. So teachers can at least still expect to progress up the main pay scale this September. However, unless we strike together to make sure this legislation is repealed, all annual pay progression will depend on judgements of ‘performance’ by September 2014.

All pay progression will be linked to performance

Paragraph 21 spells out what schools have to do under the new legislation, including:
“ a. The decision whether or not to award pay progression must be related to the teacher’s performance, as assessed through the school or authority’s appraisal arrangements”
“d. Pay decisions must be clearly attributable to the performance of the teacher in question”
“e. Continued good performance as defined by an individual school’s pay policy should give a classroom or unqualified teacher an expectation of progression to the top of their respective pay range” (but see below for what being considered ‘good’ might require)
“f. A decision may be made not to award progression whether or not the teacher is subject to capability proceeding”

In other words, anything short of “continued good performance” will mean losing out on a pay rise. Even being held back for one year on the main scale could cost a teacher thousands of pounds in lost salary over just a few years – and a loss in pension as well.

What kind of performance does the DfE recommend deserves a pay rise?

Take a look at the model pay policy included in the DfE’s toolkit and you’ll see exactly how divisive Gove’s plans are. It recommends that ‘performance’ is assessed through a range of evidence including, as you might expect, ‘pupil progress’ and ‘lesson observations’ but also adds as a suggestion ‘the views of pupils and parents’ ! It then suggests that Governors draw up precise criteria and link achievement towards them to differentiated pay rises.  

For example, “Teachers will be eligible for a pay increase of £x if e.g. they meet all their objectives, are assessed as fully meeting the relevant standards and all teaching is assessed as at least good with some teaching being assessed as outstanding”. But that “teachers may be eligible for £y if e.g. they meet all their objectives and all teaching is assessed as at least good”. There’s a clear implication that if teaching isn’t at least ‘good’, then that’s no pay rise for you!

Even more divisively, an alternative approach recommends looking at ‘relative performance’ so that “Teachers will be eligible for a pay increase of £x if e.g. they are judged as being within the top 20/15/x% of teachers in their school” but “eligible for £y if e.g. they are judged as being within the top 40/30/ y% of teachers in their school”. Again, there’s a clear implication that if you’re not in the ‘top 40%’ of teachers, then there’s no pay rise for you!

Making it harder to progress onto the Upper Pay Range

Paragraph 17 of the STPCD says that to be paid on the upper pay range, you have to show:
a) that the teacher is highly competent in all elements of the relevant standards; and
b) that the teacher’s achievements and contribution to a school are substantial and sustained.

Again, take a look at the model pay policy included in the DfE’s toolkit and it’s clear that Gove’s real intention is to make it harder to ‘cross the threshold’ – and demand more from you if you’re there.

The DfE pay policy suggests that ‘highly competent’ is defined as “e.g. performance which is not only good but also good enough to provide coaching and mentoring to other teachers, give advice to them and demonstrate to them effective teaching practice and how to make a wider contribution to the work of the school”. Similarly, It suggests that ‘substantial’ might mean “e.g. of real importance, validity or value to the school; play a critical role in the life of the school; provide a role model for teaching and learning; make a distinctive contribution to the raising of pupil standards”. In short, the new STPCD is extending the kind of demands that have been used to define UPS3 – and often to block progression to the top of the upper pay spine – to apply across the whole of the upper pay range.

The DfE model pay policy also ambiguously suggests that ‘sustained’ might mean “e.g. maintained continuously over a long period e.g. X number of school year(s)” In other words, perhaps that ‘sustained’ performance might have to be for more than the current two years?

No protection of salary when you leave your post

Even if you manage to haul yourself over ‘the threshold’ in one school, you have no guarantee of being put on the same pay range - or on the same pay point on either the main or upper pay range - when you move to a new school. This could mean that a teacher moving to a new school from a U3 post – whether by choice, career break, or under duress - could have their pay cut by as much as £15,000.

Paragraph 14.3 spells out that “any pay increase awarded to a teacher on the main pay range ... must be permanent for as long as the teacher remains employed within the same school or employer ... but is not otherwise to be deemed to be permanent by operation of the terms of this Document”. Paragraph 17.5 is even clearer “Any decision made [about being on the upper pay range] applies only to employment in that same school”. 

Just to make it absolutely clear that this is all about a ‘race to the bottom’ to make teachers compete for jobs by selling themselves at the lowest possible cost, the Toolkit suggests that one of the factors that governors need to consider in offering a starting salary is, of course, “market conditions”. In case the message wasn’t clear, it adds that “there is no assumption that a teacher will be paid at the same rate as they were being paid in a previous school”.
 
No more fixed pay points

Paragraphs 15 for the Main pay range – and paragraph 16 for the Upper pay range – don’t contain a fixed range of pay points anymore. Instead, the STPCD is only going to legislate for a minimum and maximum salary level for the main and upper pay ranges.

The Toolkit spells out what it wants Governors to consider: “Do you want to use the discretionary reference points between the statutory minimum and maximum on the main pay range? Would you prefer a longer range, with more points on it, or a shorter one with fewer points?”. In other words, different schools could apply different pay scales.

Worse, the clear implication of the advice in the Toolkit referred to above is that the amount you move up those scales would depend on your ‘absolute’ or ‘relative’ performance. So, even if it’s agreed that you should move up your pay range, the amount of pay progression awarded may be different for different teachers. This will be a threat held over teachers to bully them into taking on even more workload or risk facing only partial progression up the pay scale, or perhaps none at all.

Bullied into line by Ofsted – and by budget pressures

The Toolkit asks Heads and Governors to consider “How much do you want to spend on performance-related pay?” and “How can you ensure that you are using performance related pay to get the best value for money?” – a clear invitation to cut costs by cutting salaries.

The Toolkit is also blatant in making clear that Ofsted will be used as a ‘big stick’ to try and bully Governing Bodies into adopting the harsh approach recommended by the DfE. It emphasises that “the Ofsted school inspection handbook ... makes clear that there should be a strong link between appraisal and salary progression and that this should be considered as part of the judgement on the quality of leadership and management of the school”. 

It also states that “When they inspect your school Ofsted will ask for anonymised information from the last three years, which shows the proportions of teachers who have progressed along the main pay scale ... to, and through, the upper pay scale ... and ... include information about patterns of progression through the different salary scale points, and comparisons between subject departments and/or teachers deployed in different key stages”.

Get informed, get ready for action, demand your school/Authority adopts Union policies

The new STPCD document is still officially a ‘draft’ but only because it can’t finally be made law until a further decision is made by Gove later this term “regarding the application of the 1 per cent pay uplift for 2013”. In other words, regardless of pay progression, we don’t yet know whether every teacher will get a 1% annual increase in September or if the increase will only be awarded to some teachers. Otherwise, the new legislation is now crystal clear.

There’s no time to wait. The STPCD may have put off the blocking of pay progression for another year but teachers moving post could be hit be the ending of ‘pay portability’ between posts well before that. 

What’s also clear is that there is now an immediate task facing every school group and Local Association. That’s because the Toolkit suggests schools revise and agree new pay and appraisal policies in THIS summer term 2013.

The Toolkit makes clear that schools need to “review and revise pay and appraisal policies and/or any supporting policy/practice on objective setting - to ensure that school is clear about what it wants to reward, how that is reflected in teachers’ objectives, how performance against the relevant standards will be assessed and how appraisal will be linked to pay progression” and for the “Governing Body to agree and adopt the policies ... and to determine what provision should be made in the school’s budget for discretionary pay awards and pay progression”.

So, while we prepare for regional and national strike action in the months ahead, we also need to urgently negotiate with schools, Local Authorities and academy chains to seek adoption of the model pay policy currently being finalised by the NUT and NASUWT which will seek to at least protect teachers from the worst of these attacks. 

Conference policy made clear that, “where agreement cannot be reached on a pay policy” action could include “moving to sustained strike action in those schools where members support it”.

Scrap Iron Lady

"Whether it is the face of Thatcher or the seemingly more ‘acceptable’ visage of Cameron, implacable opposition to them and their system, combined with intransigent criticism of those at the summits of the labour movement – who are not prepared to oppose them, root and branch, as the miners, Liverpool and the poll tax protesters did – must be the cardinal principles of a revitalised labour movement"  http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/6244

Mr Nellist, Coventry South East's MP between 1983 and 1992, said: "The people I have sympathy for today are those working class people whose lives have been blighted by her policies. The real tragedy is that while she may be dead herself her ideas are still alive and well in the form of the ConDem coalition and New Labour." http://www.coventryobserver.co.uk/2013/04/08/news-Dave-Nellist-Socialist-MP-sympathy-working-class-Lady-Margaret-Thatcher-death-67663.html

Call to start campaign with national strike narrowly defeated at NUT Conference

NUT Conference in Liverpool today voted overwhelmingly to back the priority motion on "Protecting Teachers, Defending Education", thus endorsing the plan of action agreed with the NASUWT. This means that, at long last, a calendar of strike action, starting with a regional strike in the North-West on June 27th, is now set to begin. However, the main debate was over an amendment proposing that we start our action with a national NUT strike on June 26th.

After an impassioned debate, in which the evenly-divided applause for respective speakers left everyone guessing as to the final outcome, the amendment calling for this initial one-day strike was eventually narrowly defeated on a show of hands.

As proposer of this strengthening amendment, I am clearly disappointed that Conference rejected this opportunity to urgently engage and involve the whole membership through national strike action next term. However, we will now have to make sure that we build the joint action that has been agreed as strongly as we can, despite it meaning that some areas will have to wait a further six months before they take part even in regional strike action. With Gove out to divide schools and to steal thousands of pounds from teachers' incomes through his pay and pensions attacks, we have no choice but to act - and to act as boldly as we can.

LANAC meeting starts to fill on Friday evening

The text of the amendment, seconded by fellow NUT Executive member, Anne Lemon, had been agreed at a packed meeting of the Local Associations National Action Campaign (LANAC) meeting on Friday evening, with nearly 200 delegates in attendance.

LANAC will be meeting again on Monday evening to discuss how we can make the best of the plan that has been agreed. That has to include the urgent production of campaign materials, joint union meetings in schools and collections for hardship funds - initially to support colleagues striking in the North-West.

To confidently build that regional action, details of the proposed calendar of action after the summer break also urgently need to be announced by the NUT and NASUWT leaderships.

The LANAC amendment took nothing away from the jointly agreed plan. However, it sought to add two key points. Firstly, it sought to make clear that "the objectives of our campaign are to reverse these significant attacks on teachers’ pensions, pay and working conditions and, in doing so, to defend education".

In other words, we wanted members and Ministers alike to recognise that the NUT was engaged in a serious campaign with serious aims. We are not trying just to persuade Gove to sit down and talk to the unions in the hope of gaining some limited concessions. We should be serving notice that we will continue and escalate our campaign until he has withdrawn these attacks altogether.

The other clause of our amendment stated that "in order to increase the pressure on the Secretary of State for Education to meet our demands, Conference instructs the Executive to strengthen our campaign of action by calling a one-day national strike on 26 June and to seek to co-ordinate that action with other trade unions facing attacks on pensions, pay and working conditions".

Why would that national strike have been such an important start to the campaign?

1) Because Gove has, already, rejected our demands for even just a suspension of his performance-pay plans out of hand. Osborne had announced that he planned to make 'substantial savings' from blocking pay progression. As I asked Conference from the rostrum, "are we simply going to accept such a slap in the face?" If only Conference had responded by upping the ante - and voting to call national strike action next term!

2) Because we  urgently need to engage and involve every member, in every region, next term. Next month, take-home pay will be cut again through higher pensions contributions. In just a fortnight from today, the performance-pay regulations will be legislated for in Gove's new School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document. If we are not just going to get caught in a quagmire of isolated battles over school pay policies, but are instead to make clear to teachers that we are also battling to reverse these regulations, we need to raise members' sights and confidence to oppose these attacks. Stunts and rallies alone are not enough. A campaign for a national strike could have achieved that involvement.

3) Because we don't want to be just hitting the headlines in the North-West in June, we want to be hitting the national headlines - as really only a national strike can achieve. If we had voted to start the campaign with a national strike on June 26, we could also have hit the headlines tomorrow by making this bold statement that we were responding to Gove's arrogant rejection of Union demands by announcing a national strike next term.

Regrettably, that strategy was narrowly defeated at Conference.  The main argument - indeed really the only argument - used to oppose the amendment was to frighten delegates with the prospect that the NASUWT might walk away from the joint plan altogether if the NUT were to announce that we were going to also strike nationally on June 26. Yet would the NASUWT really have been able to get away with pulling out of the joint plan in the face of such severe attacks on teachers and education? Just because the NUT had called for an additional day of national strike action? Surely both unions are more serious about fighting to defend teachers and education than that?

Given the factors outlined above, I would have hoped that the NASUWT could have also been persuaded to participate in an additional national strike in June. Even if they had only felt able to stick to the previously agreed plan, the NUT would not have been acting alone on June 26. We could have sought to co-ordinate the action with other unions, not least the PCS.

Unfortunately, and in an intervention that may have played some part in the eventual outcome, PCS General Secretary Mark Serwotka did not call on the NUT to join with other unions in taking co-ordinated strike action on June 26. Instead, at a fringe meeting following the LANAC meeting, he intimated his support for the joint NUT/NASUWT plan of action and cautioned against Conference taking any decisions that might jeopardise that plan. Regrettably, those arguments were taken up by the National Executive speakers opposing the LANAC amendment today to help argue against joint action with the PCS.

So, barring any significant change of circumstances - for example if Gove's new Pay and Conditions Document is even worse than feared - it is now unlikely that national NUT/NASUWT strike action will take place until November 2013. The  North-West regional strike on June 27th will, however, still see a start to at least some kind of calendar of action, with further regions taking action in September and October. We must make absolutely sure that this is, indeed, just the start of an ongoing and escalating campaign, continuing until our objectives are achieved.

Those on the NUT Executive who cautioned against an initial one day national strike have a particular responsibility to make sure that this joint plan is fully rolled out - and continued - as promised. In truth, it will be those of us in LANAC who called for this strengthening amendment who, while being narrowly defeated at Conference today, will now work as hard as anyone for the agreed plan of action to succeed.

With the new legislation shortly to be on the statute books, the battle will have to start locally with efforts to secure acceptable pay policies in schools, Academy chains and Local Authorities - policies that at least go some way to neutralise the worst of Gove's performance-pay plans. Despite the lack of the national strike action in June which would have helped involve and unite members in preparing for struggle, LANAC can play an important role in encouraging Local Associations and school reps to engage in that battle, and to seek to co-ordinate local strikes across schools and Associations where employers try to impose unacceptable policies.

Conference 2013 - serious attacks require serious action

NUT Conference 2013 meets to debate how best to defend teachers at a time when our members, and education as a whole, are under fierce attack.

As the best organised teaching union, the NUT has a huge responsibility to use our strength to push back a Government determined to drive through its agenda of cuts and privatisation.

If teachers go out and explain how the ConDems' attacks on pensions, pay and conditions are part of a broader attack on education, large sections of the public can be won to support our action, just as they were when unions took national action in 2011. If we organise effectively and mobilise around a clear programme of action, then we can force them to retreat. 

Gove has talked of declaring 'war' on the teaching unions because he knows our potential strength. When we take action, thousands of schools are closed, working lives and the economy widely disrupted, trade union opposition to cuts clearly displayed in every community.

This Government is not confident that it can push through its plans. It knows that, beneath the surface, there is massive discontent at the banksters and the super-rich that they represent. With its cuts packages threatening a 'triple-dip' recession, they are struggling to show that they have any solution to the continuing economic crisis.  

Yet throughout 2012, the Con-Dems must hardly have been able to believe their luck. The retreat by unions like UNISON and ATL over pensions left other unions isolated and significant  joint national action was not repeated again after November 2011. That retreat also left some  in the NUT seemingly struggling with a crisis of confidence.

Instead of leading the way as the NUT had done in June 2011, last year saw only a London regional strike which, although confirming that teachers would take action when a lead is given, wasn’t then followed by further major action. For over three months after Gove announced his performance-pay attacks in early December, no strike plans were announced.

Even the publicity for members seemed strangely muted with leaflets having to be produced by Local Associations, ‘Classroom Teacher’ and others, from below.

The conclusion was drawn that the NUT can’t act alone - it has to make sure the NASUWT acts with us too. Of course unions acting together adds strength - that’s why the Socialist Party has been to the fore in campaigning for the TUC to discuss and build generalised strike action. However, there’s a balance to be struck at each stage between the benefits of taking joint action and the risks of having to go at the speed of the slowest partner.

The NASUWT remains a difficult partner to negotiate with - certainly at the top. Hopefully, out of joint action, links can be strengthened from below that  can also put pressure on the NASUWT tops to maintain action.

The joint NASUWT/NUT 'action short of strike action' has won some gains and helped build union organisation in some schools. However, school-by-school action asks a lot of local union organisation and has inevitably been 'patchy'. Localised battles  are no substitute for national strike action to win our demands.

On pensions, we need to reverse the increased pension ages and win a pay rise that gives us back what we have lost to inflation and contribution increases. On workload we need to win the 35 hour limit on working hours, with a maximum of 20 hours pupil contact time, listed in Motion 55. Immediately, we have to fight to reverse the severe attacks on pay that will soon be legislated for in the Pay and Conditions Document.

Those are very serious demands to make - and they will need a serious struggle to achieve them. That struggle is having to be fought without a ‘political arm’. If elected, Labour promises to be little different to the Tories. For now, we have to rely largely on our trade union strength and   on support in our communities.

Immediately, we have to build  and escalate action on PRP. The NUT/NASUWT program marks, at last, a return to action, but it needs strengthening. It should start with national action, linking with unions like PCS in June. The plans for Autumn Term need to be announced and dates set for further escalating action in 2014.

Vigil for Lucy Meadows outside the Daily Mail offices

Over 200 people assembled for a vigil in front of the Daily Mail offices in Kensington this evening to mourn the passing of NUT member Lucy Meadows and to show our disgust at the article written about her in the newspaper by Richard Littlejohn.

Lucy, a teacher in Accrington, Lancashire, was becoming active in the Union and many thousands of NUT members across the country will have wanted to send their solidarity and condolences tonight - as we will also hope to at NUT Conference as well.

A petition on http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-daily-mail-fire-richard-littlejohn-for-victimizing-lucy-meadows-leading-to-her-possible-suicide explains the background to the protest:

"Nathan Upton was a teacher at St Mary Magdalen's School in Accrington. Before the Christmas break the parents of children at the school were informed that after the break she was would be coming back to work after the holiday as Lucy Meadows.

It started out as confusion from parents, who simply didn't know what do think of it all, but most seemed to be simply concerned about the adjustment children would have to face rather than actively malicious. However, the more bigoted members of the community then went to the Daily Mail, where she was attacked by Richard Littlejohn who decided to single her out in the national paper.

No one deserves to have their lives turned upside down because of their gender identity being thrown into the national spotlight. The reason the parents who had a problem went to the Daily Mail is that there was no way to get her fired under equal opportunity law. So they tried to give the school bad press by saying how terrible it is that she is allowed to live her life freely. While little is known about the amount of abuse she ended up getting, the result is the same no matter what;

Lucy Meadows was found dead this week. If it was suicide, it was brought on from the hounding she received from Daily Mail readers. The possibility of this happening was enough for the daily mail to take down his original article without comment.

We, the undersigned, want a formal apology for the stress and pain that Richard Littlejohn and the Daily Mail caused Lucy Meadows and for Richard Littlejohn to be fired or resign from his post".

PRP – A battle we have to win

A report from today's NUT National Executive

Today’s NUT National Executive put forward a Priority Motion to be debated at NUT Annual Conference on Saturday March 30 endorsing the joint plan of action announced earlier this week with the NASUWT.

That motion will now be circulated to Conference delegates but will be open to amendment in the debate. While much of the motion will receive unanimous support, I have made clear to Executive colleagues that I do think the action program needs strengthening. As Convenor of LANAC, I have today written to Associations inviting delegates to a fringe meeting to discuss what additions might be proposed.

As the Priority Motion correctly explains, Gove’s attack on our pay will, if not defeated, result in salaries being set school-by-school with profoundly discriminatory consequences. It will undermine teacher recruitment, retention and morale, damaging children’s education.

Yesterday’s Budget also made absolutely clear that Osborne wants to make ‘substantial savings’ by attacking our pay progression. He wants to make teachers, and other public sector workers, pay for a crisis that Osborne and his banking cronies were responsible for.

Regrettably, our delay in calling action may yet have encouraged Gove to go further. In mid-April, before we’ve taken action, the new Pay and Conditions Document will be published. The Union expects that this will confirm that the main blocks on pay progression won’t start until 2014 – but there’s still a chance that this could be imposed from 2013. We will also have to wait until later in the term to see if Gove will recommend that the 1% uplift for September 2013 applies to all teachers – or just a few.

As Osborne intends, budget cuts will be used to bully schools into blocking pay progression. Discussion at the Executive confirmed that Government funding for school budgets has been frozen – while inflation rises. Schools will also soon have to meet the cost of extra National Insurance contributions. If the cash isn’t there, schools will use performance-pay to make savings.

Schools won’t just be bullied by budgets. Ofsted is already putting them under pressure to follow Gove’s dictats. It was reported that an Oxfordshire school had just been found to be wanting by Ofsted for having passed the NUT/NASUWT recommended appraisal policy!

We have to make sure that our action program is strong enough to counteract that bullying and make sure that schools adopt pay policies next term that protect teachers from pay cuts. Of course, to really defend teachers and education, it needs to be strong enough to force PRP to be withdrawn.

The first battles next term are going to be to over those pay policies. An important strengthening amendment to the Priority Motion was agreed from the floor of the Executive making clear that we won’t just be fighting school-by-school but must also be prepared to take action across Academy Chains and Local Authorities if necessary. There will also be funds available to support sustained strike action to support these local battles.

Those local battles can make gains in well-organised schools groups and Local Associations but even the best-organised Association will struggle to have the capacity to monitor and support members across all the individual schools in their area. The best way to show united opposition – to both employers and to Ministers – is to build a firm national programme of strike action.

The pay rallies planned for April and May need to be built into substantial events ready to build substantial action. The program for action needs to be publicised. The NUT has stated that members in ALL areas will take part in a day’s regional strike action before Autumn half-term, followed by a national strike before Christmas. We also need to be producing materials for parents and teachers explaining why we are taking this action to defend education against Gove’s cuts and privatisation.

This is a welcome start but, in my opinion, it’s still not as bold as it needs to be to respond to the scale of threats that we face. That’s why the LANAC meeting (now on Friday March 29 at 6.15 pm) will be debating ways in which the existing recommendations can be strengthened:

• Should the programme of action start with a unifying national strike instead of regional action?

• Should action begin earlier in the summer term than June 27th?

• Can we also co-ordinate with other unions calling for joint action against Osborne’s cuts, like PCS?

Of course, the danger will be raised that such proposals risk jeopardising the agreement made with the NASUWT. But why should additional actions being taken by the NUT to strengthen the campaign cause the NASUWT to withdraw from the jointly agreed action? In particular, given the threats made across the public sector in yesterday’s Budget, wouldn’t it be best to escalate the proposed June action into a national strike rather than a regional one, and co-ordinate with other unions opposing pay and pension cuts like the PCS – and call on the NASUWT to join that national action as well?

NUT Conference will continue the debate over the Easter weekend.

Osborne threatens to get tough with our pay

In Cyprus, the 'Troika' are trying to blatantly steal from workers’ bank accounts. Today’s Budget shows that, in Britain, we are being robbed too. 

Instead of raiding our savings directly, Osborne wants to cut public sector pay so that they’ll be precious little left at the end of the month to save ! 

Real-terms pay-cuts and rising pension costs have already cut teachers’ incomes by 12% since 2010. Those cuts will continue with Osborne now extending the 1% public sector pay cap until at least 2015-16.

Budget cuts as a weapon to enforce PRP

But the news for teachers is far worse than that. Osborne made clear he was talking about an “average of up to 1 per cent” in pay awards – so not even 1% for everyone. Worse still, according to the FT blog, “the Treasury has advised departments that any progression pay in 2013-14 must be included in the 1 per cent pay rise cap for that year” ... and Osborne confirmed in his Budget speech that “We will also seek substantial savings from what is called progression pay” ... adding in his Tory tones “I know that is tough but it is fair”.

In other words, Osborne and Gove are going to use budget cuts as a financial weapon to enforce performance-related pay on schools.

There’s nothing ‘fair’ at all about such robbery. Ever since the 1920’s, teachers’ pay scales have been based on recognition that teachers’ pay builds up as staff gain experience and expertise in the classroom. Now they want to steal that away from us.

This is blatant robbery to steal away the gains of the past

This is blatant robbery. It’s nothing to do with providing jobs or improving the economy as Osborne wants us to believe. Face facts, George, your cuts are destroying the economy. 

The Office for Budget Responsibility has just slashed UK growth forecasts from 1.2% down to just 0.6% for  2013.

It’s obvious that ‘austerity’ isn’t going to restore jobs, services and economic growth. As Duncan Wheldon, TUC Senior Economist, pointed out at last weekend’s SERTUC Resisting Austerity Conference the graphs of economic 'recovery' for the UK just aren't showing 'recovery'!
 
The truth is, however, as Paul Murphy, Socialist Party MEP said when he spoke at the same Conference, that austerity IS working – for the bankers, bosses and bondholders. For them, profits are rising. Osborne today handed them more cash by announcing a further cut in corporation tax – down to 20% by April 2015, an 8% cut since the Con-Dems came to power.

As Paul put it, “austerity is not designed to cure the crisis but to take advantage of the crisis .. it’s designed to transfer wealth to the international bondholders ... and to be used as a ‘shock doctrine’ for neo-liberal capitalism to win back past gains".

Gove wants to cut pay and pensions to drive down school budgets to prepare for even further school privatisation – where edu-businesses will be allowed to directly generate profits out of school budgets.

Yet, what do they do with these profits? While millions are unemployed, the capitalists hoard their wealth, with an estimated 750 billion euros in excess cash holdings lying idle in the bank accounts in Europe’s top companies. Those banks and businesses should be taken under democratic public ownership so that those resources can be invested to genuinely plan sustainable growth, jobs and services.

Build co-ordinated national strike action

Today’s Budget will have further stoked the volcano of anger building under the surface. Events in Cyprus show that even neo-liberal politicians cannot always just ignore the pressure from below.

Osborne’s Budget makes clear that public sector workers are in the forefront of the Coalition’s attacks. Civil servants gave their answer immediately with the first of a series of national strikes called by the PCS. Now teaching unions need to take the same road.

After the retreat over pensions, the plan of action announced by the NUT and NASUWT gives teachers a chance to start taking steps to defend their pay, pensions and conditions. But today’s announcements on pay progression are another sign that we need to act with more urgency.

In response to my NUT Executive Report asking for views on the proposed joint action programme, school reps have been making clear to me that, instead of starting our action with a regional strike, they believe it needs to be national strike action. I agree with them.

In response to today’s vicious announcements, a national strike could be added to the action programme on May 1st, along the lines of the proposals agreed by Lewisham NUT’s AGM. Alternatively, the proposed June strike could be turned from a regional to a national strike, to link up with the PCS as Mark Serwotka proposed at last week’s pre-Budget TUC rally: “On 26 June George Osborne will ... announce his comprehensive spending review which will confirm the butchery of public spending for the next three years. What a brilliant day that would be - that while he announces cuts in parliament - to see as many people as we can taking industrial action together, demonstrating together and protesting together.”  

Today, Osborne made clear that he’s going to be ‘tough’ with our pay. If we are serious about stopping him, we need to be tough with our action.