Workers Memorial Day

Today is International Workers Memorial Day and I have been speaking at the North Lanarkshire TUC event at the Summerlee memorial. 

Remember the Dead, Fight for the Living is the slogan for International Workers Memorial Day (IWMD). The purpose of today is to remember those who have been needlessly killed, injured, or made ill by their work. But perhaps more importantly, it is also about using this human tragedy to strengthen the campaign for safe and healthy work. 

If work is not organised properly, or risks are not managed, it can kill you, injure you or give you an illness that may be with you for the rest of your life.

The number of workers actually killed at work last year in the UK was 171. However this is less than 1 per cent of the number killed by work. Every single year, over 8,000 people die of cancers that are caused by their work. Another 4,000 die from lung disease. 800 people are killed on the roads while working and 7–8,000 deaths from heart or circulatory problems caused by work

Add these up and the figure is already well over 20,000. Many experts put the real figure as much higher. And it’s not only deaths. Last year a staggering 1.9 million people were suffering from an illness that was caused or made worse by their work.

The UK government claims that Britain is the safest place to work because it comes out near the top of the league when looking only at immediate fatalities. This is because they have closed down swathes of manufacturing and heavy engineering more than most comparable countries. If you compare deaths caused by work, or ill-health, then Britain comes 20th out of the 34 OECD nations.

All these deaths and injuries were avoidable if employers took the proper precautions

Despite these statistics health and safety is under threat. The UK Government believes that health and safety is a burden on business. Cameron described it as a “monster”. It wants to: get rid of at least half of all existing health and safety regulations, cut inspections and enforcement of the law. It is also seeking to make it more difficult to get compensation in England. We are not exempt from this risk with charges rising to access justice in the Scottish courts and the Gill and now Taylor reviews.  

Numerous reviews undertaken by or for the government, on the whole find that the health and safety system: is not a burden, is actually doing a good and much needed job, and where there is a problem, it tends to be one of perception only. However, the government ignores the reviews and continues to peddle the myths and nonsense aided and abetted by the right wing media. 

The UK Government is cutting the HSE budget by 35 per cent over the next three years. This means increasing charges and cutting services, including its valuable information line. The HSE admits that the cuts will lead to “lower level of enforcement and a consequent decrease in health and safety standards throughout Great Britain, with ensuing costs to society.” Local authority cuts are having a similar impact on their role in safety enforcement.

These are costs that are daily mitigated by trade unions. Workplaces that have trade union safety representatives and safety committees have half the serious injuries than those without. A government report said that safety representatives save society between £181m and £578m each year as a result of lost time reduction from occupational injuries and work-related illnesses of between 286,000 and 616,000 days. Yet the government is trying to cut down on the amount of time that trade union representatives can spend doing their job. 

At UNISON Scotland we support extensive legal action and recover £millions of damages for our members. But we also use every single case to highlight how the incident could have been avoided and seek to ensure that it doesn’t happen again. Prevention is always better than damages.

The trade union movement believes that those who are injured, made ill, disabled, or even killed by poor health and safety at work deserve more respect. As do the families left behind. 

So on this day it has never been more important for trade unions to stand together to defend the right to work in safety. Yes, remember the dead, but fight like hell for the living!

I would also recommend this short film produced for Hartlepool TUC. And this poem by UNISON member and poet, David E.Siddon

OUR BLOOD OILS

Our blood oils the gears of industry
The silent masses that none can see.

Of corners cut that stilled our hearts beat
For the expedient, healthy, balance sheet.
What of loss of parent, partner, child or friend?
All for a share-holders annual dividend.
We are the acceptable loss, the ones that fall
Because its as far as is reasonably possible.
So expose the lie, expunge the pain
And fight that we may not die in vain.
In our struggle, brother, sister, never cease
That the silent masses may rest in peace.
Your vigilance kept down the endless years
Lest we forget what it is that oils the gears.

 

Delivering Public Services That Work

'Delivering Public Services That Work' is the latest book on using systems thinking in a public service context by John Seddon and his team at Vanguard.

John Seddon is a big critic of the Whitehall-inspired initiatives, backed up by think-tanks, consultants, lobbyists and politicians. The top down ideas-factory driven by ideology rather than common sense. As he describes it, present anyone in this ideas-factory with evidence of solutions being delivered on the ground and you're met by: "very interesting, but I have an unproven idea that I believe will work better".  The end result is £millions wasted on crazy schemes, that only make the consultants who drive them richer, at the expense of service delivery.

His 2008 book 'Systems Thinking in the Public Sector" is one of those books that screams common sense at you. I found myself saying "I have seen that" on almost every page. His case studies, particularly on Housing Benefit, illustrate how systems all too commonly simply generate 'failure demand' - work generated because the system doesn't work. You see it so often in call centres and shared services where failure is just passed around. He argues instead that what has to happen is for the right service to be given to the right person first time. It's cheaper, public satisfaction rises and staff morale improves because they are starting and finishing the job. Not getting grief for the failure.

This new book, edited by Charlotte Pell, brings together a number of new case studies to illustrate the approach. Police, hospitals and local authorities engaging those who have real knowledge and experience of the service to design sensible systems. Putting staff back in charge, or as Pell puts it, "someone who has the authority and expertise to understand what is going on and treat customers as human beings, not as individual transactions".

John Seddon's chapter in the book entitled 'Shared Services - A No Brainer?' - should be compulsory reading for those wedded to this approach. Particularly those in Scotland who have already wasted taxpayer cash finding out that this doesn't work. He is very critical of the industrialisation inherent in shared services, arguing for, "a better approach: placing the human expertise required to solve peoples problems at the place where they meet the service provider, usually locally". 

This approach fits in much better with the Scottish model of public service delivery. It is reflected in our own recent joint publication with APSE 'The Front Line Starts Here'. Designing services from the bottom up was also championed by the Christie Commission. However, it is not yet fully understood by many public service managers and politicians whose first reaction to change is to grab a consultant from the ideas-factory school of thought. My advice is to read this book - you will certainly learn about a better way to organise public services.

Devo Left

Yesterday at the STUC we launched the Red Paper Collective folder  'Power to Scotland's People', or as I prefer, Devo Left for short. The full paper was published in the Morning Star.

The independence referendum debate so far has largely focused on process and powers. There has been little debate on what extended devolution or independence is actually for. This paper seeks to start that debate from a socialist perspective.  

There is no point having new powers if we are simply going to swop Neo-Liberal unionism for Neo-Liberal independence. As I have argued in another posting, the track record on actually using existing devolved powers to promote social justice is not strong. So would it be any different with the economy or other powers?

Under independence or extended devolution big business in Scotland remains dependent on City institutions, reflecting the long established economic and monetary union with the rest of the UK. A situation that the SNP does not even seek to change with plans to retain the pound and EU membership and therefore outsourcing much of an independent Scotland's monetary and fiscal powers. The limited aim of shifting jobs from England by cutting Corporation Tax, Scotland the tax haven, isn't much of a socialist vision!

Devo-Plus and Devo-Max are also predicated on either cutting public spending or meeting existing levels. American levels of taxation will not fund Scandinavian levels of public services, so talk of following a Nordic model is meaningless unless we grasp this essential reality.

Devo-Left argues that the the options so far miss the crucial dimension of class politics and the redistribution of income and wealth. Power for a purpose should be the driving the constitutional debate and this paper at least starts that debate.

Pensions Governance

Several meetings this week have touched on governance of pension schemes and tomorrow UNISON Scotland is supporting the Just Banking conference in Edinburgh.

In our private or not for profit sector pension schemes governance is covered by the Pension Act and the subsequent codes of practice that require, among other matters, that at least one-third of trustees are member nominated. That’s not to say that there are no problems. In the current pensions environment being a trustee can be challenging and a quick glance through the Pensions Regulator web site highlights how pension governance can go very wrong.

In the public sector many members are in pay-as-you-go schemes that don’t have funds and therefore governance is a matter of regulation. However, the biggest pension scheme in Scotland is the Local Government Pension Scheme (Scotland) (LGPS) with assets of nearly £20bn administered by 11 funds. While it is called the ‘local government’ scheme almost a third of members are employed by organisations outwith councils, including private, voluntary and other statutory bodies. These funds look and operate in a similar way to private sector schemes with contributions from employers and employees that are invested in order to meet scheme liabilities.

The big difference is the way the schemes are governed. The LGPS is probably the only funded scheme in the EU not to have effective and statutory member representation. In the main they are administered by a pensions committee made up almost exclusively of employer representatives i.e. councillors from the local authorities covered by the fund. The funds are also, in most cases, closely linked to the organisation of a lead council in a way that would not be acceptable in a private pension scheme.

There has been some progress in improving the governance of the LGPS in Scotland. In April 2011 guidance was issued to all funds that set out compliance standards against which funds are to measure their governance arrangements. This came out of the 2008 agreement on the new LGPS in Scotland. However, the latest progress report indicates that even the modest requirements of this guidance have not been fully implemented by every fund.

Most funds do now at least have consultative panels that include representatives of scheme members and in the best funds these operate well, engaging members and supporting them with training and access to papers. Most funds have also made a real effort to communicate with scheme members.

The slowest progress is over having representatives of scheme members as voting members of the fund decision making structures. This is recognised across Europe as essential for good governance and transparency and as I explained above is a statutory requirement in private sector schemes in the UK. Equally, there is no provision in the legislation that members serving on these committees have to make investment decisions in the best interests of beneficiaries or address potential conflict of interests with the councils that make up the fund. UNISON believes that the current arrangements sit outside the requirements of European law, particularly Directive 2003/41/EC, known as the IORP Directive.

It is sometimes argued that because LGPS members contributions and benefits are set by law they bear no risk from poor investment and governance decisions. This is no longer the case because the UK and Scottish Government has the power to change benefits and are more likely to do this if investment income falls. In addition since 2009 member contributions are subject to ‘cost sharing’ arrangements. In practice there are fewer protections for LGPS members than those in private sector schemes. As the recent pension disputes have shown, trade union strength is the only defence scheme members have against a rapacious government hell bent on undermining quality pension schemes.

Pension fund representation is not simply a moral issue. As David Pitt-Watson said in ‘The New Capitalists’ (2006) – “Pension plan flaws often occur because plan members tend to have little or no representation in the governance of funds. Worse, secrecy makes it difficult for citizen investors to monitor what is being done in their name”. I would argue that the economic power of the LGPS in Scotland is little understood or necessarily deployed in the interests of members or the wider community. Stronger pension governance could provide the basis for a more radical approach. The work done by trade unions in other countries shows us how a different approach can work.

If the banking crisis tells us anything it demonstrates that we need to take greater control and promote more transparency over the financial system. Our pension funds need to be a part of that liberation.         

Social Justice Scotland

I was speaking at 'Changin Scotland' Scotland this weekend. An excellent weekend of politics and ideas in a relaxed non-partisan context. Superb scenery and weather helps! This was the Independence Weekend and my contribution was on social justice, in a Scotland under extended devolution or independence.

Ask people to define social justice and you’re going to get many different definitions based on their political, religious or social perspective. Of course others will tell you it’s a fairytale unachievable in any form of society. i would argue it is about creating a Scotland, that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognises the dignity of every human being. And lets not get too parochial – it should also drive our approach to international issues. The Constitution of the International Labour Organisation affirms that "universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice”. There is also global justice movement based on human rights and developing in important spheres such as climate change.

Social justice has broad political support, even the UK Government has a social justice strategy, hard to imagine after this week’s budget, but it’s called ‘Social Justice – Transforming Lives’. Scottish Labour and the SNP would both argue it is central to their purpose and it is a pillar of Green Party thinking.

It also has a strong base in civil society. It was a part of Catholic social teaching, the Protestants' Social Gospel long before John Rawls secular concept of social justice with his liberties (thought, conscience, political, association and liberty of the individual) and in the work of many of Scotland’s NGOs. I would also point to socialist tradition of thinkers, such as Richard Tawney, George Orwell, and, later on, Richard Titmuss, who all argued against the class division and selfishness of acquisitive market societies. And to be fair to the Liberals (not many have cause to at present) the Beveridge Report that aimed to slay the ‘five giants’: want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness.

We should remember that it was a Scot, John Smith who moved Labour off common ownership and onto social justice with his Commission. And today we even have Ian Duncan-Smith’s Centre for Social Justice.

However broad, support for social justice is not universal. Market theorists like Hayek dismiss the very idea of social justice as meaningless, he said “Social justice does not belong to the category of error but to that of nonsense”.

Even if you accept the concept there is a further debate as to who should be responsible for making sure we have a socially just society. Should you legislate for social justice or merely rely on the moral compass of society’s members? For those of us on the centre-left we might accept that the state has a role here through progressive taxation, income redistribution and even property redistribution to create equality of opportunity.

To highlight the individual response lets consider a sensitive issue in Scotland, devolved or independent, such as consideration of reproductive rights, including the right to abortion and access to contraception. A social justice issue or just a matter of private choice? I would argue that individual choice fails to acknowledge the ways in which racism and economic disparities limit the choices of many women – but others even on the centre left might disagree.

Having introduced the concept lets move on to the practice.

Both relative poverty and economic inequality have risen over the past 13 years in the UK. That deprivation has increased even more among minorities, and  second and even third-generation immigrants remain among most deprived. The poverty rate for minority ethnic groups stood at 40%, twice the 20% found amongst white people.

I would give credit to the Labour decade when poverty fell (faster in Scotland) even though the New Labour mantra was relaxed about inequality. Peter Mandelson being “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich” – although I see he has recently been having second thoughts. Pensioner and child poverty in particular was tackled, although less progress on poverty for those in work. Yes, the minimum wage was a huge step forward but Labour leaders have never really accepted the economics of wages as recently articulated by Stewart Lansley and others. Poverty is again on the increase and the long term reduction in the value of wages is an important factor. And lets not forget pay inequality with the gender pay gap at 9% for FTE and 19% for part time workers.

 

What are the tools that Scotland, devolved or independent might deploy to strengthen social justice.

Material inequality requires income redistribution. Largely a function of the tax system. An independent Scotland would have greater control of these levers but would there be the political will to use them? Apart from the modest ‘Penny for Scotland’ no serious proposal let alone use has been made of the 3p power. Arguably because it only applies to the basic rate, but will the 10p power in the Scotland Bill be used? Labour is wary of being labelled as “tax and spend” and the SNP appear wedded to a low tax model in its Celtic Tiger approach to Corporation Tax and the regressive Council Tax freeze.

There has been some progress with the Scottish Living Wage, in the public sector at least, although less in using procurement to drive it through into the private and voluntary sector.

As Wilkinson & Pickett (Spirit Level) have highlighted inequality is about more than income. It requires action on education, health, criminal justice and just about every aspect of social policy. Most of these are already devolved yet arguably we have been better at producing glossy strategies than solid action. Early years, skills, child poverty, health inequalities etc all have such strategies and they all look very similar to those adopted by the previous administration.

Preventative spending illustrates this well. Just about everyone accepts the logic – Finance Committee, Christie Commission, but the doing is much more challenging. Targeting resources on the bottom 10% as Christie recommended makes sense even to the right wing given the impact on public expenditure. Christie estimated 40% public spending in Scotland goes on failure demand. But again difficult in practice.

Lets look at some key areas identified in the Spirit Level were tackling inequality matters. Physical & mental health, education, criminal justice, social cohesion etc. Their evidence shows that more equal societies do better on all of these factors.

So how are we doing in Scotland?

In Scotland the gap between the top and bottom in key outcomes such as income, employment, health, learning and safety is much wider in Scotland than in other European countries. Worse still, most of these negatives are intergenerational and often clustered in small areas. There have been improvements since devolution but, on most key dimensions, inequalities have remained unchanged or become more pronounced.

There are some positives. Healthy life expectancy and household income have, in general, improved as have some learning outcomes, and the overall risk of being a victim of crime. However, income inequality has widened since devolution Because the richest 30% have got richer and the bottom 30% have remained static.

In education, the gap between the bottom 20 per cent and the average in learning outcomes has not changed at all since devolution. The gap in healthy life expectancy between the 20 per cent most deprived and the 20 per cent least deprived areas has increased from 8 to 13.5 years. 32 per cent of adults in the most deprived areas in Scotland report a long-standing illness, disability or health problem compared to 14 per cent in the least deprived areas.

Half of all young people in Scottish prisons have been in care. This rises to 80 per cent when looking only at those convicted of violent offences. This is despite just one per cent of all Scottish children having been in care. Of course we lock up more people than in most European countries and politicians compete to be tougher on crime. The link between deprivation and the likelihood of being a victim of crime has also become stronger.

These are largely ‘hard’ issues, but what about the softer ones? Carol Craig in her book “Tears that made the Clyde” highlights that even after taking account of deprivation, Glasgow’s indicators are worse than comparable cities like Liverpool and Manchester.

Take family breakdown. Over 46 per cent of families with dependent children in Glasgow are lone parent. That's one of the highest figures in the world.  90% of them include the mother, not the father, that's a lot of men detached from family life. 48% compared to 30% in England and Wales are single or never married.

Carol raises other issues like Scotland’s relationship with alcohol, a culture of violence and consumerism -  but the importance of committed relationships, love and tenderness should not be overlooked.

Most of these issues are devolved already. Yes there are important macro economic levers. Yes, DWP powers over benefits and jobs are necessary to create joined up strategies. But essentially we have many of the necessary levers – but do we have the political will?

So let’s start the debate from the sort of Scotland we want and I would argue that that is a Scotland rooted in social justice with a real commitment to tackle inequality. Then look at what type of constitutional change can assist. But we also have to commit to using new powers. As Christie report said “This country is a paradoxical tapestry of rich resources, inventive humanity, gross inequalities, and persistent levels of poor health and deprivation”. 

I believe that extended devolution or independence could bring important levers to help address these issues. But the question I left my audience with is “Will greater devolution or independence change any of the issues I have covered today?” I suspect most of my audience believed it could - but the jury is still out on the issue of political will.

Budget 2012

Billed as the ‘Robin Hood’ budget the Chancellor not surprisingly turned out to be more of a Sheriff of Nottingham. As always with the Budget the devil is in the detail and that takes some time to digest. But here are a few initial observations.

·         Even the OBR is forecasting little change in growth for coming year and lower for future years, although they still look pretty optimistic. Not surprising when demand has been taken out of the economy through public sector cuts. Those workers in a job are less secure, suffering real term pay cuts and as a consequence are not spending.

·         Even the borrowing figures don’t look as good as the advanced spin. Extra £6bn borrowing in February covered in these figures?

·         The increase in the personal allowance is welcome in principle. Taking 70,000 low paid Scots out of the tax system sounds good. However, these are the very same people who are getting hit by other measures including changes in working tax credits, benefit cuts and NI rebates. Plus we should remember that the biggest gainers from this are middle income earners - almost £900 for some households as opposed to the £200 or so for the average household. Many low paid workers will see little of this due to the impact on tax credits.

·         Pensioners will need to look at the small print with the abolition of age allowances. The elderly are about to pay more.

·         Merging tax and NI will need to be studied. It removes the contributory principle and it comes at a time when the government has introduced a stealth tax from next month with a cut in the contracted out NI rebate.

·         The £140 pension sounds good. But watch out for the abolition of the contracted out NI rebate that goes with it. Big additional cost for employers and employees and further disincentive to stick with a quality pension scheme. Just short termism building up huge problems for the future.

·         Regional pay will simply exacerbate the north-south divide and suck even more out of the economy in areas that need the cash the most.

·         Then the big one, cutting the 50p tax rate to 45p. Spurious claims about the amount it yields conflict with previous HMRC admissions. I would trust Richard Murphy on this one. £10bn off welfare benefits and £3bn for the richest 1% - Robin Hood in reverse!

·         We are supposed to be palmed off by a 2% increase in stamp duty on homes worth over £2m. Only 4000 of these were sold last year and that means 99% of the richest 1% getting a tax cut won’t be affected. Yes, a bigger hike if they use the overseas company tax dodges. But how will this element be collected from unknown foreign companies? Peston is good on this.

·         Then the GAAR tax avoidance mechanism. Right in principle but will this one be strong enough? Is it even intended to do anything other than tackle the most offensive dodges? I doubt it given the track record over the treatment of firms like Vodaphone. Plus it requires tax inspectors to enforce and the government have cut them relentlessly. Only recently the Treasury signed off a friendly tax deal with Switzerland.

·         Corporation Tax cut to 22%. There is no evidence that this does anything for growth at a time when many companies are cash rich. Companies are more likely to use the gains to increase dividends than invest in skills. It will also make the bottom line look better and so fat cat bonus payments will go up - even more than last year’s bumper 43% increase for the top bosses. This is a £500m giveaway that could be used to stimulate the local economy in the pockets of the low paid.

·         Measures to boost investment in North Sea will be welcomed in that industry, but they are only sorting out the mess they made last year.

·         £20.3m gain in Barnett consequentials is small relief given the massive cuts in the Scottish budget this year.

I could produce an even longer list of all things missing from the budget. Action on investment, public services, young people and unemployment. But instead this is just the sort of Tory budget you would expect. Tax cuts for the rich, £40,000 each for 14,000 millionaires, paid for by everyone else. At least we didn’t get “we are all in this together”!

Retirement Age

I was a contributor on the BBC 'Call Kaye' programme this morning on the subject of Tesco's decision to increase the retirement age in their pension scheme to 67.

In fairness to Tesco they are not alone in this and of course the ConDem coalition is increasing the state retirement pension in the same direction, together with public service pension schemes. While I am being fair to Tesco they do at least have a pension scheme. Unlike two-thirds of employers who contribute nothing to pensions, costing us the taxpayer £15bn to subsidise their profits.

The drive to increase retirement age is less about us living longer and more about cutting pension costs. There are two main points I made this morning:

1. Not everyone is living longer and averages can hide a harsher reality for many. Lord Hutton came to Scotland to tell us that on average we are living to 75. Tell that to men in parts of Glasgow who die at 54 and women not much longer. The life expectancy of a female cleaner in Scotland has hardly changed for 30 years. Why should workers like this save for a pension they are unlikely to collect when companies and the government keep moving the goal posts?
2. A one size fits all solution doesn't work. The programme this morning heard from nurses, paramedics and care workers who simply couldn't keep working to 60, let alone 65 or 67. And if they don't their pension is cut creating further problems for the economy and pressure on welfare benefits.

Various pension experts came on to talk about pension and career planning. But if a working life is to be extended from 40 to 50+ years then planning over that time frame is difficult if not impossible. Again a caller gave a very practical example of that problem. 

Of course we advise members in their 20's and 30's to save for retirement through good occupational pension schemes. But when your pay is frozen, you can't afford a mortgage and your job is increasingly insecure - pensions come pretty far down the list of priorities. The Government needs to get realistic on pensions and not simply view it as another opportunity to grab cash from workers pockets.